• Urban tree planting has potential but often fails due to a lack of community engagement, limited stewardship, and overemphasis on planting numbers rather than long-term survival and equity.
• Engaging residents with interactive simulations and small incentives helps overcome present bias and the availability heuristic, increasing community buy-in and participation in the long-term stewardship of urban trees.
• Embedding co-creation and resident participation ensures urban tree-planting initiatives address equity, build community ownership, and increase long-term care, survival, and support for neighborhood-specific environmental needs.
• Linking funding and recognition to tree survival rates encourages accountability, promotes longitudinal monitoring, and, when combined with community engagement, ensures long-term success and sustainable urban forestry outcomes.

Over the past few years, urban tree planting has been increasingly recognized as a vital strategy to improve the health, sustainability, and livability of cities. In part, this was escalated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which left many people feeling stuck in concrete jungles and sparked a renewed desire to reconnect with nature and each other. Urban tree planting is also seen as a way to combat some of the environmental challenges our planet is facing, helping to reduce temperatures, prevent floods, and reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the air. 

Recognizing the benefits of urban tree planting, many governments and corporations have dedicated funding to support projects aimed at greening urban spaces and set out ambitious goals to increase canopy coverage over the next decade. However, throwing money at the problem does not always guarantee success, and too often, focus is placed on planting large numbers of trees as a visible indicator of commitment without consideration of who will care for and nurture the planted saplings to ensure their survival. Urban tree-planting initiatives often fail due to limited community engagement and stewardship, leading to projects that do not align with neighborhood-specific needs and fail to motivate individuals to participate. 

Traditional solutions—such as offering free trees, holding public workshops, or setting headline-grabbing planting targets—have delivered some success, but they often neglect the behavioral factors that influence resident engagement, long-term tree survival, and equitable distribution of benefits.

Most public officials and city leaders recognize the benefits of tree planting. In July 2025, the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, announced an investment of over $16 million to help grow greener communities.1 In England, the Chancellor announced in June 2025 that £816 million would be invested in tree planting over the next four years.2 Despite these significant investments, urban tree-planting initiatives will not succeed unless people begin to understand their value and buy into the initiatives.

One of the reasons that people undervalue the benefits of urban tree planting is that they are a long-term investment that often do not produce immediate tangible results. Other urban development projects, such as projects focused on housing and transportation, deliver faster and more visible results. If we invested in more affordable low-income housing, it may only take a few years until an apartment complex is move-in ready. 

Alternatively, trees are slow-growing infrastructure. After they are planted, it can take years for benefits such as shade, improved air quality, or energy savings to come to fruition. People tend to perceive it as an “either or” scenario, with tree planting as a threat to neighborhood development, and due to a desire for immediate gratification, they pick the option that will allow them to experience the benefits sooner. Due to present bias, people tend to give stronger weight to benefits that will be realized closer to the present time when considering trade-offs. 

A study about individuals’ views of urban trees in England, Scotland, and Wales showed that people tend to recognize visible benefits, such as shade or aesthetics, but overlook hidden ones, like pollution mitigation or stormwater control.3 As a result, the public treats urban tree-planting projects as a “nice to have” rather than essential public infrastructure. One of the reasons we tend to weigh visible benefits higher than invisible benefits when making decisions about the value of projects is because of the availability heuristic. This heuristic describes our tendency to use information that comes to mind quickly when making decisions about the future. Since it’s more difficult to see the long-lasting benefits of trees, and therefore more difficult to recall them, people may not be motivated to engage with urban tree-planting initiatives.

Additionally, for some tree-planting initiatives, residents are asked to install green infrastructure on their properties, demonstrating the clear need for citizen buy-in. Municipalities may provide trees and shrubs to be planted for free on their property, or even offer a small incentive, but concerns about the long-term maintenance costs, or potential damage to their house or surrounding neighborhoods, may still dissuade them from participating in the initiatives. In part, this is due to loss aversion, where people are more sensitive to potential losses than equivalent gains, leading them to make decisions that minimize the risk of potential future challenges.

Urban tree-planting initiatives need support beyond government, municipalities, and environmental organizations—they need residents’ advocacy as well. Having communities value these projects can increase participation and willingness to engage in the long-term stewardship of green spaces, which are both vital for project success. Visual and experiential tools that demonstrate the short and long-term impacts of urban greening can help counteract present bias and the availability heuristic by making the delayed benefits of tree planting concrete and salient to residents. 

