Slashdot Mirror
US Cities Lose Tree Cover Just When They Need It Most (scientificamerican.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Scientific evidence that trees and green spaces are crucial to the well-being of people in urban areas has multiplied in recent decades. Conveniently, these findings have emerged just as Americans, already among the most urbanized people in the world, are increasingly choosing to live in cities. The problem -- partly as a result of that choice -- is that urban tree cover is now steadily declining across the U.S.
A study in the May issue of Urban Forestry & Urban Greening reports metropolitan areas are experiencing a net loss of about 36 million trees nationwide every year. That amounts to about 175,000 acres of tree cover, most of it in central city and suburban areas but also on the exurban fringes. This reduction, says lead author David Nowak of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), translates into an annual loss of about $96 million in benefits -- based, he says, on "only a few of the benefits that we know about." The economic calculation involves several such benefits that are relatively easy to express in dollar terms -- the capacity of trees to remove air pollution, sequester carbon, conserve energy by shading buildings and reduce power plant emissions.
A study in the May issue of Urban Forestry & Urban Greening reports metropolitan areas are experiencing a net loss of about 36 million trees nationwide every year. That amounts to about 175,000 acres of tree cover, most of it in central city and suburban areas but also on the exurban fringes. This reduction, says lead author David Nowak of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), translates into an annual loss of about $96 million in benefits -- based, he says, on "only a few of the benefits that we know about." The economic calculation involves several such benefits that are relatively easy to express in dollar terms -- the capacity of trees to remove air pollution, sequester carbon, conserve energy by shading buildings and reduce power plant emissions.
With the emerging (but still very small) movement to add a lot of plants to the roofs / sides of buildings, I would like to see a study making a quantitative evaluation as to how much said plants can compensate for the loss of trees.
(((dB)))
Google "urban heat islands." As summers get longer and hotter, the problem is exacerbated in cities due to low albedo surfaces, heat retention by high thermal mass cement and asphalt, and runoff of surface water that in other areas would be absorbed by the soil. As a result, cities end up being several degrees hotter than their surrounding regions. Vegetative cover helps to offset these effects.
From my experience the biggest threat to urban trees are utility companies. I understand that they want to protect their infrastructure, but they destroy the trees and call it "maintenance". Put all power and telco lines underground in conduits that cannot be damaged by tree roots. That will cost a fortune, but I bet the ROI is rather high. I can't imagine that it is less expensive to have crews and equipment on hand to constantly fix toppled poles and cut back trees.
Another option is to go back to marking property lines with trees. I live in a neighborhood that was developed in the 1920s and on each corner of the properties is/was a tree. Not the most exact marker for property lines, but one that many appreciate. Trees keep water away from structures and give shade in the summer lowering AC cost. And they look nice.