Cultivating communities who care for urban trees

Renewing biodiversity through a people-in-nature approach Mission Report Cultivating communities who care for urban trees 2 Cultivating communities who care for urban trees Mission Report RENEW is a five-year partnership programme to develop solutions to one of the major environmental challenges for humankind: the renewal of biodiversity. We are in a biodiversity crisis. A million species of plants and animals are threatened with global extinction, and wildlife populations across much of the planet have been dramatically reduced. This is of profound concern because biodiversity underpins human existence. RENEW is working, with a sense of urgency, to reshape understanding and action on biodiversity renewal across scales, creating knowledge, and influencing national institutions, communities and individuals. Our focus is on a ‘people-in-nature’ approach, reflecting the two-way, dynamic relations between people and nature and the need to develop a relational approach to renew our life-support systems. Funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the programme is a collaboration between the University of Exeter and the National Trust, and has been co-designed and developed with over 30 partners from a diverse range of sectors. Acknowledgements We would like to extend our warm thanks to those who helped us to scope and develop this research project and who participated in our interviews and participatory workshop. Your time, expertise and insights have been invaluable. A further thanks to David Coughlin, Emma Zimmerman and Max Keith for their additional contributions. This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council funded Changing the Environment programme’s project ‘Renewing biodiversity through a people-in-nature approach (RENEW)’ (NE/W004941/1). List of participating organisations Fruit and Nut Village, Birmingham TreePeople, Street Trees for Living, More Trees BANES, The Orchard Project, Tiny Forests (EarthWatch UK), Urban Forest, NHS Forests, The Walking Forest, Eden Project Communities, Tree Musketeers, Harringay Borough Council, London Tree Officer Association, England’s Community Forests, Arboricultural Association, Trees for Cities, National Trust, Future Parks Accelerator, Urban Forest Accelerator, Nature Towns and Cities, Nature Neighbourhoods. Author: Clare Bissell Citation: Bissell, C., Twena, M., Bavin, D., Crowley, S., and Heard, M. (2025). Cultivating communities who care for urban trees. University of Exeter and the National Trust. RENEW, UK. Design and inforgraphics: Xanthia Hallissey. Cover image: ©National Trust Images/Trevor Ray Hart. CONTENTS 1/2 Mission overview What is an ExCASES mission? Mission context Mission parameters Report structure Methods Outputs Insights from place-based urban tree initiatives What is working well for place-based urban tree initiatives What are the challenges facing place-based projects? Lessons from collaborative work across scale and sector What networks and resources already exist that support collaborative cross-sector work? What are the challenges and barriers to collaborative cross-sectoral work? 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.2 5 5 5 7 7 8 9 10 10 24 30 30 36 33 CONTENTS 2/2 Recommendations: fertile ground for growing the urban forest Think like an urban forest Nuture effective reciprocal relationships across sectors Innovate to enable greater access to land Ensure holistic funding and financial agreements Proposal: the case for the Urban Forest Network (UFN) Why do we need an Urban Forest Network? What could the Urban Forest Network (UFN) look like? How do we start the UFN? References Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 7 44 39 40 41 42 42 43 43 44 45 46 48 49 52 55 58 62 1. Mission overview 1.1 What is an ExCASES mission? ExCASES is part of the RENEW project – a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded partnership between the University of Exeter and the National Trust that takes a ‘people-in-nature’ approach to the challenges of biodiversity renewal. The role of ExCASES is to undertake agile work (which we term ‘missions’) on pressing biodiversity renewal issues. ExCASES missions can consist of original research, participatory processes, and the synthesis of existing knowledge to create impactful outputs for real change. The ExCASES approach is based on collaboration across disciplines and sectors, co-design with stakeholders, and agile delivery. This report is one of the outputs from the ExCASES’s mission, ‘Cultivating communities who care for urban trees’. The design and delivery of this mission was led by Dr Clare Bissell (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, the National Trust), based within the ExCASES team on the RENEW project. It was accountable to the two Leads/Co-Investigators of the ExCASES team, Professor Matthew Heard (Head of Environmental Research and Data at the National Trust) and Dr Sarah Crowley (Senior Lecturer in Human and Animal Geography at the University of Exeter). The National Trust is a large landowning heritage and conservation NGO with increasing work in urban spaces through its internal ‘Urban Green Team’ and initiatives like Nature Towns and Cities. It is also an Independent Research Organisation with a wideranging portfolio of research projects which includes several UKRI-funded projects. One of these is RENEW, on which the National Trust partners with the University of Exeter. This research project was therefore reviewed by the Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, Cornwall Ethics Committee at the University of Exeter (reference number: 6199430). 1.2 Mission context Urban trees have long served an important role in communities through their beauty, seasonality, longevity, and cultural significance. They provide an array of ecological and social benefits, including better air quality, groundwater control, resources, and cooling shade (Benefits of Urban Trees, n.d.). Urban trees are vital for biodiversity provision in UK cities due to the diversity of animal, plant, and fungi species that rely on them for habitat, ecological connectivity, food, shelter, water, canopy cover, and other life-supporting roles (Endreny et al., 2017; van den Bosch & Sang, 2017). Research from the Biodiversity in Urban Gardens in Sheffield (BUGS) project found that tree presence and canopy cover above two metres were among the most influential factors in supporting urban wildlife. The Forestry Commission’s Urban Forestry and Woodland Advisory Committee Network (UFWACN) emphasises that urban trees (especially those outside woodlands) deliver immediate ecological benefits and should be managed with the same care as rural forests. Together, these studies underscore the importance of strategic urban tree planning and management to maximise biodiversity gains and ecosystem resilience. 5 Urban tree canopy cover in the UK averages 17.3% but varies widely across regions. Indeed, only a quarter of urban wards have a tree canopy cover that exceeds 20%, which is widely considered a minimum target for urban areas (Sales et al., 2023). Friends of the Earth has collated the top and bottom 20 local authorities for canopy cover in England. Boston in Lincolnshire has only 2.3% tree cover, which is the lowest percentage in the country for a predominantly urban local authority. Two of the most striking examples of low tree cover are Hartlepool in County Durham (5.7% tree cover) and Thanet in Kent (5.2% tree cover), as these areas also have high proportions of the nation’s most deprived neighbourhoods – at 38% and 20%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, Surrey Heath in Surrey has the highest tree cover at just over 36% and a corresponding 0% of neighbourhoods being amongst England’s most deprived. The Tree Equity Score UK (see Box 1) shows a detailed breakdown of tree canopy cover for each ‘urban lower area super output area’ (LSOA) and illustrates the strong correlation between low tree cover and high levels of deprivation across the country. Addressing disparities in urban tree canopy cover is essential to ensure equitable access to the environmental, health and social benefits that trees provide across UK communities. Furthermore, this represents a major opportunity for targeted tree cover expansion in line with a number of targets of the UK Government and devolved nations. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) aims to increase England’s canopy cover from 14.5% to 16.5% by 2050 through initiatives like the Trees Outside Woodland Fund (Tree Council). The Scottish Government aims to expand woodland cover to 21% by 2032 (NatureScot). Finally, the Welsh Assembly is taking a bespoke approach to target areas of low existing tree canopy cover (Natural Resources Wales). The planting, ongoing care, and protection of urban trees in the UK have typically been the responsibility of local authorities. One important way this happens is through the creation of urban tree strategies (Hand et al., 2022). Several studies advocate for the increased involvement of communities in these processes through ‘proper’ consultation (Papastavrou, 2019; Rotherham, 2023). Whilst local authorities usually hold the decision-making power, urban trees have often been supported by grassroots action, small community groups, and the voluntary work and participation of local communities who care about green spaces. There are examples of this in many towns and cities across the UK: urban food forests, community orchards, street tree wardens or guardians, and even coordinated ‘guerrilla planting’ and tree-protection activism. There is widespread research interest in urban trees, and many initiatives (both academic and practical) are seeking to address challenges in the maintenance and expansion of the urban tree canopy. Furthermore, an increasing number of projects take a landscape approach, spanning both rural and urban contexts, involving multiple local authorities and networks of NGOs. Two notable landscape projects that are creating nature recovery corridors, which are inclusive of urban spaces, are Weald to Waves and Tir Canol, both of which have been praised for their successful work with small place-based groups. The National Trust has recently launched their ‘green corridors’ initiatives, one of which connects Bath City with its surrounding areas through the Bathampton Meadows project. Across the UK, these corridors will connect different meadows, woodlands, riversides, canals and public parks, creating larger and connected green spaces that span the rural and urban. Importantly, these efforts also aim to remove barriers which prevent people in urban neighbourhoods from accessing expansive green spaces. Another tree canopy-specific landscape initiative is The Northern Forest, which is planting 50 million trees across the north of England from Liverpool to Hull, working with the regional community forests (Manchester City of Trees, Humber Forest, White Rose Forest, and the Mersey Forest) and The Woodland Trust. They have also been coordinating with other smaller organisations and relevant local authorities on planting programmes. 6 To sufficiently value, amplify, and consolidate local participation in the care of and decisions about urban trees, these larger landscape-scale initiatives need to connect and work effectively with the smalland medium-sized organisations who are already cultivating and caring for trees in urban spaces. Some larger-scale initiatives are doing this well already, and there are opportunities to learn lessons from these successes – along with the varied work of lesser-known community-based projects – to inform future landscape initiatives. Community-based urban tree projects are often working with very few resources and yet doing powerful, important work. These projects have valuable but sometimes overlooked insights about how to cultivate good relationships across scale and sector and ensure the meaningful participation of communities in the care of and decisions about urban trees for effective biodiversity outcomes. Review and synthesis of work in this area is useful for increasing understanding of what kinds of community-based approaches work in the urban tree space, and which of these can be replicated. This will enable better relationships between place-based groups, local authorities, and larger environmental or conservation NGOs who are involved in tree planting, planning, community consultation, and ongoing urban tree care and management. 