While most buildings across the eight cities had views of at least three trees, the study found almost all cities fell short on the 30% canopy cover test.
Only Seattle and Singapore passed the 30% canopy benchmark, with 45% and 75% of buildings in these cities enjoying adequate shade, respectively.
Croeser said trees can give poor canopy cover if they are planted in conditions that stunt their growth, such as asphalt covering roots and reducing access to rainwater.
“Too often, we put trees last in our streetscapes,” Croeser said.
“We plant them in very tough conditions, and then the moment there’s a conflict, they’re out. Whether it’s for construction access, a resident complaining or an underground cable, we’re very quick to remove street trees and replace them with saplings.
“Trees in urban environments are also pruned very heavily, so not many trees get the opportunity to grow into big old canopy trees except in a few lucky areas.”
Croeser said canopy cover doesn’t just increase cooling, it can also reduce flood risk as well as benefit mental and physical health and support urban biodiversity.
“Studies say we actually need at least 40% canopy cover to substantially lower daytime air temperatures, so the ‘30’ metric is the bare minimum; most buildings we studied don't even reach that goal,” he said.
Croeser said he would like to see state and federal government take charge of a canopy taskforce to retrofit streets to prioritise canopy cover.
“Councils are already strapped for funding and resources, so we need government to step in to fund and fast track the process to make an impact on canopy goals,” he said.