Carrots for sticks? The role of incentives for tree retention during housing intensification
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19218921 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David Pedley (0000-0002-6980-8943, University of Canterbury), Mirjam Schindler (0000-0001-6279-4510, Victoria University of Wellington), Justin Morgenroth (0000-0002-2747-7349, University of Canterbury) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 175 |
| Pages | 107208-107208 |
| Publication date | 2025-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cities (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0264-2751 • E-ISSN: 1873-6084 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cities.2026.107208 |
| OpenAlex | W4414955402 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 36 |
Housing intensification within growing cities presents a critical tension – balancing compact urban development with the preservation of tree canopy cover. As cities intensify, the loss of trees due to private land development has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges in urban forest governance. This challenge must be addressed to retain the environmental and social benefits that urban trees provide. Although tree protection rules and regulation are common, one underutilised tool is voluntary incentives to encourage the retention of existing trees. This research investigates the potential role of incentives to support tree retention during housing intensification projects in Aotearoa New Zealand. Using online surveys and interviews, this study elicited and compared the perspectives of property developers and local government about the benefits, barriers, and viability of incentive schemes. Most respondents expressed a general openness to incentives and a desire for more constructive working relationships. However, the key challenge emerging from stakeholder responses is the conflict between the financial objectives of property developers and the pressure on local government to operate within budgetary constraints. Effective incentives must provide clear and meaningful benefits for developers, whilst also being practical and affordable for local government. Cost-neutral incentives hold the most promise, such as reduced interest rates from lenders for developers that retain existing trees. Although incentives are unlikely to be a complete solution, these findings provide guidance for policy makers considering the use of incentives as an additional tool for managing urban trees on private land
Flexibility (engineering) · Government (linguistics) · Incentive · Incentive program · Local government · Private sector · Stakeholder · Sustainability · Urban Design and Spatial Analysis · Urban Planning and Landscape Design · Urbanization and City Planning
Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification
Zoning Incentives
Private tree removal, public loss
Relationship Between Urban Tree Diversity and Human Well-being
Green vs growth
Denser and greener cities
Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis
Preserving Tomorrow's Urban Trees with Financial Incentives
Is There Space for Better Planning in a Neoliberal World? Implications for Planning Practice and Theory
Green infrastructure and public policies
Municipal response to state legislation limiting local oversight of private urban tree removal in Florida
Narratives on cutting down trees on private land. A comparison of urban and rural municipalities in Poland using the Q-deliberation method
Urban density and the urban forest
Working proactively with developers to preserve urban trees
Identifying suitable policy instruments to promote nature-based solutions in urban plans
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice
Obstacles to developing sustainable cities
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |