Why poorer suburbs can be 10ËšC hotter
Poor and disadvantaged Australian suburbs risk becoming urban hotspots that are more than 10 degrees hotter than leafier, wealthier suburbs, an RMIT University study has found.
The research found Australian metropolitan areas have experienced a loss of vegetation equivalent to the size of Brisbane in the last three years, risking heat spikes, particularly in less affluent areas.
The Where Should All the Trees Go report – produced together with CSIRO Data 61 and the University of Western Australia – examines tree canopy levels across Australia’s metropolitan areas and how 139 local governments are performing in their greening plans.
Lead author, Associate Professor Marco Amati from the RMIT Centre for Urban Research, says the level of tree canopy has “implications for adaptability in extreme weather events, biodiversity, and is linked to the community’s overall wellbeing”.
Amati’s team found a major decline in canopy coverage, which has a direct influence on the urban heat island effect.
“As they lose vegetation, urban areas start to act like heat sponges,” Amati explains.
The research reveals a strong correlation between low canopy cover, heat and socioeconomic disadvantage.
To determine which areas of socioeconomic and health disadvantage also coincide with a lack of green cover and a high incidence of heat, the team developed a new index, called the Vulnerability to Heat, Poor Health, Economic Disadvantage and Access index.
“Using this index, we found that green spaces and heat concentration in Australia are spread unevenly.
“Our study showed areas identified as less affluent are at risk of having urban hotspots that are more than 10 degrees higher than those found in wealthier areas.”
A raft of research has found that trees do more than provide shade – they can also influence a property’s value.
In April, AECOM compared tree canopy coverage with five years of house price data in the Sydney suburbs of Blacktown, Willoughby and Annandale.
AECOM’s Green Infrastructure Report found that houses on streets with 10 per cent more tree coverage were worth an average of $,000 more than houses on less leafy streets in the same suburb.