Tree devastation in Sheffield

[Mindfulness 10]

The post by Mindfulness I was responding to talked about the "management of our urban forest". Street Trees are a small sub-set of the urban forest to the best of my knowledge - in the context of Sheffield we are talking about replacement of under 1% of the urban forest aren't we?

 

Talking about 'replacement' of 18,000 (up to 27,000) large canopy street trees. This is with high failure, lollipop saplings, that hold a maximum life-span of 70 yrs. It is precisely these large canopy highway trees that are targetted by Amey and which bring us the raft of ecosystem benefits that amount to millions of pounds each year, when valued using the valuation systems that I have linked to above. The loss of so many healthy, well established large trees, over such a short time span, have already had and will continue to have, a deleterious effect on wildlife and the health and well-being of Sheffielders.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Mindfulness

[Longcol 594]

Talking about 'replacement' of 18,000 (up to 27,000) large canopy street trees. This is with high failure, lollipop saplings, that hold a maximum life-span of 70 yrs.

 

So are all the street trees being replaced "large high canopy trees"? Pictures of a representative sample appreciated.

 

What percentage of the "large high canopy trees" of Sheffield's urban forest are we going to lose?

 

I take it you now accept that street trees are are a small percentage of the urban forest

[Mindfulness 10]

Furthermore, such environmental degradation, on such a large scale, should never have happened, if competent people were working to current good practise guidance, when the Amey contract was drawn up.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 02:07 ----------

 

So are all the street trees being replaced "large high canopy trees"? Pictures of a representative sample appreciated

 

Where do you live and what species are the trees on your street? If there is any kerb displacement or pavement undulation - you have your sample.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 02:09 ----------

 

I take it you now accept that street trees are are a small percentage of the urban forest

 

Are you saying that 27,000 is a small number?

[Longcol 594]

Where do you live and what species are the trees on your street? If there is any kerb displacement or pavement undulation - you have your sample.

 

 

Are you saying that 27,000 is a small number?

 

Evasion noted.

 

Just post links to pics of a representive sample of trees being replaced to show they are all "large high canopy trees".

 

Staying in the context of the "urban forest" per your earlier post - of 2 million trees - what percentage of replacement are we talking about?

[Mindfulness 10]

Photo of what was a healthy large crowned highway tree in Greenhill:

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 02:26 ----------

 

I notice that you have not commented on the fact that we will be incurring a significant loss to ecosystem services, with the loss of up to 27,000 large canopy highway trees? A loss measurable by using the valuation tools I have linked to above.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 02:29 ----------

 

31 large canopy trees have been noticed for felling on Rivelin Valley Road:

Edited November 22, 2015 by Mindfulness

[Longcol 594]

Photo of what was a healthy large crowned highway tree in Greenhill:

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 02:26 ----------

 

I notice that you have not commented on the fact that we will be incurring a significant loss to ecosystem services, with the loss of up to 27,000 large canopy highway trees? A loss measurable by using the valuation tools I have linked to above.

 

One pic does not a representative sample make. And was that really a "large high crowned tree" - the one in the background doesn't look like one.

 

Explain how losing a tiny percentage of the urban forest will be significant to "peoples health and well being" as per your earlier post - in your own words.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Longcol

[Mindfulness 10]

One pic does not a representative sample make. And was that really a "large high crowned tree" - the one in the background doesn't look like one

 

Have you seen the RVR photo? And if you already know what a large crowned tree is, why are you wasting my time asking for photos? Yes that was really a large crowned tree. No the medium crowned tree in the background, does not look of the same age.

 

Explain how losing a tiny percentage of the urban forest will be significant to "peoples health and well being" as per your earlier post - in your own words.

 

Because percentage is irrelevant here. 27,000 is a large number of trees, with a significant collective canopy cover. Proper valuation of the ecosystem services provided by these trees, is the only way to give a monetary worth to what has been lost and what will be lost.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Mindfulness

[Longcol 594]

Because percentage is irrelevant here. 27,000 is a large number of trees, with a significant collective canopy cover. Proper valuation of the ecosystem services provided by these trees, is the only way to give a monetary worth to what has been lost and what will be lost.

 

27,000 trees (absolute maximum) is a tiny percentage of trees in Sheffield - "urban forest" using your terminoligy. Percentage is far from irrelevant in terms of canopy cover - you have noticed that there are far more trees in close proximity to streets - in gardens, parks, green space - than "street trees" - and that's just streets. The "collective canopy cover" and associated benefits extends way beyond street trees doesn't it?

 

Now explain how we value the "ecosystem services" in your own words.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 02:58 ----------

 

Have you seen the RVR photo? And if you already know what a large crowned tree is, why are you wasting my time asking for photos? Yes that was really a large crowned tree. No the medium crowned tree in the background, does not look of the same age.

 

 

Simply - are all trees being replaced in Sheffield "large high crowned trees"?

 

Evidence please - not statements.

[Mindfulness 10]

27,000 trees (absolute maximum) is a tiny percentage of trees in Sheffield - "urban forest" using your terminoligy. Percentage is far from irrelevant in terms of canopy cover - you have noticed that there are far more trees in close proximity to streets - in gardens, parks, green space - than "street trees" - and that's just streets. The "collective canopy cover" and associated benefits extends way beyond street trees doesn't it?

 

27,000 trees is still a lot of trees Longcol, but I can see you are not going to budge from your stand point. I believe that this generational and transformational change to Sheffield's treescape is unwarranted, illegal and very unpopular. This is evidenced by a 14,500 petition for just one road. Also the well attended rally for trees one week ago, to highlight what is planned for Sheffield. A vast number of people still have no idea what is headed their way and as they are finding out in horror, our voice grows ever louder.

 

Now explain how we value the "ecosystem services" in your own words.

 

This may well be my last response to your patronising requests Longcol, unless you stop repeating questions that I feel I have already answered. Have a read through the entire valuation for street trees link I posted in # 611, I believe you will find the answer there, if that is really what you are after. I have patiently tried to answer your questions, but I find your responses naively competitive and misinformed. I wish you all the best though. Goodnight.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 04:15 ----------

 

Simply - are all trees being replaced in Sheffield "large high crowned trees"?

Evidence please - not statements.

 

https://sheffieldtreemap.wordpress.com/

[Guest]

 

Explain how losing a tiny percentage of the urban forest will be significant to "peoples health and well being" as per your earlier post - in your own words.

 

The majority of Sheffield's 2 million trees will be in heavily wooded places like Rivelin/Loxley/Grenocide etc, which most people won't/don't visit on a daily basis. People like to see tree's right where they are, on the street they live. I haven't counted but I'll bet 27'000 is a massive chunk of the street trees, and their absence will be very noticeable. Somewhere like Parson Cross would be an even grimmer place without its trees.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Guest

[Lotusflower 10]

The post by Mindfulness I was responding to talked about the "management of our urban forest". Street Trees are a small sub-set of the urban forest to the best of my knowledge - in the context of Sheffield we are talking about replacement of under 1% of the urban forest aren't we?

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 01:25 ----------

 

 

The first sentence in that link starts with "street trees and urban woodlands"

 

Context counts for everything in a city with 2 million trees.

 

Re my bold above.

 

Your best does not acquaint to much given your statements and the questions you continue to ask. (All have which have been answered previously and all substantiated with links to relevant information)

You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.

[Cyclone 10]

For a buddhist, you spend a lot of time criticising and attacking other people.