Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Longcol 604]

You missed the following paragraph..

 

"According to the studies of FREER-SMITH et al. (2005), filtration effectiveness with respect to smaller particles (PM1) could be about an order of magnitude higher. In that case, smaller, localized areas of vegetation could also be beneficial. Even if they did not bring about any improvement with respect to the statutory concentration standards for PM10, targeted planting campaigns should still be considered in this case, especially in view of the greater significance of PM1 for human health."

 

Are there any recommendations by eg WHO / EEU about PM1 concentrations - the only literature I can find appears to be about the effect in Chinese and Indian cities which are many times more polluted than British cities.

[Guest makapaka]

What point are you trying to make longcol? Is it okay to cut down trees for no good reason? Is it justified if trees aren't magically good at preventing flooding or reducing air pollution?

 

I think it's because some people have tried to use this in the reverse argument - i.e. To justify retaining the trees.

[Longcol 604]

What point are you trying to make longcol? Is it okay to cut down trees for no good reason? Is it justified if trees aren't magically good at preventing flooding or reducing air pollution?

 

Much of STAG's campaign has centred around supposed environmental benefits of trees - eg reducing air pollution, reducing flooding and appear to be used as a justification for preventing the removal of trees causing damage or obstructing the pavement. Would the outcry be anything like as much without this?

 

Near me there are some large trees on narrow pavements that only leave two or three feet of pavement - wrong trees in the wrong place - healthy or not.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I know mature trees are said to assist with the reduction of air pollution but does anyone know if there is any detrimental effect due to wind calming by the trees (or is there any research)?

On calm days air quality levels fall whereas the levels rise on windy days. I just wondered if there were any scientific studies on the reduction of wind movement by trees and hence the effect upon air quality.

 

Certainly the air quality is a lot better now than in years past. However, if to be believed, some old gardeners believe that the 'pea soupers' of old resulted in better roses due to the sulphur in the atmosphere reducing black spot.

 

As an aside, has there been any research on the difference in pollution levels around the M1 Tinsley roundabout (at the South end of the viaduct) since the traffic light phasing was changed such that there is more stop-start than previously?

 

I recall that one of the earlier threads included links to research which said that in some circumstances the canopy provided by street trees could result in a tunnel effect that retained exhaust emissions. However, the research was USA based IIRC, and there were lots of caveats, so it wouldn't be valid to say that a particular avenue of trees would be expected to cause this. Also trees, along with all other items in the area, will impact on the flow of air due to natural wind flows. It would be necessary to model/test the particular road. The point being that each road is a one off. There are no generalisations. I cannot remember the link to the research. I am paraphrasing what it said, as I understood it.

 

Also, pretty much anything in the street area (including stone walls, tree trunks, general street furniture etc) would adsorb particulate matter.

 

Edit. The US research also covered issues such as trees providing shading for buildings etc and a reduced air conditioning load - although this is unlikely to apply in the UK.

 

Another edit. Now seen Robin-H's post above. Yes, Canyon effect, and not tunnel effect as I said above.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Eater Sundae

[Cyclone 10]

Much of STAG's campaign has centred around supposed environmental benefits of trees - eg reducing air pollution, reducing flooding and appear to be used as a justification for preventing the removal of trees causing damage or obstructing the pavement. Would the outcry be anything like as much without this?

 

Near me there are some large trees on narrow pavements that only leave two or three feet of pavement - wrong trees in the wrong place - healthy or not.

 

This discussion is not the stag campaign, and all I've seen for about the last 60 pages is people attempt to deny that Amey are doing something wrong by quibbling about the exact amount that trees help to prevent flooding or reduce pollution.

So, I'll ask you again, what is your point. If trees have a only a minor impact on flooding and pollution, does that somehow justify their unwarranted removal in the name of corporate profit?

You know perfectly well that the trees are not obstructing the pavement and that the contract contains remedies for the damage caused that are not removing the tree. Why are you so keen to protect a private company that is abusing it's contract in order to make more profit?