1.3 Mission parameters The mission had three overarching aims: i. Learn and share best practice on how to involve communities meaningfully and equitably in urban tree care and decision making (including but not limited to urban/tiny forests, food forests, foraging networks, urban orchards, street tree guardians, and parklands). ii. Identify existing best practice and novel approaches and highlight the good work being done at both the grassroots and landscape scale levels. iii. Create outputs which provide relevant, practical guidance for multistakeholder groups and coalitions to increase community/public participation in the care of urban trees. To support these aims, we identified two key research questions, each with two sub-questions. I. How can place-based projects effectively involve communities in the care of urban trees? • What is working well for place-based urban tree initiatives? • What are the challenges facing place-based projects? II. How can organisations of different sizes in the Urban Tree space work better together for the benefit of urban treescapes and local communities? • What networks and resources already exist that support collaborative cross-sector work? • What are the challenges and barriers to collaborative cross-sector work? 1.4 Report structure The main findings of the mission, exploring questions I and II, respectively, are presented in Sections 2 (Insights from place-based urban tree initiatives) and 3 (Lessons from collaborative work across scale and sector). Section 4 (Recommendations: fertile ground for growing the urban forest) presents four recommendations which may help to overcome some of the challenges and barriers identified, which also build on the strengths of both place-based initiatives and existing cross-sector collaborations. Finally, Section 5 outlines a proposal – to establish an Urban Forest Network – which could become a channel for actioning the recommendations. Sections 4 and 5 go hand-in-hand with the Appendices which provide guidelines and resources for different stakeholders. Together, the mission outputs support organisations of different sizes and with different priorities to work better together for the benefit of both people and trees in urban spaces. 7 1.5 Methods Based on the identified aims and research questions, this mission started by creating a longlist of 50+ urban tree projects of varying sizes and areas of focus, especially looking for place-based initiatives that are lesser-known. The longlist was then stratified to produce a shortlist of urban tree initiatives with a spread of focus areas. The focus areas were grouped into the following categories: forest garden, urban orchard, tree planting & ongoing care, nurseries, activism/defenders/campaigners, arts-based practices, education, wellbeing, children & young people, reclaiming mis/dis-used land, city-wide/landscape, urban community forest, tiny forest, biodiversity, and tree equity & other benefits. The shortlisted projects incorporated more than one category in their work and represented one of two types of project: place-based initiatives (i.e., operating in a single town or city) or multiplace initiatives (i.e., initiatives that operate on a local scale in multiple towns and cities which are connected and resourced by a small national team). We held interviews with 10 of the shortlisted projects, representing a cross-section of focus areas and organisational structures. The semistructured interviews focused on understanding the opportunities and challenges facing place-based organisations; what successful partnership relationships with larger organisations look like; and novel ways of working with communities and urban trees which might be replicated. Following these interviews, we organised a participatory workshop in October 2024. This was attended by 11 participants from six place-based projects, two multi-place initiatives, and three national organisations. The workshop used participatory exercises to generate discussion around best practice, challenges, opportunities, networks, and partnerships. The workshop structure was semiflexible so that it could take a direction which felt useful and interesting to the participants. A key outcome from the workshop was a strong interest in establishing a new Urban Forest Network (see Section 5). To explore this idea further, we met with key stakeholders within the National Trust’s Trees and Woodlands team and the Urban Forest Accelerator to identify which other organisations in the urban tree space might be interested in the proposal. A list was compiled of 12 key contacts representing a mixture of environmental NGOs (ENGOs), arboricultural professionals, tree officer associations, and local authorities. Of this list, we interviewed seven individuals representing nine organisations. These interviews focused on understanding the larger-scale context, professionals’ perspectives on urban tree care and management, and opportunities for and experiences of crosssectoral collaboration. Throughout the data collection, interviews were recorded on Microsoft Teams. The transcriptions and data from the participatory workshop were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2022). Quotes from interview participants are used throughout this report to add depth and real-life examples. Figure 1 illustrates the ‘Cultivating communities who care for urban trees’ mission process. 8 Photo by sq lim on Unsplash Desk-based research Categorising Snowballing Approaching for interviews Creating a long list of urban tree initiatives Creating a shortlist of urban tree initatives Semi-structured interviews x10 Transcribing and analysing Interviews with urban tree initiatives Flexible structure Semi-structured interviews x7 Data processing Recommendations Note-taking Transcibing and analysing Thematic analysis Audience-specific supporting documents Participatory workshop Interviews with other key stakeholders Analysis Create outputs that support collaborative work Steering conversations with research collaborators Suggestions and recommendations from participants Figure 1: ‘Cultivating communities who care for urban trees’ mission flow diagram 1.6 Outputs The mission resulted in two main outputs, each with offshoots: I. Cultivating communities who care for urban trees (this document): a concise mission report aimed at place-based urban tree initiatives, local authorities, and ENGOs with an interest in urban trees. It captures the mission’s key findings and makes the case for establishing a new ‘Urban Forest Network’. The appendices present five audience-specific documents to support practitioners. These are: A. Principles for Partnership: advice for ENGOs working with place-based groups B. Key principles of practice for Local Authorities C. Principles of best practice for place-based urban tree initiatives D. Roots and Branches tool E. Proposed Terms of Reference for the Urban Forest Network II. From tiny acorns to mighty oaks: inspiring stories of community action for the UK’s urban forest – an accessible and engaging booklet intended for anyone interested in urban trees and local community action. This output collates hopeful stories of community action, models that can be replicated, and links to resources. Extracts from the booklet may be used on social media to broaden access and reach. The audience-specific documents and booklet have been produced with a Creative Commons license so that they can be used and adapted by anyone. They can all be found on the RENEW website. 9 2.1.3 Prioritising tree equity and enhancing community spaces Place-based urban tree projects are already conscious of addressing tree equity when choosing locations for enhancing tree cover, and this is a key aspect of their success. Interviewees from placebased initiatives spoke about the importance of tree equity as a concept (though not necessarily using the specific term ‘tree equity’), agreeing that addressing the unequal distribution of benefits from urban trees is fundamental to their work. In practice, this can look like using public spaces to ensure open access, greening parts of the city that have higher levels of deprivation and lower access to green spaces, and intentionally working with people who are socially marginalised. These efforts bring nature, biodiversity, and the many benefits of urban trees closer to those who have the least access. Projects often include the creation or enhancement of community spaces within the design of their planting and greening schemes. For example, Tiny Forests are co-designed with community members, and many choose to include a clearing with seating surrounded by trees, providing shade and privacy. These naturally become places where people gather informally, and the clearings are utilised for more structured wellbeing activities like nature-connection workshops, meditation, or forest bathing. More Trees BANES grows trees in local community nurseries (which themselves become spaces for community organising, since they are autonomously run) and distributes them to community places around Bath and North-East Somerset, including housing estates, places of worship, community centres, and local parks. As one interviewee commented: “ Making a piece of amenity grassland look much more interesting and more beautiful is another main thing; giving people an opportunity to meet their neighbours, work, volunteer together, get outside, you know, meet your neighbours watching the trees, go out with your kids and get your kids to water the trees, that sort of thing. So it’s very much about community and biodiversity as well.” Organisations scout for land and space using different techniques, including word of mouth, mapping exercises, and networking with landowners. The most successful initiatives secure long-term tenancy (minimum 10 years), which gives enough security for the project to invest materially into the space. This longevity also cultivates a greater sense of stewardship and responsibility amongst the immediate local community. Furthermore, it reduces the risk of these small pockets of land being redeveloped for less community-minded purposes, indirectly increasing tree equity for adjacent communities by ensuring the land is used for trees and public green space rather than indiscriminate construction. 16 17 Box 1: What is tree equity and how is it tracked? Tree equity means “having enough trees in an area so that everyone can experience the health, climate and economic benefits” (Travers, 2021). This concept originated in America, where environmentalists first observed the inequality in tree cover: the existence of more and better-quality trees, and the benefits that they bring, in higher income, predominantly white neighbourhoods in comparison to the fewer and less-quality trees and associated benefits in racialised and low-income communities. This inequality in tree cover has far-reaching detrimental impacts on already marginalised groups. American Forests developed a Tree Equity Score to monitor this in US towns and cities, and to support efforts to plant trees in places where they were most needed. Since then, the model has been extended to the UK. Hosted by the Woodland Trust, American Forests, and Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, the Tree Equity Score UK is a database map that includes metrics not only for tree canopy cover and quality, but also income, health, employment, age, heat risk, and air pollution. Community mapping that combines these different types of information can support place-based groups in understanding the lay of the land and help to inform decisions about tree planting and care. The Woodland Trust is in the process of developing some tools that will support different stakeholders to use the Tree Equity Score UK in their project planning and delivery. Powered by the data generated through Tree Equity Scores and campaigning by mostly voluntary sector organisations, tree equity has become a global movement, with other countries also recognising their own tree deprivation and working hard to increase tree cover in communities experiencing the lowest tree equity scores. 