John wrote:
<I would suggest, because TPOs are a classic middle class/chattering class
construct, there won't be many where these people don't live. The good thing
about research though is that you would find out.>
Exeter City seemed to sum this issue up in a nut shell - there was a clear
distinction between the tree distribution on aerial photos, economic data by
ward, and the TPO GIS layer. In short the poorer wards had fewer trees and
fewer TPO's. Partly due to high density terraced housing in some wards with
no space for tree planting, and some wards where the council owned all the
trees - so no need for TPO's. Even with these factors considered the
imbalance was still clear. Exeter was small enough to see this clearly. As
a result rate payer's money was spent on servicing the trees of the affluent
areas. The Conservation areas just reinforced this as they were mostly
centred on historic areas - lots of listed buildings, expensive to live in
etc.
Once I started thinking about this it was probably true of the authority I
worked at before - it was just that the layout of the urban areas made it
less striking.
Dom
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
