3 ms·

From the article: > In recent years, study after study has found that living in neighborhoods with abundant green space is linked to positive health outcomes.

From the article: > In recent years, study after study has found that living in neighborhoods with abundant green space is linked to positive health outcomes. But it specifically calls out trees as more beneficial than other green spaces. > But when it come to promoting human health, not all green spaces are created equal. That’s the conclusion of new Australian research, which finds higher levels of wellness in areas marked by one particular manifestation of the natural world: leafy trees. So it's not contrasting "nature" vs. "stacked concrete boxes", it's comparing "green space w/o trees" (e.g. a lawn) to "green space with trees" (e.g. a park with trees).

mikekchar 7y ago
I think the OP may have a point, though. You can have an area with lots of big buildings, take one lot and make a "greenspace" with it: some grass, a fountain, some bushes. But to make an area with trees (especially plural), you need some place fairly wide, that has light, and has enough ground water to support the trees. An area that supports those trees will have to be less built up than the average area that can support a lawn (which just needs a patch of light and a sprinkler) for instance. From that perspective, I wonder to what extent the studies (which seem to be based on Australian cities) is biased by the types of environments that generally have trees in Australia. If you have have an avenue that is totally canopied by 100 year old trees like in some US or Canadian cities, is that enough? Or do you need a fairly large green space that also has trees? I wonder because I always found residential areas with old trees on relatively small lots to be really claustrophobic (but I know people who love them, of course).
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  There are plenty of areas in Australian cities with older tree-lined streets, so that should be covered in the study.
- Tempest1981 7y ago
  > An area that supports those trees will have to be less built up You reminded me of Central Park. I wonder what it will be like in 20-40 years: https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrapers-cast-super-shadows-on-central-park https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrap... This NatGeo issue also had some cool city renderings: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/see-sustainable-future-city-designed-for-people-and-nature/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/see-sust...
- Retric 7y ago
  Individual trees don’t need that much space or even light. You regularly see them planted in sidewalks for example. Further, they evolved to grow in forests when even small openings showed up in the canopy.

mikekchar 7y ago

I think the OP may have a point, though. You can have an area with lots of big buildings, take one lot and make a "greenspace" with it: some grass, a fountain, some bushes. But to make an area with trees (especially plural), you need some place fairly wide, that has light, and has enough ground water to support the trees. An area that supports those trees will have to be less built up than the average area that can support a lawn (which just needs a patch of light and a sprinkler) for instance. From that perspective, I wonder to what extent the studies (which seem to be based on Australian cities) is biased by the types of environments that generally have trees in Australia. If you have have an avenue that is totally canopied by 100 year old trees like in some US or Canadian cities, is that enough? Or do you need a fairly large green space that also has trees? I wonder because I always found residential areas with old trees on relatively small lots to be really claustrophobic (but I know people who love them, of course).

lazyasciiart 7y ago
There are plenty of areas in Australian cities with older tree-lined streets, so that should be covered in the study.
Tempest1981 7y ago
> An area that supports those trees will have to be less built up You reminded me of Central Park. I wonder what it will be like in 20-40 years: https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrapers-cast-super-shadows-on-central-park https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrap... This NatGeo issue also had some cool city renderings: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/see-sustainable-future-city-designed-for-people-and-nature/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/see-sust...
Retric 7y ago
Individual trees don’t need that much space or even light. You regularly see them planted in sidewalks for example. Further, they evolved to grow in forests when even small openings showed up in the canopy.