2.1.4 Nurturing long-term, trusting relationships and friendships Building long-term, trusting relationships is crucial for cultivating communities who care for urban trees. Most place-based initiatives depend on the involvement of volunteers and/or other contributions (financial, cultural, social, etc.) that community members make. Organisations get to know people through spending time in community spaces, engaging in door knocking and leaflet dropping, and organising events and regular sessions which can include the provision of free food and/or interesting activities for all ages. Interviewees repeatedly spoke about the importance of trust – especially in places where communities have less-positive relationships with other tree-managing organisations or the local authority. To create and maintain trust, place-based organisations practice transparent communication and use participatory approaches to involve local communities in their planning, design, and delivery of projects. Place-based initiatives have often been established and continue to be run by community members. Street Trees for Living in Lewisham is a good example of this. Local roots and ongoing leadership also play a key role in forging strong bonds with the community. As one interviewee put it: “ We haven’t had anyone complain [about our work]. It’s because we’re a part of the local community. It makes a big, big difference if people know who you are, where you live, and that you are genuinely part of the local area, that’s a massive thing that is.” Whilst projects gain trust through the involvement of community members, two of the projects interviewed highlighted that it’s important not to rely too much on voluntary work, especially in areas of high deprivation. They argued that in these places, the responsibility for ensuring tree equity should not fall on to the individuals experiencing the injustice of tree inequity, especially when the work involved is unpaid. Trust-building, therefore, may require different funding arrangements in marginalised areas. As one interviewee commented: “ For me, it was really important that we did have funding to pay for tree watering and that the responsibility for this wasn’t handed over to communities when we’re working in areas of low canopy cover, which always maps onto the indices of multiple deprivation. I just don’t think we can lean into the ‘big society’ like that.” In a similar vein, place-based groups commented that relational work and building trust involve realistic planning, reliability, and longevity. Local communities can become disheartened and frustrated when projects start and promise more than they are actually able to deliver or leave after a short time. Relationships take time to establish, which means being present in a community for years rather than just months: “ Local people want to know that that tree is going to grow because this is a reliable organisation and that [the trees and the project] are going to stay around. That’s a really big thing here; people say that quite a lot, especially in deprived areas. People expect projects to turn up and just do something for six months and go away, so they want to know that’s not going to happen.” 18 Photo by Daoud Abismail on Unsplash As well as ensuring good relationships between initiatives and communities, interviewees reported that nurturing friendships and a sense of community between people who volunteer within or attend projects is also vital. One of the main reasons people get involved in urban tree initiatives is to make friends and feel more connected to their communities and ecologies: “ When we asked people recently [their motivations for getting involved] everyone mentioned community and friendship. It was the top thing”. Many people who join community-based groups face social exclusion in other spaces or experience isolation or loneliness of some kind. Place-based initiatives report intentionally organising their programmes to support people to connect with each other by offering, for example, regular sessions that encourage consistent attendance, one-off events that reach new people of different demographics, and a range of practical activities that facilitate conversation and connection. In doing so, place-based initiatives cultivate both curiosity and confidence, which keeps people engaged and emotionally invested in the process and long-term outcome of an urban tree initiative. Sustained engagement is particularly important given the long lifecycle of trees and how long it can take for people to feel other benefits from them. A good example of this approach is Fruit and Nut Village, a place-based urban tree initiative in Birmingham that focuses on cultivating edible landscapes in the city. They have a strong focus on supporting friendships and a sense of community to flourish. By growing forest gardens in parks and city gardens that are open to the public, they nurture a sense of guardianship and commitment to the new trees and amongst the friends who were involved in planting them. Other place-based projects use a similar approach: “ We had a local resident who sent some photos of when they’d gone out, had a look at the trees they were involved with planting in and said “look, they’re all growing, they’re all doing well!”. That’s someone who’s got an investment in the planting that was done in their little bit of green space. We’re trying to build some ownership in the planting, so that communities start look after them.” 19 2.1.5 Creating engaging and varied member experiences Another common ingredient in place-based initiatives’ work with communities is the importance of creating a wide variety of engaging experiences that project members can be involved in and benefit from. Creating volunteering roles that align with community and individual interests is a particularly effective strategy. Many of the projects interviewed deliberately identify community anchors, leaders, and advocates. These are vital for sustaining the presence and influence of place-based initiatives over time. Role titles include Tree Keepers, Orchard Leaders, Street/Area Reps, Tree Guardians, Tree Defenders, and Tree Nursery Carers. Named voluntary roles provide structure and leadership whilst distributing responsibility in a way that supports continuity even when initiatives struggle financially. These individuals also often act as champions for the projects, helping to mobilise and inspire others to get involved. To support individuals in these roles and responsibilities, projects typically offer training, vocational courses and the cascading of skills through peer learning. This ensures that everyone can grow in confidence and competence as they contribute meaningfully within placebased initiatives. “ It works really well in this hierarchical way where you have a couple of members of staff who lead on the residential team, then they oversee all of the volunteers... [there is] one lead volunteer in each ward, then they oversee all of the [street-level leaders] within their ward.” One of the interviewees shared how important it is for projects to be open-minded about how people show care for trees. Some people might want to help with practical care tasks (e.g., regularly watering young trees). However, others might want to show care and appreciation through rituals, paying attention, or creating artwork. All of these are valid forms of relating to trees, and one form of care can lead to others. This interviewee’s approach, therefore, embraces and acknowledges all forms of care as she’s “interested in supporting our relationships with trees to strengthen to the point that maybe they might want to do [practical care tasks]” as well. This is a way of meeting people where they are and appreciating their unique ways of relating. In terms of offering other new and engaging experiences, several place-based initiatives use culturally appropriate arts-based practices to create celebrations, rituals, workshops, and seasonal events where community members can connect with nature and each other. One example of this is the UK-wide Urban Tree Festival. Cultural activities of this kind help integrate place-based initiatives into the fabric of the community. Some initiatives have also started to connect with social and green prescribing programmes, taking referrals from and working in partnership with mental and physical health professionals. This type of partnership brings in new volunteers and members who might not otherwise have heard about the projects. At the same time, these partnerships support public health agendas like improving wellbeing and reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. Furthermore, these arrangements often come with funding. Many urban tree initiatives have sessions and groups specifically for children and young people. One successful template for this is twinning trees with individual children – involving them in the planting, maintenance, and care in the first few years – so the child and tree grow together, fostering a lifelong connection. 20 2.1.6 Ecological design During this mission’s participatory workshop, we asked participants to write a few words about what the urban forest looks like to them. Figure 4 shows an illustration of their contributions, which focus strongly on urban wildlife, ecosystem resilience, green corridors, and the role of people in these urban ecologies. It illustrates how important ecology is in their practice, design, and decision-making, and this value was echoed throughout the interviews too. A patchwork or mosaic: different pockets of green space reflecting the culture and values of local communities WHAT DOES THE URBAN FOREST LOOK LIKE TO YOU? Diversity - a forest or giant dispersed orchard, with houses in-between, for food and wildlife STRONG, RESILIENT, TAKING OVER, REBELLIOUS, INCLUSIVE, WELCOMING Adapted towards future climate conditions Culture-rich, incorporating seasonal and cyclical festivals and rituals Countryside in the city Safe corridors for people and wildlife Wildlife corridors integrated with urban infrastructure - a place of refuge in an otherwise built-up area Integrity of ecological processes - clean water, connectivity, carbon storage Figure 4: An illustration of workshop participants’ visions for what the urban forest looks like Across the interviews with place-based urban tree initiatives, it was clear that projects prioritise the thoughtful selection of tree and plant species in their design of new, or enhancement of existing, urban treescapes. Place-based initiatives centre ecological integrity in their design, cultivating spaces that are relatively low maintenance but provide maximum social and environmental benefits. Placebased projects try to adopt a ‘right tree in the right place’ approach, selecting species based on local provenance and soil conditions, climate resilience traits and biodiversity value. For example, More Trees BANES grows trees from locally sourced seeds to ensure genetic suitability and ecological integration: “ Climate resilient trees, for us, means local provenance, so we’re collecting local seed, and we’re also planting with genetic diversity. So, a woodland that we plant will have quite a diverse genetic diversity because the seed will have been collected from different woodlands and different trees, whereas when you buy trees, you never quite know what genetic diversity you’re buying – e.g., there might be seed all from one tree, possibly. So genetic diversity, local provenance equals climate resilience.” 21 It is important to note that, whilst ecologists agree that genetic diversity is important, they have different views on how to optimise climate resilience. Some argue that more climate-matched provenances (as opposed to local provenance) may be critical for tree species with long life spans. This is an area of ongoing research interest. Trying different approaches and balancing scientific evidence with local knowledge is one way we can learn. Forest Research has produced a ‘Climate Matching Tool’ which visualises climate projections and indicates which tree species may suit different parts of the UK (and Europe) in the future. This could be a useful tool for urban tree initiatives of all sizes to consider in their tree planting plans. Fruit and Nut Village and The Orchard Project design forest gardens and orchards using heritage and perennial species to support pollinators and community food resilience. Tiny Forests use the Miyawaki method (Daou et al., 2024) to plant dense, diverse, fast-growing native woodlands in small urban plots. Using citizen science data collected from Tiny Forest sites, their 2023 monitoring report shows how this planting method is enhancing biodiversity, improving flood management, and incrementally storing carbon. “ We’re trying to mimic nature [with] a mini woodland in urban spaces… Each Tiny Forest is custom-designed for that site to make sure that it has the best chance of survival in that soil condition as well as the environmental condition in that area.” Tiny Forests and other urban forest initiatives contribute to climate resilience by reducing urban heat islands, improving stormwater infiltration, and absorbing airborne pollutants. Orchards and forest gardens are ecologically diverse urban habitats that support pollinators, birds, fungi, and soil organisms, enhancing urban biodiversity. As the ecologies become more diverse and resilient, these spaces simultaneously become important sites for urban foragers and other people who care about wildlife. However, place-based projects sometimes find it hard to measure the difference they are making to biodiversity: “ We’re aware of the fact that we’re creating green corridors... I see all the parakeets coming and eating all the crab apples and other birds and stuff. Getting involved in bees and stuff. So, we know that it’s having an impact on biodiversity, but it’s not something we really understand the metrics of, to be honest.” Finding creative ways to record, understand, and communicate these impacts – both qualitatively and quantitatively – could be beneficial to place-based projects in accessing biodiversity-related funding opportunities. There are a number of useful tools that can support ecologically-informed decision-making. The Tree Species Guide for UK Agroforestry Systems and Treezilla offer data on tree species traits, ecosystem services, and urban suitability. Trees & Design and Action Group (TDAG) have produced helpful guides about trees, planning and development and tree species selection. These resources help communities to select trees that can tolerate drought, heat, and pollution – key factors for climate adaptation in urban environments. The tools are compatible and can be used in tandem with participatory design methods. Using a combination of local knowledge, inclusive design processes, and scientific tools helps place-based tree projects cultivate sustainable treescapes which community members can benefit from and feel invested in. The Urban Forest Accelerator Toolkit has collated a wealth of guides and tools that can be used in the planning and design process, supporting initiatives to maximise and distribute the many benefits of increased urban tree cover. 