Arbor Day — I Speak for the Trees
Today is Arbor Day here in NZ, with the idea being to celebrate the contribution of trees to our lives and environment, and where possible to plant them.
June 5 is also World Environment Day, which is appropriate given the environmental benefits delivered by trees.
As those who follow my blog may have picked up, late last year and earlier this year I found myself involved in an endeavour by Christchurch residents to prevent 80% of the city’s heritage trees being delisted from the City Plan and losing protection. Given that I would get involved on this matter, it is probably not surprising I am shouting-out for Arbor Day.
Firstly, by telling you why I think trees matter, generally. Put simply:
Trees deliver important environmental benefits (as follows):
- consuming carbon-dioxide and generating oxygen
- providing beneficial shade and cooling the environment (reducing temperatures) in summer
- helping filtering out and trap dust, pollen and smoke from the air
- providing shelter from wind and windblown debris
- trees help reduce surface water runoff, thus decreasing soil erosion and the accumulation of sediments and contaminants in streams
- fallen leaves can reduce soil temperature and soil moisture loss; decaying leaves promote soil microorganisms and provide nutrients for plant growth
- trees provide habitat for insects and birds and food for other animals — i.e. if we want to enjoy birdsong and garden sounds such as cicadas, then we need trees in our environment
- Trees also provide food for us!
In short, individually and collectively trees do an awful lot of good sh#t and help keep us alive and substantially improve our quality of life. Just sayin’… And here’s the really important thing: the real hits in terms of these benefits come from the large mature trees.
- assist in providing privacy and screen out or soften unattractive views
- provide landscape variety including through shape and form, colour from blossom and (deciduous) autumn leaves, and also scent
- assist in defining neighbourhood character and contributing to residents’ sense of place, identity, and wellbeing
- heritage trees in particular also contribute to intergenerational identity through association with important events and iconic places, but also through continuity in the landscape.
One of the reasons I got involved with trying to continuing listing and protecting Christchurch’s heritage trees was because of the tremendous sense of continuity and also hope I believe they have given people in the face of our city’s geography of loss following the 2010-2011 earthquakes. I feel we should honour the fact of their survival and cherish their continued presence in our landscape more, not less.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, a formative experience in my early professional training was being exposed to the consequences of Stockholm City’s “fundamental brutalist” approach to the housing shortage of the 1960s. The 1950s approach in suburbs such as Vallingby, where the focus was on human(e)-scale development integrated with green spaces and retaining neighbourhood forested areas, was abandoned in favour of higher-rise concrete towers with minimalist landscaping, epitomised by areas such as Rinkeby.
This was justified in the name of “necessity” and “getting things done”, exactly the sort of rhetoric being used in post-earthquake Christchurch. The outcome in Stockholm was that no one who had any choice wanted to live in areas such as Rinkeby and as soon as choice offered anyone who could moved elsewhere.
Areas like Vallingby remained consistently sought after, however, and subsequent developments of the 1970s onward moved away from the 1960s approach. Urban design and environmental factors were accepted as playing a major contributing part in the social and economic dynamic.
So it concerns me that the approach driving Christchurch’s post-earthquake “recovery” seems determined to (I might even say “hell-bent” on) pursue a course that has not delivered positive social, environmental or economic results elsewhere.
The approach to the city’s trees, which seems to be to treat them as readily disposable and an impediment to recovery, is all part of this approach. The “conversation” is all about the perceived ‘negatives’ of trees. For example, during the Plan process, I noticed that shading and leaf drop were always discussed in pejorative terms, with little mention or apparent recognition that both these elements are also positives. (Notice, for example, where people choose to park, hangout, and walk, on blazing summer days.)
Another discussion that always seemed to be couched in “negative” terms was effects of trees on human health, e.g. allergies — with no counterbalancing mention of the enormous environmental and human health benefits of trees, or that research suggests that by far the greatest natural contributors to human allergic responses are grass and fungi. And also without apparent consideration of causal factors such as pollution, which trees ameliorate.
Oh yes, and trees are very “dangerous” — with the “threats” they potentially present emphasised but never, that I heard, placed in any sort of evidential context, eg the incidence of human death or injury caused by trees in an average year or decade.
Overall, I believe the positive contribution of trees to the planet and to our urban environments far outweighs the negatives. Most importantly in terms of our city’s mature trees being treated as readily disposable/replaceable—which seems to be the post-earthquake modus operandi—it is exactly these trees that provide the greatest environmental benefits.
So even if another tree is planted for every one removed, the environmental arrears, exactly like the benefits to human sense of place and identity, may well be intergenerational.
But again to consider the matter in simple terms, Christchurch is a city on a plain. Admittedly there is a backdrop of hills on one side, but otherwise without the texture and interest provided by the city’s large trees, Christchurch would be a pretty unlivable place.
So as I would like to keep living here, despite Christchurch still being “the city that shakes”, it may not surprise you that I am all for Arbor Day and the trees.
Well, I did not know Arbor Day was a celebration of trees. How lovely and sensible. Hurrah for plants in general, and trees as a keystone species. I am having a fume in the general direction of Christchurch planning department, who obviously have no idea about the immediate , medium and long term effects (on humans and habitats) of removing trees from a locality. I’ve got this mental image of a shadowy board room filled with evil fern-gully-esque enemies of the woods… I realise it’s probably more thoughtless focus on short term economic gain, but I don’t understand how people can be so DENSE.
Bah! Back to my cup of tea… I raise it in your general direction, fellow flag waving tree supporters across the globe 😀
Thank you, Rosie. The situation is complex and (I believe) rooted (um, no pun intended) in a particularly narrow vision of what “recovery” means for our post eq city. While there is undoubtedly a lot to be taken into account I just can’t agree that throwing away all the good that has survived the earthquakes is the right starting point.