We have to be careful that urban forest "science" doesn't overwhelm our innate common sense.
At one council where I worked I was discussing the street tree pruning program with a colleague.
"We only have around 750 trees left under wires so…"
I didn't get to finish the sentence.
"No, we've got closer to 2,000 - I've checked the database."
"It's wrong" I said.
"No, here, I'll show you" he said, looking for a spreadsheet on his computer.
"No need," I said, "I know we've only got around 750."
"Because I've just been out and counted them."
It's getting a bit like this at the moment with all the thermal imaging currently being done. Is it really that hard to figure out where the hot spots are? I reckon it's a fair bet it's the places WITHOUT THE TREES.
Which brings me to the GOAL technique. It's the ultimate technique really:
And just remember that the great cities of the world created the superb urban forests they have today when the pinnacle of technology was the slide rule.
I'm no luddite but it concerns me that councils think that unless they first generate a NASA-quality urban forest document, they can't start.
Yeah you can. Grab your keys.