22 23 Box 2: ‘Roots and Branches’ tool example At the participatory workshop, we used the ‘Roots and Branches’ tool (see Appendix D) to explore commonalities between the projects represented. The different parts of the tree can be used to prompt conversation about beliefs and values (roots), nourishment and sustenance (soil), core ways of working (trunk), activities and actions (branches), achievements and outcomes (leaves) and impacts (fruit/flowers). The core ways of working corresponds broadly with the common strategies and practices summarised in Section 2.1. Figure 5: A ‘Roots and Branches’ tool example (see Appendix D) created at the participatory workshop, with further information from interviews also incorporated. ROOTS & BRANCHES FRUIT/ FLOWERS: IMPACT Increased confidence and empowerment (belief that we can change where we live for the better); increased tree equity and urban tree cover; better access to green spaces; local pride of place; improving health and wellbeing of communities; increased access to locally grown food and foraging opportunities LEAVES: OUTCOMES AND ACHIEVEMENTS Unused urban spaces brought into community ownership/ management; network of individuals, partners and communities; collections of orchards, heritage varieties and cuttings; annual native tree give away; regular crosspollination of ideas; ongoing partnership work BRANCHES: ACTIVITIES AND ACTIONS Restoring old and planting new orchards; creating tiny forests; community tree nurseries, forest gardens and edible urban landscapes; tree planting; encouraging climate resilience by including exotic species; being open to community suggestions; learning when things do and don’t work; information sharing (not ‘education’); tree guardianship schemes; twinning children with trees; working with social-green-prescribing networks; arts-based practices; celebrations and rituals; fostering nature connections through local events, tree identification walks, woodland crafts, celebrations, rituals TRUNK: CORE WAYS OF WORKING Working with trees and people simultaneously; community organising principles; community and stakeholder mapping; tree equity; enhancing community spaces; relational work; nurturing a sense of community and friendship, engaging and varied member experiences; ecological design SOIL: NOURISHMENT AND SUSTENANCE Involving local people; meeting society’s needs; being locally relevant; bringing stakeholders together; co-creation; pride in place; collaboration with other environmental groups/ organisation across the UK; growing leadership; being a friend to the neighbourhood ROOTS: BELIEFS AND VALUES Environmental justice; care and connection; the importance of trees to climate resilience; inclusivity and accessibility; open; purposeful; (re) creating culture; trust; enhancing biodiversity; people as part of nature - the mutuality of these things; reciprocity; the right and ability to change your neighbourhood; democratic structure; enabling ownership; reclaiming commons; food security; ingrained, embedded initiatives; deep community listening Scan the QR code to find out more about the research project which informed this document and to view other useful tools 2.2 What are the challenges facing place-based projects? During interviews and the participatory workshop, place-based organisations talked about the challenges they face. The key common themes are organised under the following subheadings: access to land, funding, resources, co-design and participatory approaches, training and organisational development, partnerships and networks and the political and economic context. There are corresponding opportunities too, which are explored later in Section 4. 2.2.1 Access to land Securing permission to access land for community urban tree projects is often the first hurdle. Gaining long-term use, tenancy, or ownership of land was highlighted as a key challenge by all of the placebased participants in this mission. In urban landscapes, it is often hard to determine who owns and/ or is responsible for parcels of disused land. This makes it difficult to know who to approach when seeking access and permission. For land which is owned by the local authority or other public bodies (e.g. Network Rail, National Highways), access often depends on the personality and approach of the person who has overarching decision-making power (e.g. manager of contractors) or the designated Tree Officer. As one interviewee put it: “ It’s just hard work, really, working with the Council and persuading them that things are a good idea, and that’s the big chunk of [getting land access], really. It’s really hard getting written permission. It’s almost like they are trying to get out of actually committing to anything” This can also be the case for privately owned land (e.g., land owned by utility companies), as even when access and use of land is granted, landowners are sometimes reluctant to permit the increase of trees – even if the community group promises to look after them. Landowners often do not want the legal responsibility, maintenance costs, or responsibility that can be associated with trees. They may also want to retain flexibility around the land use in case there are other, more profitable opportunities later that are incompatible with trees: “ I think because land has the potential to be hugely valuable in cities and towns, I think [landowners] are very reluctant to commit to the timescale: if you are planting trees, you know that [will be for] 30, 40 or 50 years or more for that piece of land. [Landowners know] that the land might have another use in life, a value associated with it. So, I think the challenge is always finding land.” Relationships between landowners and tree projects can sometimes be challenging where there are differences in vision, working practices, expertise, and discipline. Partnership working can be further complicated by differences in resources and capacity, and these often present the main barriers to implementation – especially for local authorities who are on tight budgets and often need to cut costs. To enable mutually beneficial and long-term tenancy agreements, local authorities, private landowners, and place-based projects need to understand and respect each other’s priorities, be willing to work flexibly, and be open to novel arrangements that maximise the co-benefits for all parties. This may need to involve the delegation of management responsibility to the project (tenant), whilst the landowner maintains legal responsibility. Landowners who have successfully enabled community projects access to and management of their land could share their learning with other landowning organisations and individuals. Place-based organisations could be contributors to local nature recovery strategies and urban forest planning, so that they are appreciated as key stakeholders and community practitioner experts. This recognition could, in turn, open up opportunities for new land tenure. 24 2.2.2 Funding Funding timelines often don’t align with the pace or needs of place-based project activities, making it difficult to plan effectively for the long term. Many grants available to community projects are short-term (i.e., under one year), which necessitates ongoing applications for multiple grants. This can result in complications if several grants are awarded for the same project or if awarded grants do not cover all aspects of the project. Synchronising grants with project aims, objectives, and activities is time-consuming and requires significant staff resources. Consequently, funding timescales have the potential to undermine job security. Survival grants (i.e., very short-term, flexible awards that can be used to plug gaps) can help to maintain operations between larger grants. However, reliance on these types of awards can be stressful and unsustainable. Funding often focuses on specific activities that the funder is most interested in (e.g., tree planting for climate resilience), while neglecting other key components which make these activities possible in community-based settings (e.g., door knocking, educational activities). Holistic programmes that meet multiple needs are therefore harder to fund, especially those involving extensive community engagement and the slow relational work of cultivating trust and commitment. The latter has an added difficulty of being hard to measure and demonstrate in terms of outcomes. Sometimes landowners want to pay for place-based projects to do a planting project, but don’t necessarily want to fund the associated community engagement work: “ [When a landowning organisation contacts you and says] ‘Oh, can you just come in and plant it? We will give you money to plant an orchard,’ or something, then we’re like, ‘Well, that’s not how we work.’ So yeah, [they] need to pay us for all the other stuff, the community engagement as well, because that’s the model.” Funding for organisational development of place-based projects is essential, but also hard to secure. Similarly, it can be hard to find funding for arts-based approaches, nature-connection, and transdisciplinary projects. This forces organisations to categorise their work into project packages that meet funding requirements, affecting the cohesion of their operations and undermining the novel and transdisciplinary intentions. It also reduces their ability to adapt and reflexively respond to changing dynamics internally and in community settings. Knowledge of different funding opportunities is limited, and the time available to apply for funding is often insufficient. Fundraising is a specialised skill that not all organisations possess internally. Whilst there can also be positive unexpected outcomes, such as small projects growing exponentially when they are successful in multiple grants. This growth can strain internal structures and organisational processes if they have not been designed for such a scale. Furthermore, grants do not always allow adequate time for staff recruitment processes, which can be slow and require careful navigation. 