Trees and Deprivation

Hi again,

I was really interested by what my cousin said about the heat island effect in Canadian cities and how it disproportionately affects the most deprived areas on my previous map. It got me thinking about whether the same thing might be happening here in the UK, so I decided to read about and map the relationship between tree coverage and deprivation here. I found some interesting trends!

The main things which seem to have stood out are:

• The relationship between deprivation and lack of trees is strongest in the most deprived parts of the country. These areas tend to have the least tree coverage, while more affluent areas have a more mixed picture.
• This effect is particularly noticeable in urban areas. When you look at somewhere like Central London, where there's a lot of poverty and the urban heat island effect is really strong, the lack of trees in deprived areas is striking.

This matters because trees aren't just aesthetically pleasing, they have a real impact on the quality of life in an area. They provide shade, clean the air, and generally make a place feel more liveable. More can be done to ensure that these benefits are accessible to a broader section of the city.

• Trees can help to reduce the urban heat island effect, which becomes more and more present as heatwaves rise.
• They also absorb air pollution, which is a big deal in areas with poor air quality. If you live near a busy road or a factory, having trees around can make a real difference to your health.
• And also - there are mental health benefits of green spaces. In areas where people are dealing with a lot of stress and hardship, having access to nature can be really important for well-being.

It's good to see that policymakers are starting to pay more attention to this, for example by including more environmental indicators in deprivation indices. But there's still a lot more that needs to be done.

For instance, governments and councils could set higher targets for neighbourhood tree coverage (current coverage is around 15%). But on top of that, is that homeowners could be encouraged to take responsibility for local trees in their area (trees take a lot of space, maintenance, water, nutrition to get going). Trees are effectively a piece of infrastructure, and for all their benefits, should be recognised for both the benefits and costs that come about bringing them about.

Second, we should probably increase the number of "green spaces" - trees tend to do better when planted near other plants which improves the soil quality. Another is to adopt "Silva cell" pavements, instead of the traditional compacted pits.

Basically - we should try and think about the broader infrastructural requirements of trees when designing areas. A study by Rotem-Mindali basically looks into how the cooling effect of trees is stronger and weaker depending on where the trees are placed. This requires thinking in advance about how to plan green residential spaces.

The study I reference uses LiDAR data (from the Environment Agency - loads of people have been excited about this release) to map tree coverage is really fascinating. It shows how we can use technology to get a detailed picture of what's going on with trees in different parts of the country.

• This kind of data could be used to target tree planting initiatives in the areas that need them most.
• It could also help us to track the impact of these initiatives over time and build a stronger case for investing in urban greening.

I think this map is a useful piece of work. It highlights a problem that doesn't get talked about enough and shows how environmental inequality is a real issue in this country. We all deserve to live in a healthy, green environment, no matter what our background is. Thank you to my Canadian relative!

As ever, the Github.