Since the benefits of tree-planting initiatives are abstract, campaigns must be created that clearly demonstrate how vital trees are for the health and happiness of residents. Interactive simulations that show what a neighborhood might look like as trees mature can make invisible benefits more cognitively available, helping to counteract the availability heuristic. The aesthetic representation could be combined with fast facts about the invisible benefits, such as the fact that a single tree can capture 20 kilograms of carbon, helping to reduce CO2 emissions, or lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground annually, lowering flood risk.4,5 The simulations could also show people the alternative: desolate, grey streets, full of pollution and rising water levels, to make the impact of trees clear. These initiatives can change the perception that urban trees are a “nice to have,” establishing them as essential infrastructure.

As these simulations can be costly, another way to show residents the benefit of trees is to invite them to explore the success of previous urban tree-planting initiatives. London is known as one of “the world’s largest urban forest,” home to over 8 million trees.6 In 2017, a website and mobile app, TreeTalk, was developed to connect urban residents with their local environments. TreeTalk maps and details 700,000 city trees, and allows residents to create personalized walking routes to connect them with nature. The platform informs users about the type of trees, where they were planted, and “eco facts.” 

Residents may also feel a sense of pride imagining that a tree they helped to plant, or that appears in their neighborhood, would one day become a part of this interactive map. TreeTalk is an excellent example of how to emotionally engage residents, create a personal connection to local green spaces, and make it easier for municipalities to garner support.

However, helping communities imagine the future benefits of tree planting may not be enough to gain their support. Since most benefits will only be felt in the future, “future-street” simulations can be combined with small, one-time incentives to gain initial buy-in. Small, immediate incentives can galvanize individuals to participate in tree-planting initiatives. A 2018 choice-experiment study of a Fort Lauderdale tree-distribution program found that offering a small monetary rebate (about US$8–$12) increased residents’ willingness to participate.7 Even modest incentives can overcome the psychological barrier of delayed gratification, creating a tangible reason to engage immediately while the simulations communicate long-term value.

Offering an immediate reward, as well as engaging the community to “see” the tangible benefits of urban tree planting through interactive simulation, both literally and figuratively, makes the benefits of tree planting feel real today, rather than only decades in the future.

Often, urban forest management plans focus on educating residents about the benefits of trees, including their ecological and economic benefits, as a means to increase participation in tree-planting initiatives. However, most plans do not consider the perspectives and experiences of the communities to determine where and what to plant, which means the plans often do not respond to the unique needs of each neighborhood. 

Urban tree-planting initiatives need to move beyond planting the right tree in the right place. They must consider the cultural, social, and economic contexts of neighborhoods, or otherwise risk contributing to gentrification and displacement. Increased canopy can bolster the value of a neighborhood, which may cause wealthier people to move in but displace current inhabitants, known as “green gentrification.” These risks are amplified when local communities are excluded from decision-making. 

A study exploring barriers to resident participation in tree-planting initiatives in the U.S. found that, due to the underrepresentation of Black, Hispanic, and/or Latinx perspectives in tree-planting decision-making, residents in Philadelphia did not feel compelled to support urban tree-planting initiatives. In Detroit, residents declined to have trees planted on their properties because they felt that their perspectives and values were not taken into account.8 

When residents are pushed out of the process, urban tree-planting initiatives can feel like an exercise of power being wielded over them, which can reinforce the oppression and marginalization of minority groups. Many minority groups already lack trust in government agencies, which often fund urban tree-planting projects, due to historically oppressive systems of inequity and exclusion. Without meaningful engagement, tree-planting initiatives can be perceived as an intrusion into residents’ neighborhoods rather than a community-driven effort, undermining trust and support for urban greening.

Not only can tree-planting initiatives exacerbate existing inequalities, but when communities feel disconnected from the projects, they are less willing to take an active role in the planting or maintenance of trees. Already, as a public good, these projects suffer from two related problems.

The first is the diffusion of responsibility, where people assume that others will take care of the trees and therefore do not act themselves. The second is the free-rider problem, where burden is placed on a shared resource as the collective benefits from it—cooler temperatures, improved air quality, and reprieve from shade—but do not contribute their time, effort, or resources to ensure those benefits endure. These two issues are amplified by a lack of community involvement in the planning and stewardship of urban tree-planting initiatives, further eroding a sense of ownership.

Urban tree-planting programs must actively engage residents in the co-creation and decision-making process to increase both equity and long-term success. To be successful, tree planting must be treated as an environmental equity justice project, considering the unique needs and perspectives of residents. This can help to shift the perception of tree planting from a threat to their well-being and livelihood to an initiative that will enhance their neighborhood. 

