No Forest Too Small
One Reader’s Response to the New York Times Article on Tiny Forests
Last week, the New York Times published an article titled “Tiny Forests with Big Benefits.” The article explores Miyawaki forests, which are tiny forests packed densely with vegetation, designed to grow rapidly into wild and biodiverse spaces and support climate resilience.
Coming from the discipline of food forests (inspired by the permaculture movement), I struggled to immediately recognize the difference between Miyawaki forests and food forests upon reading the NYT article. Are they two names for the same thing? Are there subtle but critical differences between the two approaches to micro-forests? How do we define a tiny forest?
Miyawaki Forests vs. Food Forests
From my research, I gleaned a few key differences between Miyawaki forests and food forests:
Different approaches to design and installation: Miyawaki forest design focuses on very tight and numerous plantings (the exact technique formulated by Japanese botanist Akira Miyawaki), while food forest design is guided by layered plantings and plant “guilds” (as well as the tenets and design principles of permaculture).
Different focuses on edibility: Miyawaki forests do not focus on edible species (although some species planted may be edible), while food forest design centers majorly on edible perennials. (Food is in the title, after all!)
Different intentions regarding public access and use: Miyawaki forests are designed to truly be miniature wild forests (with major ecological benefits), while food forests are designed like public parks or community gardens, intended for public use and enjoyment (with major social and ecological benefits).
And the similarities, I learned, were numerous too. Both methods focus on native species when possible, analyze the whole system (from soil to canopy), can be suited to small urban areas, and are more or less self-sufficient after the first five or so years. And both are, well, tiny.
Perhaps the largest similarity between Miyawaki forests and food forests, however, are the climate benefits. The NYT article names many of the same climate benefits from Miyawaki forests as BFFC does when discussing food forests — like absorbing and storing carbon dioxide, providing wildlife habitat, storing groundwater, and mitigating the urban heat island effect.
“Perhaps more important for urban areas, tiny forests can help lower temperatures in places where pavement, buildings and concrete surfaces absorb and retain heat from the sun.”
Amidst such a sweltering summer, it’s amazing to read about heat-mitigating green infrastructure in the media. I found myself nodding along as I read the report… until I reached one critical point.
A Missed Opportunity
The author of the article cites the Miyawaki forest in Danehy Park, Cambridge, as "one of the first of its kind in the Northeast." While Miyawaki forests and food forests are technically different, as we learned above, the two methods also share a lot in common and can both be categorized under the umbrella of “tiny forests.” Knowing this, the author’s claim about the Miyawaki forest in Danehy Park gave me pause.
Perhaps this is one of the first Miyawaki forests in the Northeast, but small forest parks have been being built in Boston (and elsewhere in the Northeast) for decades now, often by Black and Brown residents who are working to build greater green space equity and climate resilience in their neighborhoods.
While it's worth celebrating all types of green space initiatives, I see this article as a missed opportunity to uplift existing efforts that have similar intentions, methods, and benefits as the Miyawaki forests in the Northeast and nationally.
What do you think? Did the NYT miss an opportunity to uplift other tiny forest efforts, or are the differences between the Miyawaki forests and food forests large enough to justify their omission? We’d love to hear your thoughts. As a part of BFFC, we’re learning alongside you, and your responses help our network grow.
However we interpret this coverage, it’s exciting to see tiny forests of any kind featured in a mainstream media outlet like NYT. The work we’re doing collectively is truly part of a larger movement. It is important and timely… no matter how tiny the forests.
Aerial shot of the newly-planted Edgewater Food Forest in Mattapan, 2023. Credit: Boston Food Forest Coalition
A Miyawaki Forest in Danehy Park, near Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. Credit: Cassandra Klos for The New York Times