25 Photo by david hughes on Unsplash Name Constitution Description Main audience Geographic scope and reach Useful resources / opportunities Association of Tree Officers Member-based professional organisation A UK-based organisation representing and serving the needs of local authority tree officers, promoting best practices and supporting professional development in urban forestry and arboriculture Professional tree officers who primarily work for local authorities, parish councils, statutory bodies; open to some individuals and housing association tree officers UK-wide coverage with virtual spaces, regional tree officer groups and international engagement Website resources with information and guidance (e.g. tree species selection, funding grants, tree and woodland strategies etc); National Tree Officers Conference; Tree Officer Forum (online network); job listings England’s Community Forests Network of independent community forests supported by the Community Forest Trust (charity) A network of 15 community forests working with communities, landowners, and businesses to plant trees and improve the natural environment across England, creating healthy, resilient places for people and nature Landowners, local authorities, NGOs, statutory bodies, general public, place-based initiatives, urban populations England-wide coverage within 15 community forest areas Long-term grant schemes for landowners and farmers to plant and maintain trees; support with woodland creation in 15 locations; expert advice for planning, funding and planting; bespoke project delivery and support with wide range of local partners (e.g., schools, parks, clubs, private companies, forest schools) Fellowship of the Trees Community Interest Company (CIC) An initiative supporting community tree nurseries through peer learning, promoting local tree cultivation to increase tree cover and community wellbeing Place-based groups; community tree nurseries; volunteer tree guardians; general public UK-wide projects, virtual spaces with growing social media presence Community Tree Nursery Collaborative peer learning and sharing network; ‘nature talks’ series of recorded online talks; YouTube channel; online events and website replays; practical workshops; community events 32 Name Constitution Description Main audience Geographic scope and reach Useful resources / opportunities Institute of Chartered Foresters Royal Chartered Body and charity The UK's professional body for foresters and arboriculturists, promoting sustainable forestry and arboriculture while offering chartered status and professional development opportunities Professional arboriculturalists, arborists, and foresters who primarily work for local authorities, parish councils, statutory bodies, landowning organisations, conservation organisations, and private companies UK-wide coverage with online and regional spaces Online members area; events and talks; online resources and video content; Forestry journal; quarterly magazine; practical CPD tools and guidance; emerging leader programme; exchange programme; career advice; bursaries; jobs board; site visits; policy and consultation; regional networks London Tree Officer Association Member-based professional organisation The professional voice and network for London’s tree officers and managers, enhancing tree management through sharing best practice, advocacy, training, influencing policy, identifying sustainable finance, and collaboration Professional arboriculturalists and tree officers who work for local authorities, statutory bodies and housing associations within London (although some non-London) and arboricultural related companies. Open to small tree-related charities and educational establishments Primarily London Boroughs, plus some wider reach outside of London Website resources with information and guidance (e.g. tree species selection, funding grants, tree and woodland strategies etc); LTOA seminars; working parties; benchmarking information for London Boroughs; Tree Officer communication network (online and localised network); job listings Municipal Tree Officers’ Association Member-based professional organisation A non-profit organisation dedicated to supporting and providing professional development opportunities for municipal arboriculturists Professional arboriculturalists and tree officers who primarily work for local authorities, parish councils, statutory bodies UK-wide coverage with regional and virtual spaces Members get access to working parties, updates on legislative change, seminars and workshops, site visits, technical support 33 Name Constitution Description Main audience Geographic scope and reach Useful resources / opportunities Nature Towns and Cities A coalition of organisations A coalition aiming to enhance urban green spaces, making nature accessible to millions more people, improving health, wellbeing, and urban environments Local authorities, NGOs, small charities, place-based urban tree and green space initiatives, community action groups, individuals UK-wide reach with online spaces and regional events Library of resources and practical guidance; events; workshops; conferences; training; collaboration opportunities; support in project development and fundraising; accreditation; grants; self-evaluation tool; Urban Forest Accelerator Toolkit NHS Forest An initiative of the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare (charity) An alliance of health sites transforming their green spaces to improve health, wellbeing, biodiversity and to enable connection between people and nature NHS sites (GPs surgeries, hospitals, ambulance stations etc), plus local residents, patients, and volunteers UK-wide, with 474-member healthcare sites; Nature Recovery Rangers covering 39 sites NHS Forest Conference; NHS Forest Network; Nature for Health Hub (including outdoor accessibility guidance and green spaces and biodiversity toolkit); newsletter and blog; courses; events; database of evidence and research; Nature Recovery Rangers; free tree planting bundles and guidance pack Social Farms and Gardens Charity and member network A UK charity supporting community-managed and community-based farms, gardens, and green spaces; promoting sustainable food growing, nature-based activities and community engagement Place-based groups, urban green spaces, community growing projects, community gardens, community allotments, city farms, volunteers, general public UK-wide with regional hubs Support and signposting for community-based growing projects; training and events; networking events; monthly online gatherings; public member directory; land and planning advice; quality assurance; care farming guidance; funding information; publications and resources 34 Name Constitution Description Main audience Geographic scope and reach Useful resources / opportunities The Orchard Project Charity A charity dedicated to creating and maintaining community orchards in urban areas, aiming to bring community-run orchards within walking distance of everyone in towns and cities Place-based groups, community allotments, urban green spaces, community growing projects, community gardens, community allotments, volunteers, general public UK-wide Resources for starting a community orchard and ongoing seasonal orchard care and maintenance; courses; workshops; training; lesson plans for primary schools; orchard directory; fruit donation directory; accredited courses Tree Warden Network An initiative of The Tree Council (charity) A volunteer network supporting tree planting and care across the UK, engaging communities in local tree conservation efforts Volunteer tree wardens UK-wide with regional coordinators Regional and local networks; Guidance Hub; funding grants; information about delivery partners; information about tree care and management (e.g., pests and diseases, species diversification decision support tool, agroforestry guide) Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG) Charitable Trust A collaborative group promoting the integration of trees in urban design and planning to enhance resilience and sustainability in urban areas Tree professionals, academics, organisations, private companies, local authorities, statutory bodies, ENGOs, individuals UK-wide Network/forum for crosssector collaboration; best practice guides; memberinformed consultation on policy; knowledge and research dissemination; seminars and workshops Urban Forest Accelerator Toolkit A coalition of charitable organisations A practical guide designed to help organisations increase urban tree canopy cover, and how to do this equitably by ensuring that all residents have access to the benefits of trees Local authorities, ENGOs, small charities, place-based urban tree and green space initiatives, community action groups, individuals UK-wide Four information toolkits that outline key phases of urban forest development; each contains a mixture of how-to guides, case studies, best practice, research, downloadable resources and activities 35 3.2 What are the challenges and barriers to collaborative cross-sectoral work? Collaborative cross-sector work, especially in the context of urban tree management, presents numerous challenges and barriers. These obstacles often stem from unequal power dynamics, differing perspectives and priorities, and the presence of individual and institutional egos. This section explores these challenges, drawing on insights from interviews with both place-based groups and national organisations. 3.2.1 Unequal power dynamics One of the primary challenges in collaborative cross-sector work is navigating the unequal power dynamics between organisations of different sizes and capacities. Larger organisations often have more resources, access to funding, and more potential for influence in decision-making spaces. This disparity can create challenging power dynamics, both explicitly and implicitly, and make it difficult for smaller organisations to have their voices heard and their contributions recognised. For instance, larger organisations may have dedicated marketing and communications teams, giving them a disproportionate presence and influence. This can overshadow the efforts and achievements of smaller, place-based initiatives. Several interviewees reported instances where larger organisations have taken credit for the work done by smaller groups, leading to resentment and defensiveness among local organisations. As one interviewee noted: “ Powerful national organisations can easily come into areas, pave over other initiatives and take all the glory.” Similarly, there is a perception that larger organisations carrying out landscape-scale initiatives may deliberately bypass local initiatives to access significant funding sources, such as carbon credits and climate change funds. This can lead to local organisations becoming more protective of their boundaries and roles (and therefore less open to partnership), striving to ensure their plans and priorities are respected. 36 3.2.2 Differing perspectives and priorities Another significant barrier to collaborative cross-sector work is the differing perspectives, priorities, and value orientations towards the environment of the organisations involved (Twena et al., 2025). These differences can lead to conflicts and misunderstandings, hindering effective collaboration. For example, professional arboriculturists often view trees as “green infrastructure” that, like other public infrastructure, requires professional management. In contrast, community-based practitioners typically emphasise the social, cultural, ecological, and climate value of trees – a more relational approach. This divergence in viewpoints can lead to conflicts over tree management practices. Arboriculturists may see community members as meddlesome and problematic, while communities may view arboriculturists as “tree cutters” or “tree murderers.” This misalignment of values leads to mutual distrust and can hinder effective collaboration and tree management. As one arboriculturalist pointed out: “ Even the community groups and the people who really care about their trees, which is brilliant, and I love that, [many] of them won’t know about arboriculture really, and they see the arborist as the baddies.” Additionally, the language of science often takes priority over that of the arts and health in collaborative projects, despite all the projects trying to address similar issues. This can create a communication barrier, making it difficult for organisations to understand each other’s perspectives and priorities. Effective communication and mutual understanding are therefore fundamental to forging successful and mutually respectful partnerships and collaborations. 3.2.3 Individual and institutional egos Egos, both individual and institutional, can also pose considerable challenges to collaborative crosssector work. Strong personalities can drive projects forward, but they can also become obstructive if not managed well. Furthermore, the departure of key personnel (i.e., those who have essential social skills, relationships, and knowledge of the local context, and who play a translation and/or buffer role between organisations of different sizes) from larger organisations can disrupt partnerships and networks, as the overarching national agenda of the larger organisation may take precedence in that person’s absence and/or replacement. The involvement of national conservation organisations in areas where they lack expertise can also be problematic. These organisations may have significant resources and influence, but their lack of knowledge about urban trees can frustrate and undermine the efforts of place-based groups and arboricultural professionals alike. As one interviewee noted: “ We had this before with [a conservation organisation that has] no knowledge about urban trees, saying ‘hey let’s get involved’ and have steamed in there and they’ve got so much money and such a voice that they have become the most influential voice in urban trees, whilst by their own admission they don’t really know anything about urban trees.” 