In October 2022, Detroit Tree Equity Partnership was launched to plant over 75,000 trees over five years in Detroit’s underserved neighborhoods, as a response to the fact that racialized and low-income neighborhoods have fewer trees. The partnership between the City of Detroit, DTE Energy, and Greening of Detroit brought together the public, corporate, and non-profit sectors to understand the specific needs of communities and co-develop solutions. Moreover, this also helped to create jobs in the city, with local residents being hired to plant, water, and care for the trees. This ensured the benefits of urban forestry extended beyond environmental gains to economic gains for low-income communities, helping to address systemic inequalities.9

The Greening the Gateways Cities Program in Massachusetts specifically targets environmental justice neighborhoods so that tree-planting initiatives will benefit those most in need. A neighborhood is considered an environmental justice population if one of the following three conditions is met:

• The annual median household income is equal to or less than 65% of the statewide median
• 25% or more of the residents identify as a race other than white
• 25% or more of households have no one over the age of 14 who speaks English well10

Designing programs that specifically target marginalized communities demonstrates that urban tree-planting initiatives are rooted in equity, and the needs of individuals are being considered for resource allocation. 

At a minimum, residents should be invited to participate in the tree planting to increase their engagement. A 1994 study in California explored the impact of having residents participate in tree planting on the longevity of trees. They compared the involvement of two neighborhoods in a project with Tree Fresno, a volunteer-based community tree advocacy organization. In one neighborhood, residents paid $40 for a tree and, in some cases, helped to plant it alongside Tree Fresno, and in another neighborhood, Tree Fresno supplied the trees at no cost and completed the planting themselves. They found that individuals who had participated in the tree planting were more satisfied with the impact of the tree, and gave higher ratings for the friendliness, attractiveness, and privacy of their neighborhood than those who did not help to plant the trees.11 

TD’s annual Tree Days initiative is another great example of how to involve the community in planting. While the TD Friends of the Environment Foundation provides the grants that support tree planting, they work with local municipalities, conservation authorities, and Indigenous communities to bring the planting events to life. TD taps into the rich environmental knowledge of these organizations to ensure that the tree-planting projects meet the diverse and unique needs of each community. Additionally, tree-planting events are open to the public, with around 100 events occurring across Canada each year, allowing the community to get involved. 

Community-driven tree-planting initiatives also tap into psychological ownership: people are more motivated to care for what they helped to create or shape. In Germany, Green City has helped to develop this sense of ownership in residents by asking them to sign a sponsorship agreement to maintain the tree area regularly by watering, weeding, and removing garbage.12 Once people make a commitment, especially if it is public, they are psychologically motivated to act in ways that are consistent with that commitment. Commitment and consistency comprise one of the six principles of influence outlined by American social psychologist Robert Cialdini that describe how we strive to ensure our behavior matches past decisions to support our sense of identity.13 

By embedding co-creation and meaningful participation into urban forestry, tree planting becomes more than an environmental project—it transforms into a community empowerment initiative. When residents feel their voices shape the outcome, they are not only more willing to plant and care for trees but also more likely to see them as vital assets rather than imposed interventions.

Urban tree planting has become a powerful tool for cities and governments looking to demonstrate environmental leadership. However, too often, projects focus on the spectacle of planting and setting record-breaking goals, while overlooking the nurturing that ensures trees survive and thrive. As tree-planting initiatives have become politically popular, projects tend to focus on record-setting goals, prioritizing visibility over effectiveness. Too many initiatives are performative, with authorities designing projects to signal commitment without delivering substantive outcomes.14 

Often, tree-planting initiatives garner headline attention, but when environmentalists take a closer look at these efforts, many have not followed through on their objectives. For example, in 2019, the Canadian government announced its goal to plant two billion trees by 2030. However, when Canada’s Environment Commissioner Jerry Demarco audited the progress made, his projections suggested that only 16.5 million trees would make it into the soil by 2030.15 

Even when trees are actually planted in the ground, many projects fail due to a lack of ongoing nurturing and care for the saplings planted. An example comes from Turkey in 2019, when the government set a Guinness World Record for planting 300,000 trees in the central province of Çorum in just one hour. The ambitious planting initiative generated headlines, excitement, and publicity; however, after just two months, 90% of the plantings had died. This case illustrates a broader problem: urban tree planting is often treated as a one-time act rather than a long-term investment, and little thought or funding is placed towards the ongoing watering, pruning, and care of trees.16 

