Walk outside on a sweltering Florida summer afternoon and step from a sun-baked street into the shade of a tree. The temperature drop is dramatic, and in parts of Tampa, that relief has been disappearing.

Shawn Landry, a researcher at the University of South Florida (USF), told Creative Loafing Tampa Bay this temperature difference reflects what neighborhoods with little or no tree canopy are experiencing. Without trees, some areas can be up to 10°F hotter due to urban heat.

In 2021, the tree canopy reached its lowest point since USF’s monitoring program began in 2006, spurring several efforts geared towards planting new trees, including tree giveaways, and improved maintenance of existing trees. In 2024, these gains were wiped out by hurricanes.

During fall of 2024, back-to-back storms Milton and Helene tore through the Tampa Bay Area, uprooting trees and leaving a sizable hole in the city’s tree canopy. With fellow researcher Rebecca Zarger, Landry conducted a post-storm canopy assessment outside of the monitoring program’s typical period. In that study, they found tree canopy coverage of the city fell to 29.9% in 2025, down from 31.4% in 2024.

The 4.8% decline, equivalent to about 1,200 acres of trees, was driven largely by storm damage.

A loss of that scale limits the canopy’s ability to provide its usual benefits across the city. Not only are trees vital to providing shade and bringing down temperatures in urban areas, they filter air pollution, absorb stormwater, store carbon and can even reduce energy costs for homeowners.

“I think what we need to be doing as a city is to be thinking about trees as infrastructure,” Landry said. “The benefits they provide to the community, both environmentally and personally, are vital to our city.”

Currently, the City of Tampa’s Tree Trust Fund (TTF), a fund made up of mitigation fees collected from tree removals on public and private lands, has about $6 million to spend. A City of Tampa document says Tampa’s Urban Forestry Maintenance Budget has $4 million currently, compared to a needed estimate of $4.5 million-$9.9 million, according to best practices.

Between hurricane damage and years of overdevelopment, community members are calling for restoration of the city’s tree canopy in Tampa.

On Wednesday, March 25, members of the community and stakeholders gathered for a Tampa Tree Roundtable meeting to discuss TTF spending, tree planting, mitigation fees and incentive structures, and enforcement of illegal removals. While several different opinions were voiced on each issue, one idea rang true for the group: The City of Tampa needs to be doing more to protect and rebuild the tree canopy.

Carroll Ann Bennett, a founding member of Tampa Tree Advocacy Group (TTAG) argued that TTF money should only be used for exactly what it was designed for–to replace the “type 1” (tall and wide, such as oak, maple and elm) and “type 2” (tall and narrow, such as pine, cypress, and hollies) trees that were cut down and provide the most amount of shade.

Alyssa Vinson, the Urban Forestry Extension Agent in Hillsborough County, argued that diversifying the tree species across Tampa is more crucial than focusing on replanting only a few species of the largest trees that offer the most coverage.

“As we are dealing with climate variability issues as well as pests and disease issues, I’m going to again emphasize species diversity,” Vinson said. “We need to be planting a diverse number of tree species. We can’t have all of our tree canopy composed of oaks right now.”

While type 1 and type 2 trees provide the most shade coverage for the canopy, type 3 trees (short, wide, and multi-branched, such as mangroves, crape myrtles, and fruit trees) can fit in spaces and provide greenery where larger trees cannot fit, grow faster than larger trees, and can provide habitat for local wildlife.

The Arbor Day Foundation’s principle of “Right Tree, Right Place,” was referred to several times to emphasize the importance of considering planting space, utility conflicts, and sidewalk accessibility when planting new trees.

Tarah Bluma–a board member of the Tampa Garden Club and a representative for the Westshore neighborhood–backed Bennett, arguing that while diversification of the canopy is important, it is not the best use of the TTF money.

“With the very limited tree trust fund money, I think we need to focus on the highest and best use of that money, which is type one and type two trees,” Bluma told the room of about three dozen people.

Deciding on how money should best be spent to support Tampa’s tree canopy is difficult, because the city of Tampa isn’t just one neighborhood–it consists of about 80 neighborhoods with individual needs.

“Different parts of town have different issues, and a one size fits all solution is not the answer,” Bluma said.

Neighborhoods with a larger elderly population may require more money to be spent on maintenance, since aging residents are unable to provide the proper care and maintenance for trees to be successful. Other neighborhoods that have been highly overdeveloped or suffered more extreme damage from 2024’s hurricanes would benefit more from a focus on replanting.

Even builders have an axe to grind with TTF spending. Stephen Michelini, a lobbyist for Tampa Bay Builders Association, voiced concerns about how money in the fund is going to be spent.

“Last month, I objected to a proposal by the city to take the Tree Trust Fund money and use it to pay for a city project,” Michelini told CL. “That’s not the purpose of this. The purpose is for private homeowners and builders to obtain trees, not to subsidize a private contractor working for the city to piggyback and save money on their side to plant trees.”

Michelini believes the criteria set by the city to be approved to have a tree planted is so stringent that it is turning people away from participating in tree giveaway programs.

The city’s relationship with its trees wasn’t always this fraught.

Landry told CL that at one point, Tampa was one of the foremost cities in tree canopy conservation. It was one of the first municipalities in the country to develop a fairly comprehensive tree protection ordinance in the 1970s, with subsequent ordinances regulating the removal of nearly all trees on both private and public lands. For a removal, trees generally needed to fit a criteria of posing a safety hazard, preventing the development or use of a specific property, or if they were damaged or diseased. Now, these ordinances require updates to keep up with today’s prices.

As debate continues over how to spend TTF money, Tampa continues losing trees faster than it can replace them. Without stronger protections, higher mitigation fees, or a clearer strategy, some residents argue that the city risks watching the canopy and the benefits that come with it continue to shrink.

This story first appeared at Creative Loafing Tampa Bay, which is part of the Tampa Bay Journalism Project (TBJP), a nascent Creative Loafing Tampa Bay effort supported by grants and a coalition of donors who make specific contributions via the Alternative Newsweekly Foundation. If you are a non-paywalled Bay area publication interested in TBJP, please email rroa@ctampa.com.