37 3.2.4 Building effective coalitions The above factors create a challenging environment for building effective and mutually beneficial coalitions across wide-ranging organisational sizes, sectors, and geographies of scale (e.g., neighbourhoods, cities, regions, landscapes, virtual spaces and others). Place-based groups have commented that while there is a lot of support available, it is not always easy to know where to go for specific kinds of help. The vast number and diversity of organisations – each with specific sets of needs, skillsets, and expertise – means it can be harder to create networking opportunities that feel relevant and useful. Building effective coalitions across different types of organisations requires creating empathetic environments where representatives actively listen to each other. Partnerships between organisations of different sizes can work well if each has the awareness and capacity to articulate and negotiate roles, priorities, and ways of working. All organisations within a collaboration must be fairly recognised for their work and different kinds of contributions. 38 4. Recommendations: fertile ground for growing the urban forest Sections 2 and 3 have outlined some of the ways that place-based initiatives and national networks are successfully cultivating communities who care for urban trees. They have also highlighted some of the challenges and barriers, both on the ground in urban settings and in collaborative cross-sector settings. These include issues around land access and permissions, resources, training, organisational development, power dynamics, and differing perspectives and priorities. Overcoming these obstacles requires fostering mutual respect, understanding, and effective communication between all stakeholders involved in urban tree management. It is essential to create environments where all voices are heard and valued, and where organisations can work together in transparent ways towards common goals. By synthesising insights from place-based groups (Section 2) and lessons from collaborative work across scales and sectors (Section 3), four key themes emerge as potentially pivotal for cultivating communities that care for urban trees. These are discussed below as recommendations: think like an urban forest (4.1); nurture effective reciprocal relationships across sectors (4.2); innovate to enable greater access to land (4.3); and ensure holistic funding and financial agreements (4.4). To make these recommendations actionable, we have designed five resources that can be used by practitioners across sectors in their work to collectively grow the urban forest. These resources are presented in the appendices and signposted throughout the four sections below. 39 4.1 Think like an urban forest Systems thinking is crucial for cultivating communities who care for urban trees, and “thinking like an urban forest” could help diverse actors coordinate holistically as one unified system. The systems thinking approach is a holistic way of looking at a ‘system’ – in this case, the urban forest – as a whole, rather than as individual parts in isolation (Meadows, 2009). In doing so, systems thinking considers interactions of components within a system while also recognising that the system itself could be a component of one or more larger systems. A change in one component of either the smaller or larger system will have a ripple effect. Systems thinking recognises this interconnectedness and proposes that understanding these connections can be key to transformation (Jackson, 2019). It therefore shifts our perspective from isolated, linear thinking to interconnected, holistic understanding. A phrase that is increasingly being used by people taking a systems thinking approach is “thinking like a forest” (Think Like a Forest | Permaculture Association, n.d.), which emphasises the adaptability and resilience of forests to illustrate the interconnectedness of systems thinking. This framing specifically involves adopting principles inspired by natural systems (i.e., systems found in nature, for example, a forest) to foster growth and longevity. One example of this is organising networks that are inspired by the structure, function and symbiotic relationships of underground mycelial networks (the web of tiny fungal threads that connect plants and trees, helping them share nutrients, water, and even information). Similarly, thinking like a forest requires consideration of and adaptation to seasons, as it seeks to apply nature-inspired solutions to problems and promotes continuous learning and evolution. Taking the above example of mycelia-inspired networks, some activities of a network may be more or less relevant and impactful in each season. Understanding which actions to take at what time is a key part of helping the system to function effectively. Applying this analogy to the mission findings, it may be useful to “think like an urban forest”, explicitly incorporating the many layers and dynamics of urban populations and societal systems into the systems approach. In the words of one interviewee (a tree officer at a local authority), “tree management is always people management too.” Especially in an urban setting, trees and people are in close proximity and intricately connected through the local environment, individual and collective actions, sense of place, the arts, stories, and volunteering. By thinking like an urban forest, therefore, place-based and larger organisations can create sustainable, regenerative practices that prioritise the health and wellbeing of both trees and people. Recognising the diversity of relationships that people have with trees and engaging communities in meaningful ways are essential, so art-based practices can be particularly useful for this. Appendix D provides the Roots and Branches tool that could start some of these conversations and be used in many contexts to support creative, systems thinking. In practice, thinking like an urban forest could involve establishing a multidimensional network that serves to connect the many varied organisations and networks already involved in caring for urban trees across the UK. This idea, temporarily named the Urban Forest Network, was proposed at the participatory workshop and has been further developed through interviews with larger organisations (see Section 5 and Appendix E). 40 Photography: Dan White 4.2 Nurture effective reciprocal relationships across sectors Good relationships between different stakeholders make all the difference in terms of morale, efficiency, sense of belonging, and positive connection to place. Local authorities, other statutory bodies, and landowning organisations should develop a deeper awareness of and appreciation for the value of community work and community relationships. Rather than being an optional add-on, this focus on community should be the main consideration that informs the approach of urban tree initiatives, regardless of their size or sector. Personnel at national organisations and institutions who seek partnerships with place-based initiatives would benefit from training in community work skills and how to cultivate trusting relationships. This would help to ensure they work alongside place-based projects in a supportive and reciprocal manner. Training should include time to reflect on their own positionality and the limitations they have in relation to places, raising awareness of power dynamics, and how to make effective and appropriate use of brands and organisational influence. Training and development in this area would also support the process of establishing creative land management arrangements (see Section 4.3) that are sustainable and empowering for the long term. There are some good examples of this from Nature Neighbourhoods and Nature Towns and Cities, where resources are being created that will help to do this better. When it comes to research projects, those which seek the involvement of or collaboration with placebased practitioners should be designed around their needs. Their involvement should be credited in any outputs, such as through shared authorship or adequate acknowledgement. Facilitating access to research outputs and supporting the implementation of recommendations on the ground can help translate research into practical, actionable strategies. Some networks are already doing this (e.g. many of those mentioned in Table 3), but it is unclear how many place-based practitioners have access to these wells of information. The proposed new multidimensional network (see Section 5 and Appendix E) could be useful here for connecting groups. Appendix A provides five ‘Principles for Partnership’, containing practical advice that guides ENGOs in how to navigate uneven power dynamics, cultivate more reciprocal relationships, and ensure holistic financial agreements with place-based projects. Appendix B offers insights and guidance for local authority Tree Officers to support their community engagement with residents. Appendix C presents five principles of best practice for place-based initiatives, which also includes tips on how to develop fruitful, reciprocal collaboration with communities and other organisations. 41 Photography: Dan White 7. Appendices: Resources and guidance for practitioners Each of these appendices have been designed as standalone documents that can be taken and used by relevant stakeholders. They are intended to support the involvement of communities in the care and management of urban trees and effective working relationships across organisations of different sizes and sectors. Documents A to D can all be downloaded from the RENEW website. 48 Table 4: List of supporting documents, purpose and key audiences Appendix/Document Purpose Key Audience APrinciples for Partnership: advice for ENGOs working with place-based groups To guide ENGOs in: • navigating uneven power dynamics • cultivating reciprocal, trusting relationships • ensuring holistic funding and financial agreements when working with staff, volunteers and members of place-based groups. Staff at larger ENGOs and landscapescale projects who work face-toface with place-based groups and/ or in administrative roles that support project delivery (project management, marketing, fundraising, communications). These principles may be particularly relevant when there is a financial aspect to the partnership. BKey principles of practice for Local Authorities: The Five Be’s To guide Local Authority Tree Officers in: • communicating positively • cultivating trusting relationships • reducing conflict with community members and volunteers who care for urban trees. Tree Officers and other staff at Local Authorities who work face-to-face with place-based groups and/or in administrative roles that relate to council-managed urban trees (e.g., town planning and parks and green spaces teams). CKey principles of practice for place-based urban tree initiatives To summarise succinctly the core principles which unite place-based urban tree initiatives working with communities and volunteers, providing a simple framework and consistency of approach that can be applied in different ways depending on context. Individuals and groups of local residents who want to get involved in leading existing or new place-based urban tree initiatives. DRoots and Branches Tool A tool and session plan for organisations of different sizes and sectors to use in planning urban tree work – both internally and in coalitions. Staff at place-based urban tree initiatives and other organisations working on urban trees; coalitions of organisations who are setting up partnership work on urban trees. EProposed Terms of Reference for the Urban Tree Network A draft document for the organisers of the Urban Forest Network to use to support its establishment. Organisers and members of the new Urban Forest Network. Appendix A Principles for Partnership: advice for ENGOs working with place-based groups These principles will help larger ENGOs to mitigate the potential for power and resource inequalities when working with smaller organisations, including place-based initiatives. Inequalities can show up in a variety of ways, including finances, brand recognition and influence, internal organisational capacity, and resourcing for advocacy and partnership work. The following five principles provide practical suggestions for navigating these complexities. They are also summarised in the infographic, Principles for Partnership (see Figure 6), which may be used as a poster within ENGO workspaces or as a digital quick-reference guide. i. Enable equitable financial agreements in partnerships between organisations of different sizes. This could look like: • Ensuring that partnerships between larger ENGOs and smaller place-based initiatives are adequately financed, and/or actively include a fundraising element • Using participatory budgeting so that all partners are involved in decisions about