Atlanta has the nickname, "The City in a Forest".?ÿ For those that have flown in to Hartsfield you can see forests in all directions.?ÿ But as far as I know there are no peach trees even though there must be at least 50 streets with Peachtree in the name.
Andy
My experience of USA is limited to annual transits (of the traveller kind) through Los Angeles, specifically 5 hour stints at LAX Tom Bradley Terminal where I wander outside and take in the sights (and find a smoke free zone). Through both that and the daytime landing vistas, I've always thought of LA as not being particularly leafy, so was surprised to see it in the middle ranking.
Quick google search has Portland at 26% tree canopy, Tulsa at 29%, Oklahoma City at 13.5%.?ÿ I really doubt that Tulsa number. They must be counting everything greenish as tree canopy. But whatever it is Tulsa and OKC would benefit from having more.?ÿ
Quick google search has Portland at 26% tree canopy, Tulsa at 29%, Oklahoma City at 13.5%.?ÿ I really doubt that Tulsa number. They must be counting everything greenish as tree canopy. But whatever it is Tulsa and OKC would benefit from having more.?ÿ
Makes me wonder if they're measuring only populated urban areas or the entire city limits.?ÿ A low percentage for OKC wouldn't surprise me due to all the (relatively treeless) cultivated farmland that is actually included within the city limits.
I would think the number reflects the city limits based on various rankings.
The buildings and utility interferences that are present in cities should add to the canopy situation.
The lack of any of buildings and any utilities in the forests help in the collection of data.