The myth of the urban forest (b)

3327 words later it ends like this.  It’s not so much that I don’t believe in the urban forest – it exists, it is there, I just think we are looking after it from the wrong angle.  If ever there was a ‘look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves’ situation, then managing individual trees in the urban forest must be it…

The myth of the urban forest

Conclusion: Our urban forests are under constant pressure from urbanisation, infrastructure change and the fluctuating whims of elected officials.  Bold management plans are limited by the risk tolerances of tree owners and the cost of maintaining trees with a natural form and appearance.

For an urban tree to survive it must be able to be managed and manipulated as the site that it is grown in changes around it; it must not be too big, because big trees are problematic, it must be filled with nature and nature doesn’t care what it looks like, it must be able to be managed yet be maintained as an individual.

For an urban tree to survive it must be considered to be a living asset that is purpose tailored and re-tailored as and when required, it cannot be left alone to naturally evolve like a tree in a natural forest.  There is nothing natural about a forest of individual living assets and therefore natural rules need not be applied.  To effectively manage our urban forest, we need to accept that urban forests do not exist.