costs, distribution and prioritisation within funding applications • Fundraising on behalf of smaller organisations to add capacity and alleviate pressure on their frontline teams • Being open and willing to carry the ‘risk’ within coalition funding applications • Incorporating flexibility into funding agreements so that place-based initiatives have money to use adaptively and intuitively in a non-restricted manner • Adequately compensating place-based organisations’ time and expertise, including often overlooked or underfunded activities such as: o time spent reporting and fulfilling funding requirements o face-to-face work with communities and volunteers, including activities relating to participatory decision making, community events, out of hours work, and different forms of relationship building o professional, organisational and strategic development ii. Recognise and complement existing place-based work, giving credit where credit is due. This could look like: • Taking time to identify and understand existing initiatives in a geographic location, their relationships with each other and gaps in capacity where value might be added • Building on the strengths of existing local work by amplifying and complementing established efforts, workstreams and strategies • Learning from both current and historical place-based practices • Cultivating reciprocal relationships with local initiatives (rather than extractive ones) • Making mindful decisions about when, where and how to use your brand so that it doesn’t overshadow or diminish recognition of less well-known groups • Being fully transparent about the different kinds of contributions made within partnership projects, and the value of less visible work (e.g., the slow work of building trusting relationships with local communities) • Designing research outputs in collaboration with place-based practitioners, responding to and prioritising their needs, and crediting their involvement in the production of knowledge and best practice. 49 iii. Be generous with your internal capacity by supporting the administrative and logistical aspects of partnerships. This could look like: · Freeing up time for place-based initiatives’ strategic work by taking on logistical and administrative tasks · Respecting the leadership, autonomy and knowledge of place-based organisations by staying out of decisions about on-the-ground practice and delivery (unless you are explicitly invited to participate) · Deferring to the experience and knowledge of local partnerships and alliances for best practice in specific geographical contexts · Connecting projects for the sharing of learning, best practice, novel approaches, materials, purpose and inspiration · Providing administrative support to local partnerships and alliances · Increasing access to and uptake of existing resources and toolkits by offering training and bespoke implementation support · Creating new resources under Creative Commons licenses so they are free to use by any organisation iv. Coordinate with other ENGOs to mitigate unequal power dynamics in partnerships. This could look like: · Sharing the ways you mitigate power and resource inequality when working with smaller organisations and encouraging other larger organisations to take similar actions · Supporting collaborations between conservation and place-based community work professionals · Resourcing the involvement of place-based community work professionals and/or people with local knowledge and relationships within ENGO coalitions · Avoiding competition with other ENGOs through coordinated working practices, media campaigns and public messaging · Recognising when other organisations are better placed to provide coordination support for networks and partnerships and supporting them to do so effectively v. Commit to ongoing learning about community relationships and how to actively mitigate power dynamics between organisations of different sizes. This could look like: • Understanding that place-based organisations need support on their own terms and in their own unique circumstances – there is no one-size-fits-all model for support • Providing regular in-house training and professional development opportunities on communitybased practices and power dynamics so that ENGO staff understand how to effectively and sensitively work alongside place-based projects • Reflecting on your experiences of working with smaller organisations and learning from both successes and mistakes • Involving local experts and partners in your governance and decision making • Learning how to leverage your brand to empower smaller partners and enable good outcomes for everyone 50 PRINCIPLES FOR PARTNERSHIP How ENGOs can mitigate inequality of power and resources when working with place-based organisations Enable more equitable financial agreements in partnerships between organisations of different sizes • Ensure partnerships are financed or actively include a fundraising element • Involve all partners in decisions about costs, distributions and prioritisation within funding applications • Fundraise on behalf of place-based partners to alleviate pressure on their frontline teams • Be open and willing to carrying the ‘risk’ within coalition funding applications • Incorporate flexibility in funding agreements for place-based initiatives to use money intuitively and adaptively • Adequately financially compensate place-based organisations’ time and expertise, including for activities such as: • time spent reporting and fulfilling funding requirements • face-to-face work with communities and volunteers, including activities relating to participatory decision-making, community events and different forms of relationship building • organisational development and strategy • Take time to understand what is already happening in a geographic location • Amplify, complement, and build on the strengths of established local efforts, workstreams and strategies • Learn from historical and current place-based practices • Cultivate reciprocal relationships rather than extractive ones • Make mindful decisions about when, where and how to use your brand so that it doesn’t overshadow or diminish recognition of less well-known groups • Be transparent about different kinds of contributions made within partnership projects and the value of less visible work • Design research outputs in collaboration with place-based practitioners, responding to and prioritising their needs and crediting their involvement in the production of knowledge and best practice Recognise and complement existing place-based work, giving credit where credit is due 1/2 • Place-based organisations need support on their own terms and in their own unique circumstances - there is no one-size-fits-all model of support • Provide regular in-house training and professional development opportunities on community-based practices and awareness of power dynamics so your staff understand how to work better alongside placebased projects • Reflect on your experiences of working with smaller organisations and learn from both successes and mistakes • Involve local experts and partners in your governance and decision making • Learn how to leverage your brand in ways that enable good outcomes for everyone Be generous with your internal capacity by supporting the administrative aspects of partnerships • Free up time for place-based initiatives’ strategic work by taking on administrative tasks • Respect the leadership, autonomy and knowledge of place-based organisations by staying out of decisions about on-the-ground delivery (unless you are explicitly invited to participate) • Defer to local partnerships and alliances for best practices in specific geographical areas and local communities • Connect projects with each other for the sharing of best practice, materials, purpose and inspiration • Provide administrative support to local alliances and consortiums • Increase access to and uptake of existing resources and toolkits by offering training and bespoke implementation support • Create new resources under Creative Commons licences so they are free to use • Share how you mitigate power and resource inequality when working with smaller organisations to encourage other larger organisations to take similar actions • Support collaborations between conservation and community work professionals • Resource the involvement of place-based community work professionals and/or people with local knowledge and relationships within ENGO coalitions • Avoid competition with other ENGOs through coordinated working practices, media campaigns and public messaging • Recognise when another organisation might be better placed to provide coordination support for networks and partnerships, and support them to do so effectively Coordinate within other ENGOs to mitigate unequal power dynamics in partnerships Commit to ongoing learning about community relationships and how to actively mitigate power dynamics between organisations of different sizes 2/2 Scan the QR code to find out more about the research project which informed this document and to view other useful tools © 2025. This work is openly licensed via CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Figure 6: An infographic for ENGO practitioners. This can be shared within the Urban Forest Network and other organisations. Appendix B Key principles of practice for Local Authorities These principles are practical suggestions that may help Tree Officers and other staff at local authorities in their community engagement and outreach work. They are also summarised in the infographic, The Five Be’s for Urban Trees: Advice for Local Authority Tree Officers (see Figure 7), which may be used as a poster within council offices or as a digital quick-reference guide. i. Be visible by getting out and about • Make the first move to engage with communities – often members of the public want to hear directly from the people who are managing trees, but they don’t know who these people are or how to reach them. • Spend informal time in neighbourhoods and parks to get to know the local area and increase understanding between tree officers and community members. • Attend community events, be present in communities (e.g., doing formal street and park outreach). • Wear something identifiable. • Display useful and accessible information in community spaces. ii. Be approachable by working in collaboration with place-based groups • Connect and build relationships with existing place-based projects who have pre-established relationships with different socio-economic and cultural groups. • Seek to understand the aims and priorities of place-based groups and find common ground for working together. • Organise educational tree walks about the ecology, cultural history, and folklore of local trees and invite attendees to contribute their own stories and knowledge. • Create bespoke community events about urban trees which will be of interest to specific people and groups (e.g., community health professionals). • Communicate with passion and enthusiasm – this is infectious and helps to cultivate curiosity. iii. Be appreciative of unpaid tree care and the diverse relationships people have with trees • Assume the best intentions from communities: people care about the trees in their neighbourhoods and want to know more about them to maximise their benefits and see them flourish. • When engaging with volunteers and non-professional tree carers, show interest and gratitude for their time and care. • Seek to acknowledge, understand and value the diverse emotional and cultural connections people have with trees in their neighbourhoods or trees that they care for. • Be open to learning from local communities: ask questions about how and why people care for trees before sharing your professional knowledge and techniques. 52 iv. Be proactive rather than reactive in navigating tension • When there is potential for tension or conflict around trees, act early to open good lines of communication, welcome feedback and take preventative action. • If conflict arises, seek to understand why this has occurred (e.g., unmet social or economic needs), so you can sensitively attend to the root cause(s). • Explore a variety of solutions and actions that would meet the community needs without jeopardising the health of trees. • When taking steps to rectify a situation, explain the reasoning without casting judgement. • A third party acting as a mediator can be helpful for enabling dialogue between those involved in a conflict and communicating sensitively to the public. v. Be transparent when there are difficult decisions to make • Go slow: allow plenty of time to consult with communities who will be affected by any potential change. • Create and facilitate different kinds of spaces for dialogue to ensure access and inclusion for diverse groups, enabling all relevant perspectives to be considered in a decision-making process. If a situation is particularly tense, external facilitation may be appropriate. • Be open to stakeholder perspectives, emotional responses and feedback influencing your course of action. Think creatively and collaboratively to find ways forward. • Explain the professional side of tree management using accessible, non-technical language. • Ensure there are accessible communication and feedback mechanisms – use different platforms to achieve as wide a reach as possible. 