|
|
|
|
|
by kbsletten
2512 days ago
|
|
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). |
|
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).