I've become really obsessed with 'Miyawaki Forests' lately - small, dense, urban forests which can reach a mature state in only a few years. I hope they start showing up everywhere. Fuck minimum parking requirements, where are the minimum forest requirements?
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.
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.
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'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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
