Contacts
Advertisement




















Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Why Are Cities Cutting Down Trees?




Space-based maps of buildings and paved surfaces in the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area (in false-color), such as roads and parking lots, which are impervious to water, can indicate where large amounts of storm water runs off. These new cartographic tools can be used to predict where urban flash floods might flow.
Courtesy NASA/Earth Observatory.
Public Skatepark Development Guide

In the past few decades, Washington, D.C. has lost half its tree cover, San Diego, Calif.’s is off about a quarter. The cover in cities in Michigan, North Carolina and Florida has fallen to about 27 percent of what it once was. Chicago and Philadelphia have just 16 percent of their former cover.

“Urban deforestation,” says Ed Macie, an urban specialist with the U.S. Forest Service in Atlanta, “compares with what’s going on in the world’s rain forests. Some regions have been urbanizing at a pace of over 50 forested acres a day, 365 days a year for over 20 years. That’s a pretty big deal.”






Every tree that's subtracted from a city's ecosystem means some particulate pollution that should have been filtered out remains. In Washington, that amounts to 540 extra tons each year.


Tree-cover Benefits

Urban canopy helps absorb carbon dioxide, pull particulate matter from the air, prevent floods and keep temperatures at livable levels. How much tree cover a city needs depends on local climate, but in the U.S., the guidelines divide roughly along the Mississippi River, with cities to the east needing a 40 percent cover and cities to the west a less-leafy 25 percent.

Pollution Increases

All this hits the environment hard, starting with air quality. Every tree that’s subtracted from a city’s ecosystem means some particulate pollution that should have been filtered out remains. In Washington, that amounts to 540 extra tons each year. Simply replanting does not suffice because small, young trees require decades to grow to full size.

Stormwater Increases

“A big tree does 60 to 70 times the pollution removal of a small tree,” says David Nowak, a project leader with the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station in Syracuse, N.Y. The crown of a large tree is also a freestanding antiflood reservoir, in some cases intercepting so much rainfall that more than 1,500 gallons a year evaporates instead of hitting the ground. Chop down the tree, and you increase the volume of storm water a city must manage—something that affects older cities with aging drainage systems especially severely.






In 2006, Los Angeles volunteers kicked off a campaign to plant 11 million trees over the next 30 years. Tree advocates are calling for similar efforts across the country.
Photo: City of Los Angeles


Heat Island Increases

In Atlanta, where developers bulldozed 380,000 acres from 1973 to 1999 — much of it heavily forested — temperatures have climbed 5 degrees to 8 degrees higher than in the surrounding countryside, according to NASA, which studies global hydrology and climate. Scientists fear the heavily developed corridor between Boston and Washington could be the next big hot zone.

Keep the Trees You Have

Local governments are finally responding to the problem. More than 2,000 big and small cities have launched long-term planting and preservation programs. For now, the most immediate answer is less the planting strategy than the preservation one, something that can best be achieved by curbing sprawl and downsizing our taste for too-big homes.

Source: Time magazine

      Give us your feedback.


Comments
Name: murray cormanWrote in with general comment
Comment: Great article! One additional point from the standpoint of polution abatement. While a large tree can remove as much as 1500 gallons of storm water avoiding runoff, erosion and flooding down streem. The same tree over time will filter, thru transpiration, 100's of thousands of gallons of often poluted ground water resulting in pure atrospheric moisture.

Name: Martin Sikorski, P.L.S., P.P., C.L.A.Wrote in with general comment
Comment: "...can best be achieved by curbing sprawl and downsizing our taste for too-big homes." Who is going to determine where people can live and who is going to pay those individuals who's land is "preserved". Who is to make the determination of what size a home should be. Possibly urban areas are also loosing trees because of bad choices made many years ago. Trees that were once beautiful are now lifting sidewalks (can you say lawsuit?), dead branches falling during storms or trees whose growth habits were never considered. Possibly China has the correct idea about growth. Penalize families for having too many children (who's going to make that decision?) or possibly simply abort the extra children. That should reduce sprawl. Some of the facts to be considered may be that our population is expanding and requires a good place to live, secondly, if urban areas are such great place to live, why are people constantly leaving and redevelopment plans constantly being funded? The answers to these questions are hard and I pray that the Landscape Architects that write these articles will not be the people making the final decisions.

Name: Jean TanseyWrote in with general comment
Comment: The article is entitled, Why are Cities Cutting Down Trees, but you never address the question. Why are they?

Name: Ronald KirkWrote in with general comment
Comment: The title suggests you will answer its question. The article itself still begs the question: Why *are* the cities cutting down trees? i.e. for what purpose? to what end?

Name: Harold SpiegelWrote in with general comment
Comment: great commentary and statistics. we NEED lots more public awareness to the value of trees (green) in our spaces.


May 20, 2013, 4:51 am EST

Website problems, report a bug.
Copyright © 2013 Landscape Communications Inc.