I'll be honest, I don't have time to go dig into this study. Nevertheless, I'm skeptical because I'd be willing to bet cities don't plant trees in the hood. There's probably a strong correlation between wealth and living near trees (and of course there's a correlation between wealth and health). I'd be happy to be wrong.
>There's probably a strong correlation between wealth and living near trees
Could also have to do with the city's wealth itself. A city that has money to spend on trees, probably has better infrastructure, more jobs available and and just more ways for lower income people to live and thrive than a city that can't afford to plant and maintain trees. Trees are expensive. It means they probably invest more in stuff like accessible transit, maintaining roads and just other general quality of life improvements in the city.
I figure trees are probably lower down on the list of things to spend money on, so if they've got the money for that, the city itself is like just a better place to live for a ton of other reasons.
Exactly what I thought while reading that article. I can't imagine anyway you would be able to run a study and get meaningful results around this accounting for a tonne of external variables.
I expect wealthier people tend to live in nicer neighbourhoods that just tend to have more planting, those people are more likely to have better lives than poor people who happen to live in neighborhoods that can't afford to plant a lot of trees.
In saying that, I'm still all for planting as many trees in cities as we can. This just seems like a flawed study
Yeah, I'm an eco-nut but my first (well, second) reaction was, "Is it that proximity to trees is roughly inverse to proximity to cars and other pollution sources?"
Others have pointed out in this thread that greenery may be a reflection of wealth which strikes me as true. I wouldn't discount state power either - in many cities the greenest areas are the ones inhabited by bureaucrats and soldiers.
I also think we should be looking at d/dx(green) rather than |green| to detect the influence of wealth and power, especially in parts of the world where unchecked growth has decimated green space. Which is to say, don't perform your comparisons based on tree cover now but the change in tree cover over time, say, using satellite data over the years.
Common sense suggests that by looking at the ebb and flow of greenery, we will find that the spots where the wealthy and the powerful live are less likely to see trees cut down and more likely to see new trees planted.
FFS ever consider why rich people want more trees?
We need to work towards trees in cities. Although the death rate because of pollen isn't great. But we need air filtered homes anyway. Not sure on these stats.....
This is a pulp story, but not to be thrown out -
Tree cover on the streets of Parramatta can mean a difference of 10C on a hot day
Trees brings psychological calmness to those around them. Trees also cleans the local air from pollution. Trees also by means of evaporative cooling cool local hot spots in cities.
Take Central Park in New York living close to a green area means flats there have some of the highest prices in NY.
It's the same in Europe. Flats in the city closest to greenest areas are occupied by the upper class because it's quiet and the air is clean while the lower income people live by the train station or main road where trucks pass that's the noisiest and most poluted area of the city and naturally, one of the cheapest to live in.
