To plant, remove, or retain: Understanding property owner decisions about trees during redevelopment

Abstract

As a global phenomenon, redevelopment in cities influences urban forest dynamics. This study explores the relationship between resident attitudes and tree removal, retention, and planting on redeveloped versus non-redeveloped private properties in Christchurch, New Zealand. Residents were surveyed via questionnaire between October 2016 and January 2017. The results indicate that residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to engage in tree removal and planting, while residents from non-redeveloped properties were more likely to retain existing trees. Principle component analysis identified reasons for tree removal, retention, and planting. The main reasons for tree removal were related to tree conflict with redevelopment, poor tree health, and residents’ concerns about ecosystem disservices (e.g. shade, litter). Residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to remove trees to achieve development outcomes, while residents from non-redeveloped properties were more likely to remove trees because they perceived the tree to be in poor health. Ecosystem services were commonly identified by respondents as reasons for tree retention and tree planting. While numerous ecosystem services (e.g. habitat provision, air quality improvement, provision of privacy) were identified by both groups of respondents, residents on redeveloped properties were more likely to plant trees due to their potential to improve property aesthetics. Finally, residents suggested that the reasons for retaining trees on their properties were related to the high cost of removal and the existence of government regulation for tree protection. These findings support the use of legislation, bylaws, and financial disincentives to limit tree removal during property redevelopment.