A city-wide average can hide what is happening closer to home. Greater Sydney’s official 2019–2022 comparison records a small overall increase in tree canopy, alongside sizeable declines in some council areas and suburbs.

Those local figures deserve attention, but they need careful reading. They describe measured canopy cover, not a count of trees cut down. The government warns that some differences may reflect changed survey methods rather than real changes on the ground.

Compare the same land

We analysed the NSW Government workbook’s Metropolitan Urban Area (MUA) sheets for both years. These compare consistent mapped boundaries. They do not cover every part of each council or suburb, and should not be mixed with the workbook’s separate 2019 whole-area figures.

Adding the 33 council-area rows gives 42,504.6 hectares of canopy in 2019 and 43,913.9 hectares in 2022, across the same 202,359.8-hectare study area. That is a measured gain of 1,409.3 hectares: approximately 21.0% to 21.7% cover, or 0.7 percentage points.

This is a historical comparison. NSW Planning has since released 2024–25 data; the rankings below concern the earlier workbook, not the latest period.

Where the largest measured declines appear

Fifteen of the 33 council-area rows show less canopy in 2022. Ranked by hectares lost within their mapped urban portions, the five largest declines are:

  • Sutherland Shire: 969.1 hectares.
  • Northern Beaches: 665.7 hectares.
  • Ku-ring-gai: 610.2 hectares.
  • Wollondilly: 457.3 hectares.
  • Ryde: 88.8 hectares.

Comparing the 619 matching suburb rows separately, the largest measured losses are:

  • Wilton: 310.0 hectares.
  • Gilead: 272.0 hectares.
  • Kurnell: 228.6 hectares.
  • St Ives: 152.4 hectares.
  • Engadine: 129.4 hectares.

These are rankings by area, not percentage decline. A large percentage change in a tiny mapped area can represent very little canopy. Nor should the council and suburb losses be added together: they are two views of overlapping geography.

The workbook’s suburb totals also do not exactly reconcile with its council totals. We use the council sheets for the overall result and the suburb sheets only for the suburb ranking.

The uncertainty belongs beside the numbers

The official methodology report says acquisition and processing differed between surveys. Some apparent changes may therefore be methodological, especially where only a small share of a council falls within the MUA. For example, the workbook puts Wollondilly’s covered share at about 3%.

The report also describes cloud-related limitations and gaps in the imagery. These are reasons to investigate local patterns carefully. The spreadsheet alone cannot establish how many trees were removed, what caused each decline, or how much of it reflects measurement differences.

Wildlife needs more than a percentage

Trees provide food, shelter and places to nest and roost. NSW Local Land Services explains that mature trees can offer abundant foliage, flowers, fruit and structurally complex habitat. A single canopy percentage does not tell us which of those resources remain.

Hollows add another dimension. NSW’s environment agency describes how they protect animals from predators and temperature changes, with different species needing different shapes and sizes. Suitable hollows can take a century or more to develop. A newly planted tree is valuable for the future, but cannot immediately replace an old tree’s hollow.

Shade also matters during hot weather. Losing a sheltered feeding or resting place can matter locally even when canopy elsewhere expands. The workbook doesn’t measure those wildlife outcomes, so its hectare figures can’t tell us how many animals were displaced or lost.

For a local tree plan, useful questions include which mature habitat trees can be retained, where future canopy is needed, and how planting will support local wildlife as it grows. Both existing habitat and replacement planting need attention.

The bottom line

The 2019–2022 data shows an overall measured gain with substantial local declines. Read the boundaries and method caveats alongside the rankings. For wildlife, retaining useful shelter, food trees and old hollows matters as well as increasing canopy area.