Urban trees aren’t just nice, scientists say — they’re mandatory

A group of scientists is arguing that city trees and greenery should be treated as required infrastructure, not a nice-to-have. Writing in the journal PLOS Climate, the researchers say urban trees cool neighborhoods by providing shade and releasing water vapor, help soak up stormwater to reduce flooding, clean the air, support mental health, and provide habitat for birds and other animals. Their essay lays out a four-part plan for cities: dedicate real budget to planting and maintaining trees (not just relying on one-time donations), make sure greenery is spread equitably across rich and poor neighborhoods alike, involve residents in decisions about what gets planted, and use science to choose tree species that can survive rising temperatures over the next few decades.

The equity point matters for anyone living in a neighborhood with fewer trees. Researchers note that wealthier areas tend to have more shade and lower temperatures, while neighborhoods with less tree cover — often lower-income areas — face worse urban heat, especially for residents without air conditioning. The essay also points to a recent finding that every dollar cities spend on parks and recreation returns about three dollars in local economic benefit, through increased exercise, foot traffic, and nearby spending.

This is a call for city governments and legislatures to change how they plan and fund urban forestry, not a program homeowners can sign up for. But it may be worth paying attention to whether your own city or town budgets for tree planting and maintenance, and whether that effort reaches your neighborhood specifically.