Amsterdam among global cities that provide too little natural shade for residents
Large cities around the world, including Amsterdam, still don’t have adequate canopy cover provided by trees, according to a new study led by RMIT University in Australia. The cities have an abundance of trees, but still prioritize infrastructure above canopy cover, to the detriment of their populations’ general wellbeing.
The researchers studied Amsterdam, Buenos Aires, Seattle, Denver, New York, Singapore, Melbourne, and Sydney based on the ‘3-30-300’ rule. The rule states that every home, school, and workplace should have a view of at least 3 trees, be in a neighborhood with at least 30% canopy cover, and be within 300 meters of a park.
About half of Amsterdam buildings have a view of at least 3 trees, and 52 percent are within 300 meters of a park. But 0 percent have 30 percent canopy cover.
New York scored 1 percent for canopy cover but did significantly better with trees (92 percent). Only 27 percent of New York buildings are within 300 meters of a park. Buenos Aires (22%), Denver (18%), central Sydney (17%), and central Melbourne (3%) also scored very poorly when it came to canopy cover.
Singapore performed well overall, with 60 percent of its buildings having views of 3 trees, 75 percent having 30 percent canopy cover, and 80 percent being within 300 meters of a park.
“Previous research has shown depression, anxiety, obesity, and heatstroke are more prevalent in urban areas that lack access to shady tree canopy and green open spaces,” researcher Dr Thami Croeser of RMIT said in a press statement. He called it very concerning that most of the buildings in the study failed the 30 percent tree canopy test, especially with last year being the hottest year on record and a quarter of the global population experiencing dangerous levels of heat.
Recent studies have shown at least 40 percent canopy cover is required to substantially lower daytime air temperatures. “So the ‘30’ metric is the absolute bare minimum - and most buildings we studied don't even reach that goal,” Croeser said.
According to the researchers, the root of the problem is that cities still give infrastructure like roads, cabling, and pipelines priority over tree growth. “Currently, we put trees last, and if it gets in the way of cabling or pipes, we remove the tree or replace it with a sapling,” Croeser said. "Designing trees into streets early, and then figuring out win-win solutions to get in utilities and traffic access, is one of the big changes we need to make a difference.”
