2025/07/01 by David Pedley, Justin Morgenroth · 1 voice
Environmental Science · #Urban Green Space and Health #Land Use and Ecosystem Services #Urban Heat Island Mitigation
paper · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2025.106678
openalex publication_date 2025/07/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
• Redevelopment of residential properties is a significant contributor to urban tree canopy loss. • Housing intensification has a higher impact on tree canopy loss than rebuilds. • Infill has lower loss than other intensification forms, but provides less housing benefit. • The majority of city-wide tree canopy loss occurs on properties that are not redeveloped. • These findings have important implications for guiding policy on housing intensification. Many cities have simultaneous goals to increase the provision of housing through intensification, whilst also increasing urban tree canopy. These dual objectives create an inherent potential for conflict. Although intensification of residential land can create more compact cities, it may also result in the loss of existing trees, undermining their critical role in creating healthy and liveable environments. Several studies have demonstrated the negative effect of development on urban trees. However, there are few studies that focus directly on housing intensification and its potential impact on urban tree canopy over time. This study fills this gap by evaluating the relationship between tree canopy loss and residential housing intensification in Christchurch, New Zealand between 2016 and 2021. Tree canopy loss was compared to building consent records and aerial imagery for 3380 verified properties. Half of these properties were redeveloped for either housing intensification (increase in residential units) or rebuilds (no increase in residential units), with the other half being unmodified. On a relative basis, redeveloped properties (intensification and rebuilds) had significantly higher tree canopy loss than unmodified properties. However, when considering the absolute tree canopy loss across all 72,671 treed residential properties within the study area, 87 % of the total loss occurred on unmodified properties. Infill development (with no demolition of existing houses) had significantly less tree canopy loss than other forms of intensification but also provided less housing benefit. These findings have important implications for policy makers attempting to balance ongoing housing intensification with the retention of urban trees.