Trees and Wealth

Tim DeChant, wrote in his blog that trees are a good indicator of income inequity in the country. This is from his post/research paper:

“[F]or every 1 percent increase in per capita income, demand for forest cover increased by 1.76 percent. But when income dropped by the same amount, demand decreased by 1.26 percent. That’s a pretty tight correlation. The researchers reason that wealthier cities can afford more trees, both on private and public property. The well-to-do can afford larger lots, which in turn can support more trees. On the public side, cities with larger tax bases can afford to plant and maintain more trees.”

He started Googling cities in the U.S. to prove his point. Here are some pics that prove his point.

West Oakland CA

Piedmont

Woodlawn

Hyde part

Bill Moyers blog said this of his research:

De Chant points out that the differences weren’t as stark in U.S. cities with tree programs in place, such as New York City which is working to double its number of trees to 1 million in ten years. Chicago has planted over 600,000 in the last 20 years (although De Chant notes that number may include replacement trees) and London is planting 20,000 new trees for the Olympics.