Flying above the earth, richer areas can be distinguished from poorer ones by the amount of tree cover they have. On his One Square Mile blog, Tim De Chant looked at some research done in the US which indicates that there is a “tight relationship between per capita income and forest cover”. As usual, the poor get shafted and have less trees than wealthier areas.

De Chant writes:

[T]hey found that for every one per cent increase in per capita income, demand for forest cover increased by 1,76 per cent. But when income dropped by the same amount, demand decreased by 1,26 per cent. 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. On the public side, cities with larger tax bases can afford to plant and maintain more trees.

This does not simply mean poorer areas are less aesthetically pleasing, but by having less tree cover their whole quality of life is effected. Trees account for better air quality, more efficient cooling in summer, and, apparently, big trees even fight crime.

De Chant then took to Google Earth to see if the research results could be seen from space. You can see his results HERE.

In South Africa this is already glaringly obvious; one only has to look at the ‘townships’ and ‘locations’ created by the apartheid government to see how much trees came into their planning. But even in suburbs whose economic differences are not as stark as, say, Langa and Constantia, the results are still interesting.

Opening up Google Earth myself, I chose areas in Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg that are quite close to each other and whose economic differences are well-accepted. You can see the results in the gallery below.

[Sources: Boing Boing, and Per Square Mile]