A growing number of environmentalists challenge these types of tree-planting initiatives that focus on large-scale planting, which they claim can actually damage natural ecosystems. The number of trees planted should not be the focus of projects: it must be the right trees, in the right place, with sustained stewardship, if we actually want to benefit from urban tree planting.14 

Maintaining urban green spaces is just as crucial as their initial development, and often costs less; while it costs around $300 to $500 to plant a tree, it only costs $10 to $25 for annual maintenance of urban trees.17 Despite this, stories like the case in Çorum are common for urban tree-planting initiatives. Governments and municipalities put most of their budget and focus on planting, without understanding that for their initiatives to truly succeed, efforts need to be placed on the long-term sustainability of trees planted. In the UK, a study on the public perceptions of urban trees found that 67% of residents surveyed believed that the central government should provide funding to local authorities and government agencies to maintain urban trees.3

To overcome this challenge, governments and municipalities must understand tree planting as a process that continues beyond the initial planting ceremony. Success should be measured not by how many saplings go into the ground, but by how many trees survive to maturity and deliver lasting benefits. This requires shifting resources toward long-term care and embedding accountability mechanisms so that the community ensures the survival of planted trees.

Planting goals can be great, but this input metric does little to ensure the long-term survival of trees. Politicians and corporations often benefit from big announcements, but are not held accountable if the trees don’t survive. Instead of providing grants or carbon credits based on the number of trees planted, central governments could make them contingent on survival rates, which would also force organizations to conduct longitudinal monitoring reports. Similar to individuals, large organizations and municipalities have a desire to be perceived as consistent to gain the trust of residents, and these reports can help hold them accountable. 

In 2014, the Greening the Gateway Cities Program was launched in Massachusetts. However, survival monitoring revealed that only 71% of trees had survived five years later. This led to the program putting more emphasis on stewardship and maintenance of trees, and offering grants to municipalities and non-profit organizations not only for tree planting, but also for their maintenance, with a focus on measurable impact.18 

Beyond shifting focus towards the monitoring and maintenance of saplings, programs must consider how to engage the community. Governments may not have the capacity or resources to maintain every tree planted. Although the cost of maintaining a tree is lower than that of its initial planting, when goals are set to plant millions or billions of trees, the costs add up. The recurring costs can’t be sustained by governments alone—community partnerships are vital for the long-term success of urban tree-planting initiatives.

Adopt-a-Tree Programs are a great way to ensure the long-term survival of urban trees by engaging individuals to feel responsible for nurturing their local trees. In 2016, a Toronto resident realized that city staff were stretched too thin to maintain sufficient watering for planted trees, especially in its first few years—a new sapling requires five gallons of water every week during its growing season. She developed a program for a local park, Trinity Bellwoods, where residents could “adopt-a-tree,” committing to watering the tree in the summertime, weeding the tree’s base, and helping the city staff with spring and fall mulching. This led to the development of other tree adoption programs in the city, as it helped to improve survival rates for young saplings.

Greentalk in the UK was also established to engage local residents in helping to take care of their trees in their neighborhoods. Their campaign outlines that 30% of trees planted die within the first years of planting, but when the community gets involved, this failure rate drops to only 5%. 

Taken together, these examples illustrate that the success of urban tree planting depends on a holistic approach that goes beyond simply planting large numbers of trees. By tying funding and recognition to survival rates, we can foster a sense of accountability and ensure long-term impact. Complementing this with community engagement, we can increase the likelihood that trees will be nurtured to maturity.

While these strategies can help improve urban tree-planting initiatives, some experts argue that tree planting may not be the right action to prioritize. There are many challenges associated with planting trees in dense cities, with there being poor soil quality, poor drainage systems, and little room for roots to grow as they compete with underground infrastructure like pipes and cables. Even the best-designed urban tree-planting initiatives may fail. 

Many scientists and environmental experts also suggest that protecting and preserving grasslands may have a deeper environmental impact. Grasslands can survive in harsher conditions, yet they are one of the least protected biomes. They can also store carbon underground, making them less vulnerable to fires than trees.14 While planting trees is an important aspect of fighting climate change and greening programs, it will not solve the broader environmental or social challenges alone.

Urban tree planting is a powerful method through which to improve the health and happiness of city inhabitants, and while more funding has been allocated to these efforts in recent years, for us to truly experience the benefits of trees, we must ensure that people feel compelled and motivated to participate in their design, planting, and maintenance. 

By incorporating behavioral science into urban tree-planting initiatives, governments can motivate participation, foster stewardship, and enhance equity to design projects that deliver measurable long-term benefits. Collaboration between governments, municipalities, community organizations, and residents is key to securing the success of urban tree planting, to shift the focus beyond flashy headlines and promises to the long-term survival of saplings. This will help ensure that the trees we plant today contribute to the planet for years to come. 

