Urban tree cover targets: The good, the bad and the SMART

Justin MORGENROTH, Kieron DOICK, Richard HAUER, Dexter H. LOCKE, Camilo Ordóñez BARONA, Lara A. ROMAN, Tenley M. CONWAY, Cynnamon DOBBS, Peter DUINKER, Natalie M. GULSRUD, Chi Yung JIM, Andrew K. KOESER, Shawn LANDRY, Stephen LIVESLEY, Lorien NESBITT, Charlie M. SHACKLETON, P. Y. TAN, Jun YANG

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlespeer-review

Abstract

Urban tree cover (UTC) is a commonly used metric in policy and management activities, including urban forest resources assessment, equity and distribution, and ecosystem services modelling. Despite the well-established benefits associated with urban tree canopy, declining tree cover has catalysed many cities into setting UTC targets. In this short communication, we used an assessment of UTC targets set by 57 cities worldwide to discuss the merits and drawbacks of setting UTC targets and to inform recommendations for setting effective UTC targets. We found that UTC targets range in ambition, varying between 4 % and 50 %. To meet these targets, cities would have to increase their current UTC by between 0.47 and 23.3 percentage points within stated timelines of between 3 and 51 years. We found that cities with lower current UTC set ambitious targets, requiring relatively large annual increases in canopy cover. Moreover, cities in xeric or dry biomes set lower targets (< 20 %) than cities in temperate or tropical biomes (> 25 %). We found that setting UTC targets can provide a range of benefits, but achieving a UTC target at the expense of other indicators of urban forest structure and quality poses risks. We reflect on pathways to set specific, measurable, achievable, resourced, and time-bound UTC targets, while acknowledging the associated issues. This exploration of UTC targets will help ensure that UTC remains a useful metric for urban forest management and planning. Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Original languageEnglish
Article number128979
JournalUrban Forestry and Urban Greening
Volume112
Early online dateJul 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2025

Citation

Morgenroth, J., Doick, K., Hauer, R., Locke, D. H., Barona, C. O., Roman, L. A., Conway, T. M., Dobbs, C., Duinker, P., Gulsrud, N. M., Jim, C. Y., Koeser, A. K., Landry, S., Livesley, S., Nesbitt, L., Shackleton, C. M., Tan, P. Y., & Yang, J. (2025). Urban tree cover targets: The good, the bad and the SMART. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 112, Article 128979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128979

Keywords

  • Green infrastructure
  • Greenspace
  • Nature-based solutions
  • Urban forest
  • Urban planning
  • Urban sustainability

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Urban tree cover targets: The good, the bad and the SMART'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.