Fewer trees in Seattle now? Or more?

Knute Berger repeats this "fact" about Seattle:

Thirty-five years ago, tree canopy covered 40 percent of the city. Today, that's down to 18 percent.

The only problem is that the study from which this "fact" is supposedly derived is not about Seattle proper but about a vastly larger region.

The study by American Forests is somewhat unclear about its spatial scope but in any case there is no question that the study area is vastly larger than the city of Seattle per se. According to it:
• The main study covered 3.9 million acres from Tacoma to Everett
• It also analyzed a smaller study area of 422,000 acres of "Greater Seattle."
• Seattle itself is about 53,000 acres.

So it appears that to claim -- based on this particular study -- that Seattle's tree canopy has gone from 40% to 18% of the land area in the past 35 years cannot be supported as the study did not cover the city of Seattle but the whole region.

And that's consistent with my own observations. For anyone who has lived in Seattle for the past 40 years and has been watching the physical environment, it's not credible that "Thirty-five years ago, tree canopy covered 40 percent of the city. Today, that's down to 18 percent. "

The numbers on their face are dubious; just go look at a map of Seattle in 1967 and compare it to one of 2007. You'll see that there has been very very little platting of vacant land — because in 1967 the city was pretty-much built out. Combined with the public tree-planting programs and those part of development and I would bet that the there are more trees within the city of Seattle proper now in 2007 than there were in 1967.

(Of course unknown for sure is whether this particular study is the one on which the City is basing its Plan.)

Now does any of this mean that we should not plant more trees? Or not take care of the ones we have? Or not be concerned about the form & design of suburban expansion? Of course not. But it does mean we should beware governments (and gullible echo-chamber journalists) offering "facts."

Comments

[Gomez]

Geez, Mossback, didn't you have this discussion with The Stranger six months ago?

[kenrdavis99@gmail.com]

Instead of comparing apples to oranges, as mentioned in an article by Knute Berger, why doesn't the city use the same method used in 1972 to compare the canopy with todays estimate. It is comparing apples to oranges with using Lidar instead of Radar