From minimum parking requirements to minimum park requirements :-)

Ok maybe minimum forest requirements is more accurate but had to do it

I like the first one, down with minimum parking requirements we want more requirements for minimum parks!

RaRa.

Incredible - apparently you can do one in your back yard!

https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-many-benefits-of-...

I'd love to know if there was an equivalent one for species native to the UK.

EDIT: Found a great list after a little investigation! https://www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/tasks/projects/miyawaki-for...

It doesn't always have to be trees. Hedgerows can be good too.

And a good thing too, because trees in London cause havoc with all the Victorian houses with no foundation in the modern sense.

I'm having a hard time picturing what they look like -- and the photo in that article is unrelated.

Googling them, I can find images of a few proof-of-concept plots in the middle of fields but I can't find a single example of how they might integrate with a city.

It would be nice to see some kind of before-and-after, even if just an illustration, to get a sense of how they would fit into a cityscape aesthetically and practically.

Here's a NYT article with some good photos, gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/climate/tiny-forests-clim...

Here's a photo of what it looks like when it's first planted: https://voice.somervillema.gov/miyawaki-micro-forest

Another good article: https://www.creatingtomorrowsforests.co.uk/blog/the-miyawaki...

PDF with lots of pictures and information: https://urban-forests.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report-...

They're surely extremely region-specific—sourcing with native trees is a big part of their sustainability. Do you know anything about where to find local growing guides for different regions?

Here's one site that seems solid: https://nativeplantfinder.nwf.org/

Note though that your climate is changing, and what was historically considered native for your region may no longer be a good fit: https://heatmap.news/is-native-gardening-becoming-pointless

That 3x3m project shown is not realistic. Not for a newbie and probably not easy to keep from falling apart for an expert.

But yes, wild hedgewoods of a mix of useful shrubs are totally doable even in really small spaces. I had designed a few. They are low maintenance, beautiful, useful, funny, and tasty and everybody should have space for one of this wildlife lifesavers in their gardens.

I bought three boxes of Microforest from Edwina Robinson here in ACT Australia and planted them in my front yard.

Here is an article about her project.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-08/act-micro-forests-in-...

It's been two years, the some of the trees are well over 2m tall already.

Here's video footage of the linked 2021 Canberra plantings from nine months ago - mid 2023.

https://youtu.be/P2_YVkfzpnE?t=23

Possibly a misconception of mine; Australia has some added complexities that not all of us face. What creatures will my mini forest it attract and will my little forest set fire to my home?

I’m in New Zealand where life is less spicey.

You choose what species get planted, so you can control all that. Plant a grove of mainly sheoak for example, and you have fire retardant species that discourage snakes.

Accidentally I recently looked up when a bunch of trees are, or can be called a forest. Which I learned is minimal 500 square meters.

How many trees have to be in that region?

It doesn't really mention that. And seems to differ between US and EU already, one source for example, says,

"Forest is a land area of more than 0.5 ha, with a tree canopy cover of more than 10%, which is not primarily under agricultural or other specific non-forest land use."

-- https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/Qlik_Downloads/InfoSheetSector...

There isn't actually a strict definition of what is or isn't a forest

If it’s small area you can’t see a forest, you can see trees.

Well there are definitions, but indeed, not strict, as they do differ quite a bit who or where you ask this question.

The idea that everything needs to be a dense forest is a problem. What is more helpful is a variety of ecosystems available. I don't have a lot of space, but I managed to have 4 ecosystems in all of my yards with 200+ species of plants: California chaparral, Coastal forest, Xeriscape and a wildflower meadow. Cities could also build such environments and that would be more positive than just planting Miyawaki Forests everywhere.

I can’t imagine these forests will pop up “everywhere”. Seems like a groundless concern.

> I hope they start showing up everywhere.

For people in urban hellscapes? Yes.

For non-human animals? More complicated. These sorts for forests are generally dominated by “edge species”. Edge species generally do relatively well out of habitat fragmentation.

The most sensitive species that need a lot of depth in forest generally don’t do well with these small pockets.

This is not to say that Miyawaki forests aren’t an improvement, just that their “conservation” value is limited and still need to preserve/manage huge amounts of actual contiguous forest with a minimum perimeter compared to the area covered.

That's fair. It's definitely a complementary thing, you want both types of forest I'm sure. Small forests don't cover all the needs, and large forests don't fit everywhere.

I don't disagree but if the choice is between edge forest and species support for species in edge forests, or carparks and species support for carpark friendly species, I would prefer to have edge forest species.

This is not re-wilding. We aren't trying to get urban badgers and lions.

So, in summary I think your critique is true but misplaced. Consider the viable alternatives, not the pipe dream.

When we de-populate on the next virus, we can re-forest for bears.

We actually can affect development patterns, deforestation, and afforestation through democracy.

I am not against Miyawaki forests but I think we need to recognise they are largely for people. They vastly improve important metrics for us but in the press for Miyawaki forests the benefits for forests are sometimes conflated with the benefits of Miyawaki forests.

It’s a little like when growing afforestation for the sake of timber is sold as a benefit to the environment as though it’s just like any other forest.

TFA is about urban overheating. Biodiversity is a powerful idea and valued aesthetic in our society but ultimately biodiversity will only be conserved through a cessation of deforestation and significant afforestation on large scales.

if TFA is about urban overheating, and if Miyawaki forests offset the problem then they should be supported as they address the problem. If they don't help damaged and marginalised species as much as connected scale forests, we need to know that but it doesn't mean we should not have Miyawaki forests.

TFA...?

The featured article. the fine article. the first argument. the final attempt.

As a rule of thumb if is associated to a fancy name, it has been invented before, and the plan will not fulfill its promises.

"Forests will reach a mature state in only a few years" is just other of this marketing statements that sound nice, but are wrong.

> Fuck minimum parking requirements, where are the minimum forest requirements?

I want a t-shirt with this phrase. Is simply brilliant