Tree Cover%-- How Does Your City Match Up (cost, state, largest)

[wpmeads]

Tree Cover % -- How Does Your City Measure Up?

I ran into this article/blog kind of randomly and thought it was kind of interesting. The quotations below is basically the entire article but feel free to check out the link above as well.


"This is a fascinating table compiled by Fiona Watt and Bram Gunther (both with the New York City Deparment of Parks) that we learned about at the ASCE Low Impact Development Conference (http://www.deeproot.com/blog/home/1-blog-entries/9-poster-presentation-at-the-lid-conference-in-san-francisco.html - broken link).


City Tree Cover (%) Date Method/Source

Atlanta, GA 36.7 1998 UFORE/USFS
Houston, TX metro area 30.0
Regional Ecosystem Analysis/American Forests
Austin, TX 34.0 early 1990s Regional Ecosystem Analysis/American Forests
Boston, MA 29.0 2005 Flyover--USFS
Dallas, TX 28.0 UC Davis--USFS
National average 27.1 2004 UFORE/USFS
Atlanta, GA 27.0 early 1990s Regional Ecosystem Analysis/American Forests
Syracuse, NY 26.6 1999 UFORE/USFS
Seattle, OR 25.0 early 1990s Uncertain estimate
Baltimore, MD 25.0 early 1990s Regional Ecosystem Analysis/American Forests
New York City, NY 24.0 2005 Satellite imagery--USFS
Boston, MA 22.3 1998 UFORE/USFS
Boston, MA 29.0 2006 Satellite imagery--USFS
Baltimore, MD 21.0 1998 UFORE/USFS
New York City, NY 20.9 1998 UFORE/USFS
Los Angeles, CA 18.0 UC Davis--USFS
Philadelphia, PA 15.7 1998 UFORE/USFS
San Franciso, CA 12.0 UC Davis--USFS
Jersey City, NJ 11.5 1998 UFORE/USFS
Milwaukee, WI 11.0 early 1990s Regional Ecosystem Analysis/American Forests
Chicago, IL 11.0 1991 uncertain/USFS
Miami Dade County 10.0 early 1990s Regional Ecosystem Analysis/American Forests
(Table credit: Watt & Gunther, 2010)

As you can see, the national average of tree cover in major U.S. cities is 27.1. American Forests recommends an average of 40% tree canopy (http://www.americanforests.org/resources/urbanforests/treedeficit.php - broken link)

Stopping the decline of the urban tree canopy -- and setting goals to increase it and get it closer to the recommended coverage -- is important for several reasons. Large, healthy, long-living trees act as "green infrastructure" in our communities. In an increasingly warm world, they help keep temperatures low and reduce heat-island effect. They also keep the air clean and free from pollution and, if integrated into the streetscape thoughtfully, provide extremely effective on-site stormwater management.

The loss of this functionality due to reduction in tree canopy carries very real costs that affect our communities. While "More Trees!" (like in Los Angeles and New York City, to name just two) is an easy cause to endorse, policy makers and municipalities should keep in mind that trees need adequate soil volumes in order to make a significant environmental and financial impact. A tree with a 30" (77 cm) diameter delivers SEVENTY TIMES the environmental benefit (http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits/Effects%20of%20Urban%20Trees%20on%20Air%20Quality. pdf - broken link) of a tree with a 3" (8 cm) diameter. We estimate that a tree (dependent upon species, climate, etc.) needs around 1,000 cubic feet (28 cubic meters) to have a trunk diameter of 16" (40.5 cm) and a canopy diameter of 32' (9.7 m). That amount of soil can store about 200 cubic feet (5 cubic meters) of water in addition to the water uptake and evapotranspiration provided by a healthy tree."

There are some discrepancies with the list that I'm sure some people will point out but I think the article makes some very good points.

[Native17]

Miami lacks parks and obviously trees, we have a lot of palm trees though.. but those dont offer much shade

[BPerone201]

Jersey City has a lot of trees lining the streets, but liberty state park is probably what drives it so low on that list. It's mainly grassy fields and marsh lands with some trees sprinkled around. Lincoln Park on the other hand is pretty woodsy.

NYC surprises me, but then again it doesn't.
I imagined Atlanta being #1
I'm surprised Sacramento is nowhere in sight.

[ladarron]

I was surprised to see Dallas at #5, they said Dallas didn't have any trees.

[BPerone201]

Originally Posted by ladarron

I was surprised to see Dallas at #5, they said Dallas didn't have any trees.

I don't know about Dallas, but Austin's ranking is agreeable.

[Lakewooder]

Dallas does have great trees, a question that we are always having to fight on our forum:

[Blackbeauty212]

Pittsburgh is very lush and green

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by ladarron

I was surprised to see Dallas at #5, they said Dallas didn't have any trees.

the trees are probably not where they want them I do prefer my trees on top of buildings.

Glad to see Houston up there though. Someone was saying Houston should plant more trees and I thought whaaaaat?? where?? The streets are all lined with trees already

[ladarron]

Dallas has the largest urban forest in the USA, 6,000+ acres.

Great Trinity Forest


YouTube - The Great Trinity Forest and Groundwork Dallas

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

Pittsburgh is very lush and green

I love that last picture, the bridges look nice but I wonder how things look without them.

great perspectives of Pittsburgh though. You represent your city well