At The Decision Lab, we specialize in bridging the gap between climate worry and climate action, with a team of experts on climate and sustainability. Through a people-centered approach to the design and implementation of solutions, we focus on tangible, measurable results. Together, we can ensure that urban tree-planting initiatives are more than symbolic acts—they become lasting sources of environmental, social, and economic value.

Driving Urban Forestry Innovation

Urban greening initiatives go beyond tree planting—there are opportunities to embed urban forestry into all sectors to make decisions about housing, transport, and health that ensure the sustainability of our planet. In this article, we explore how green design can be established as a social norm to ensure it is considered at the start of any city project through behavioral nudges and framing. 

Tackling Climate Change: Using VR to Influence Behavior

Virtual reality (VR) has garnered a lot of attention in recent years and is beginning to be seen as a tool for behavior change. Although the consequences of climate change and global warming are devastating, many people do not have a concrete understanding of what it is or how it will impact their lives. In this article, we explore how VR can help bring these consequences to life and motivate individuals to act on climate issues. 

1. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2025, July 15). Government of Canada and FCM invest $169 million to grow greener communities and enhance wellbeing through tree planting projects. https://fcm.ca/en/news-media/news-release/government-canada-fcm-invest-169-million-grow-greener-communities-enhance-wellbeing-tree-planting-projects
2. Chapman, R. (2025, June 27). A year of growth: Tree planting rates hit their highest level in over 20 years. Forestry Commission. https://forestrycommission.blog.gov.uk/2025/06/27/a-year-of-growth-tree-planting-rates-hit-their-highest-level-in-over-20-years/
3. Ambrose-Oji, B. (2021). Public perceptions of urban trees: Results of focus group discussions in England, Scotland and Wales. Forest Research. https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/public-perceptions-of-urban-trees/
4. DGB Group. (2021, July 31). What is the impact of having one tree planted? Green Earth. https://www.green.earth/blog/what-is-the-impact-of-having-one-tree-planted
5. Tree Canada. (n.d.). The benefits of trees. Tree Canada. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://treecanada.ca/resources/benefits-of-trees/
6. Greater London Authority. (2025, May). London tree map. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/trees-and-woodlands/london-tree-map
7. Dawes, L. C., Adams, A. E., Escobedo, F. J., et al. (2018). Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs. Urban Ecosystems, 21(3), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0760-z
8. Myers, G., Mullenbach, L. E., Jolley, J. A., Cutts, B. B., & Larson, L. R. (2023). Advancing social equity in urban tree planting: Lessons learned from an integrative review of the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 89, 128116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128116
9. Mitchell, K. (2024, October 29). Blight to beauty: Detroit Tree Equity Partnership plants 25,000 trees in 2 years. Empowering Michigan. https://empoweringmichigan.com/blight-to-beauty-detroit-tree-equity-partnership-plants-25000-trees-in-2-years/
10. Gritman, K. (2021, April 25). What you need to know about Pittsfield’s Greening the Gateway Cities Program. Downtown Pittsfield, Inc. https://downtownpittsfield.com/2021/04/what-you-need-to-know-about-pittsfields-greening-the-gateway-cities-program/
11. Sommer, R., Learey, F., Summit, J., & Tirrell, M. (1994). The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 20(3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1994.032
12. Egerer, M., Schmack, J. M., Vega, K., Ordóñez Barona, C., & Raum, S. (2024). The challenges of urban street trees and how to overcome them. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 6, 1394056. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2024.1394056
13. Fessenden, T. (2018, March 4). The principle of commitment and behavioral consistency. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/commitment-consistency-ux
14. Welz, A. (2021, April 8). Are huge tree planting projects more hype than solution? Yale Environment 360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/are-huge-tree-planting-projects-more-hype-than-solution
15. Dzsurdzsa, C. (2023, April 20). Failure: Trudeau’s tree-planting promise. True North. Retrieved from https://tnc.news/2023/04/20/failure-trudeau-tree-planting/
16. Kent, S. (2020, January 30). Most of 11m trees planted in Turkish project 'may be dead'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/most-of-11m-trees-planted-in-turkish-project-may-be-dead
17. Hayes, C. (2024, May 16). The bright future of urban forestry. Forestry. https://forestry.com/guides/the-bright-future-of-urban-forestry
18. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (n.d.). Greening the Gateway Cities Program. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.mass.gov/info-details/greening-the-gateway-cities-program