More trees reduce premature deaths in cities | Hacker News Reader

More trees reduce premature deaths in cities

news.trust.org

73 pointseplanit30 comments

I'll be honest, I don't have time to go dig into this study. Nevertheless, I'm skeptical because I'd be willing to bet cities don't plant trees in the hood. There's probably a strong correlation between wealth and living near trees (and of course there's a correlation between wealth and health). I'd be happy to be wrong.

Or perhaps it’s more wealth => more trees (and healthier food, more exercise, less nearby particulate pollution, etc) => better health.

Exactly what I thought while reading that article. I can't imagine anyway you would be able to run a study and get meaningful results around this accounting for a tonne of external variables.

I expect wealthier people tend to live in nicer neighbourhoods that just tend to have more planting, those people are more likely to have better lives than poor people who happen to live in neighborhoods that can't afford to plant a lot of trees.

In saying that, I'm still all for planting as many trees in cities as we can. This just seems like a flawed study

>There's probably a strong correlation between wealth and living near trees

Could also have to do with the city's wealth itself. A city that has money to spend on trees, probably has better infrastructure, more jobs available and and just more ways for lower income people to live and thrive than a city that can't afford to plant and maintain trees. Trees are expensive. It means they probably invest more in stuff like accessible transit, maintaining roads and just other general quality of life improvements in the city.

I figure trees are probably lower down on the list of things to spend money on, so if they've got the money for that, the city itself is like just a better place to live for a ton of other reasons.

Everytime I see one of these articles I immediately wonder if they controlled for all the obvious stronger correlations that are already known.

Come to Atlanta. Highest tree density among any major metropolis. Nicknamed "City in a Forest".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_tree_canopy

PS - Spring season is hell.

Toronto is similar (~52% tree coverage) and pollen can go off the charts.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/pe/bgrd/backgroundf...

Here's the study which the article criminally does not link to: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

It's a meta analysis of 9 longitudinal studies of green space and mortality, all of which consider socio-economic status as a co-variate.

Correlation ⇏ causation.

Possible confounding factor: green cities are the result of environmentally-friendly policies which also happen to reduce city pollution.

Yeah, I'm an eco-nut but my first (well, second) reaction was, "Is it that proximity to trees is roughly inverse to proximity to cars and other pollution sources?"

I was just reading about nanoparticle pollution: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191113-the-toxic-killer...

Evidently it's both really bad and pretty localized (exposure levels seem to drop rapidly with distance from car traffic, for example.)

Let's all go for a round of "correlation!= causation" as nobody has ever mentioned it before in a post about a study...

It’s both true and relevant no matter how many times it has been mentioned before

Yes, but it's not necessary or informative depending on how many times it has been mentioned before

Given the number of people in this thread advocating causal interpretations of this study, I disagree.

HN is for curiosity, and curiosity withers under repetition.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand what this means.

Others have pointed out in this thread that greenery may be a reflection of wealth which strikes me as true. I wouldn't discount state power either - in many cities the greenest areas are the ones inhabited by bureaucrats and soldiers.

I also think we should be looking at d/dx(green) rather than |green| to detect the influence of wealth and power, especially in parts of the world where unchecked growth has decimated green space. Which is to say, don't perform your comparisons based on tree cover now but the change in tree cover over time, say, using satellite data over the years.

Common sense suggests that by looking at the ebb and flow of greenery, we will find that the spots where the wealthy and the powerful live are less likely to see trees cut down and more likely to see new trees planted.

OTOH, the wrong trees may be responsible for your allergies...

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/seasonal-allergies-bla...

FFS ever consider why rich people want more trees?

We need to work towards trees in cities. Although the death rate because of pollen isn't great. But we need air filtered homes anyway. Not sure on these stats.....

This is a pulp story, but not to be thrown out -

Tree cover on the streets of Parramatta can mean a difference of 10C on a hot day

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-21/western-sydney-heatwa...

Wondering if teamtrees will plant in cities? https://teamtrees.org/

The trees will be planted by the Arbor day foundation, and "in a variety of forests on public and private lands in areas of great need"[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Trees

I was optimistic when I saw this city-design concept... but is it realistic? Seems like we're nowhere close right now.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/see-sust...

Logically equivalent: fewer trees increase premature deaths in cities.

I prefer this way. It treats having trees as normal instead of something extra.

Trees brings psychological calmness to those around them. Trees also cleans the local air from pollution. Trees also by means of evaporative cooling cool local hot spots in cities.

Take Central Park in New York living close to a green area means flats there have some of the highest prices in NY.

It's the same in Europe. Flats in the city closest to greenest areas are occupied by the upper class because it's quiet and the air is clean while the lower income people live by the train station or main road where trucks pass that's the noisiest and most poluted area of the city and naturally, one of the cheapest to live in.

Alternatively, green spaces attract healthy people?

More trees, fewer people per unit area -> ideal.

The suburbs have fewer people per unit area, but very few trees.

Meanwhile some areas have high-density townhomes and tons of trees. See: Montreal.

Does that also work if I live in the woods?

It`s not a new fact for everyone :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com