Comparisons of aerial images between lower- and higher-income neighborhoods show that income inequalities are demonstrated through the number of trees present. Higher income areas have more trees, while less affluent areas also have fewer trees.
"They found that for every 1 percent increase in per capita income, demand for forest cover increased by 1.76 percent. But when income dropped by the same amount, demand decreased by 1.26 percent. That’s a pretty tight correlation. The researchers reason that wealthier cities can afford more trees, both on private and public property. The well-to-do can afford larger lots, which in turn can support more trees."
The original study was published in 2008, but gained much more recent attention when it was posted by Tim De Chant on his blog, Per Square Mile. The original story has now been followed up with images that demonstrate this inequality in regions all over the globe.
We know that having access to the natural world is a good thing. This goes to show that, rightly or wrongly, there can be a price tag attatched to it.
image: from Per Square Mile
Read the rest of the story from source