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2017 at 21:48 ----------

 

I think it's because some people have tried to use this in the reverse argument - i.e. To justify retaining the trees.

 

You don't need an argument to justify retaining trees. The contract is for Amey to maintain the trees and only remove them as a last resort. They are abusing the contract with the apparent cooperation of the council in order to make more profit. You don't need another reason to object to it, and quibbling about the science (in most cases pointlessly denying the science would be more accurate) is just a waste of time.

[Eater Sundae 12]

More specifically they stated;

 

"measurable improvements in air quality can only be achieved by planting large areas of trees with a high filtration effect (e.g. conifers)"

 

https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/geographie/klimatologie/104_on_the_reduction_of_urban_particle_concentration.pdf

 

Section 6 - Conclusions

 

Not seen that before. Thanks for posting. I'll give it a read.

[annbaker 10]

Late posting - was waiting on the person who posted link re 3rd position coming back to me. The base data was the 2011 WHO report. 2016 has not been fully published. As this is their area of professional expertise I see no reason to doubt what they have said.

 

However for those who do Twitter - follow Sheffield Air who regularly reports (daily) our high readings and do look at the link I posted earlier re the measuring points across the city. Some of them are near schools and above the accepted level.

 

And lastly to correct the point made re STAG. Healthy trees don't just bring health benefits such as helping to clear air etc they also support wildlife some of which is not common across other parts of the UK. I'm not a huge fan of birds personally (terrified of them) but some of the trees earmarked for felling support birds such as waxwings rare in the UK (Eccy Road being one such place where the 6 trees they visit are ironically on Amey's hitlist).

 

Now there are some who would suggest it's that 'posh lot' over in Nether Edge making a noise, they should get a job etc etc. In truth it's not. This is happening all over Sheffield and there are groups in areas such as Firth Park, Burngreave within the STAG umbrella.Most of the so called 'posh lot' do have jobs tho some are retired. It's the jobs they do and are well qualified to do that provide a lot of the information behind the science we and the rest of the UK benefit from.

 

As as for a comment earlier because I said twiglet and should have said sapling apparently. I make no apologies for the use of the term twiglet because that's what they are. Even the council have now admitted they won't be able to replace anything like the tree canopy they are destroying because for the most part the twiglets are species of tree that will not grow to the same level and provide the canopy those they removed did. To note Trees for Cities who were planting a lot of trees in Sheffield have now stopped because of SCC's felling activities. This is bad news for all of us. SCC cited this as them being 'intimidated' (Cllr Jack Scott) by STAG. They have since published a full statement saying quite the opposite. I know who I believe

Edited March 21, 2017 by annbaker

[Cyclone 10]

Interesting BBC article today

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25682368

 

Making a lot of the same points that Robin has spent this entire thread making and other people have denied.

[Guest makapaka]

Interesting BBC article today

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25682368

 

Making a lot of the same points that Robin has spent this entire thread making and other people have denied.

 

Except that is about green spaces and not replacing a tree on a suburban street.

 

I don't think people deny robins points - just question the validity of them in this instance.

[Robin-H 11]

Except that is about green spaces and not replacing a tree on a suburban street.

 

I don't think people deny robins points - just question the validity of them in this instance.

 

The link between street trees and mental health and general wellbeing has been established. The study referenced in the article is also by no means the only study.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/10/more-trees-on-your-street-means-fewer-health-problems-says-study

 

The validity of which part of my posts do you question?

[annbaker 10]

This may be of interest - a report of pics around Sheffield from a professional

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78jiuiz-C9wWm1neWczbk8zMlk/view

[Robin-H 11]

This may be of interest - a report of pics around Sheffield from a professional

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78jiuiz-C9wWm1neWczbk8zMlk/view

 

That made an interesting read, and confirms my own experience and points that I have raised on here about trees being unnecessarily removed but also trees that might warrant removal being missed. There is no consistency.