53 PRINCIPLES OF BEST PRACTICE FOR URBAN TREE INITIATIVES Build trust, relationships and community • Spend time in community spaces and reaching out to individual households. • Host events with free food and activities for children. • Use one-off events to share information about how people can get involved with regular volunteering. • Cultivate a sense of community and friendship - these are key reasons people stay involved in urban tree projects. Involve community members in decision-making processes • Foster a sense of collective ownership and responsibility for local trees by including community members in decision-making processes. • Use community organising principles to ensure community members have a voice and active role in shaping urban tree initiatives. • Codesign planting initiatives that create new or enhance existing community spaces. Foster collaborative networks • Encourage collaborations between conservation and community work projects. • Connect with other local and regional projects to share best practice, resources, inspiration and encouragement. • Work together on a shared vision for your town or city and support each other to play your part in bringing it to life. Create tailored experiences and learning opportunities • Offer diverse opportunities, roles and tasks that appeal to different people. • Incorporate celebrations, rituals and seasonal events to support the sense of connection between people and the trees around them. • Use arts and cultural activities to integrate projects into the community’s cultural fabric and identity. • Support active volunteers to take on leadership roles within the project (e.g. Tree Keepers, Street or Area Reps). Encourage them to act as champions for the project, helping them to mobilise and inspire others. • Provide training and vocational courses, then cascade skills through peer learning. • Conduct community mapping to identify local assets, interests, histories and needs. • Connect and engage with existing affinity groups, clubs and community spaces. • Consider how to address tree inequity by choosing locations that are accessible to the public in areas of higher deprivation and lower green infrastructure. • Secure long-term tenure on the land to ensure sustainability, longevity and reduce the risk of development which impedes access to green space. Get to know the neighbourhood and build on existing community assets Scan the QR code to find out more about the research project which informed this document and to view other useful tools © 2025. This work is openly licensed via CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Figure 8: An infographic for place-based and community practitioners at urban tree projects. This can be shared within the Urban Forest Network and other organisations. 57 Appendix C Principles of best practice for place-based urban tree initiatives The following five key principles are rooted in the community organising framework. By working in line with these principles, place-based practitioners can nurture vibrant, resilient and proactive communities who are connected to and guardians of urban trees and wider ecologies. They are also summarised in the infographic, Principles of Best Practice for Urban Tree Initiatives (see Figure 8), which may be used as a poster within workspaces or as a digital quick-reference guide. i. Build trust, relationships and community • Spend time in community spaces and reach out to individual households to build long-term, trusting relationships. • Host a variety of events that are tailored to the needs of different groups (e.g., providing free food and including fun activities for children). • One-off community events are a great opportunity to share information about your work and different ways community members can become regular volunteers. • Alongside tree care activities, cultivate a sense of community and friendship, as these are key reasons people stay involved in urban tree projects. • Be open to learning from local communities: ask questions about how and why people care for trees before sharing your professional knowledge and techniques. ii. Get to know the neighbourhood and build on existing community assets • Conduct community mapping to identify local assets, interests, histories and needs • Connect and engage with a variety of existing groups such as ‘friends of’, ethnic or cultural groups, places of worship, social clubs, conservation groups, activist networks, libraries and community centres. • Consider how to address tree inequity by choosing locations that are accessible to as broad a range of the public as possible and proactively target areas of higher deprivation and lower levels of green infrastructure. • Secure long-term tenure on the land to ensure sustainability, longevity and reduce the risk of development impeding access to green space (or removing it altogether). iii. Involve community members in decision-making processes • Foster a sense of collective ownership and responsibility for trees in a given area by including the people who live, work, and play there in decision-making processes. • Use community organising principles to ensure that community members have a voice and an active role in shaping urban tree initiatives. • Co-design planting initiatives that create new, or enhance existing, community spaces. 5555 iv. Create tailored experiences and opportunities for learning and leadership • Offer diverse opportunities, roles, activities and tasks that appeal to different people. • Incorporate celebrations, rituals, and seasonal events to support the sense of connection between people and the trees around them. Use arts and cultural activities to integrate projects into the community’s cultural fabric and identity. • Support active volunteers to take on leadership roles within the project (e.g., community anchors, leaders, and advocates like Tree Keepers, Orchard Leaders, and Street or Area Representatives). Encourage and resource these individuals to act as champions for the project, helping them to mobilise and inspire others. • Provide training and vocational courses, then cascade skills through peer learning. v. Foster collaborative networks • Encourage collaborations between conservation organisations and community-based projects. • Connect with other local and regional initiatives and share best practice, resources, inspiration and encouragement. • Work together to create a shared vision for your town or city and support each other’s roles in bringing the vision to life. 56 THE FIVE BE’S FOR URBAN TREES Advice for Local Authority Tree Officers BE VISIBLE • Make the first move to engage with communities - often members of the public want to hear directly from people who manage trees, but they don’t know who the people are or how to reach them. • Spend informal time in neighbourhoods and parks to get to know the local areas and increase understanding between trees officers and community members. • Attend community events, be present in communities (e.g. doing formal street and park outreach). • Wear something identifiable. • Display useful and accessible information in community spaces. BE APPRECIATIVE • Assume the best intentions from communities: people care about the trees in their neighbourhoods and want to know more about them to maximise their benefits and see them flourish. • When engaging with volunteers and non-professional tree carers, show interest and gratitude for their time and care. • Seek to acknowledge, understand and value the diverse emotional and cultural connections people have with trees in their neighbourhoods or trees that they care for. • Be open to learning from local communities: ask questions about how and why people care for trees before sharing professional knowledge and techniques. BE PROACTIVE • When there is potential for tension or conflict around trees, act early to open good lines of communication, welcome feedback and take preventative action. • If conflict arises, seek to understand why this has occurred (e.g. unmet social or economic needs), so you can sensitively attend to the root causes(s). • Explore a variety of solutions and actions that would meet the community needs without jeopardising the health of trees. • When taking steps to rectify a situation explain the reasoning without casting judgement. • A third party acting as a mediator can be helpful for enabling dialogue between those involved in a conflict and communicating sensitively to the public. BE TRANSPARENT • Go slow: allow plenty of time to consult with communities who will be affected by any potential change. • Create and facilitate different kinds of spaces for dialogue to ensure access and inclusion for diverse groups, enabling all relevant perspectives to be considered in a decision-making process. If a situation is particularly tense, external facilitation may be appropriate. • Be open to stakeholder perspectives, emotional responses and feedback influencing your course of action. Think creatively and collaboratively to find ways forward. • Explain the professional side of tree management using accessible, non-technical language. • Ensure there are accessible communication and feedback mechanisms - use different platforms to achieve as wide a reach as possible. • Connect and build relationships with existing placebased projects who have pre-established relationships with different socio-economic and cultural groups. • Seek to understand the aims and priorities of place-based groups and find common ground for working together. • Organise educational tree walks about the ecology, cultural history and folklore of local trees and invite attendees to contribute their own stories and knowledge. • Create bespoke community events about urban trees which will be of interest to specific people and groups (e.g. community health professionals). • Communicate with passion and enthusiasm - this is infectious and helps to cultivate curiosity. BE APPROACHABLE Scan the QR code to find out more about the research project which informed this document and to view other useful tools © 2025. This work is openly licensed via CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Figure 7: An infographic for Tree Officers and other staff within local authorities. This can be shared within the Urban Forest Network and other organisations. 54 3. Diagram of the Urban Forest Network THE URBAN FOREST NETWORK ...connecting and nurturing the Urban Forest Key Central Network Virtual Organising Nodes Regional meet-ups Virtual Network Hub Network Host Place-based Groups Statutory Groups Networked Groups Larger ENGOs 64 65 4. The purpose and functions of the UFN The primary purpose of the UFN is to support the development of collaborative and symbiotic relationships between urban forest initiatives and other related stakeholders. Actions it will take to achieve these goals are outlined below. 4.1. Creating virtual and in-person spaces for connection, inspiration and innovation a. Host an online forum that enables members to offer peer support through sectoral sub-groups/ nodes and connect across sectors regionally. b. Collate and maintain a repository of information about place-based projects and who’s doing what c. Offer in-person events (these could be regional or national) that offer practical training, inspiring case studies, provocations to support innovation and relationship-building activities that encourage partnership development. 4.2. Collating best practice, toolkits and other resources a. Enable coordination with and access to other specialist networks who offer training, support and guidance including Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG), Ancient Tree Forum, Arboricultural Association, Community Tree Nursery Collaborative and others. b. Produce new and/or share common guidance on urban forest management approaches, working with communities, and other key issues where relevant. c. Collate a ‘most useful’ resource repository that place-based projects can use to support their practice. These might be specific to urban tree/forest management or about other aspects (e.g., guidance for working with certain groups, information about organisational policies or toolkits which support collaboration between different actors). d. Identify research, training and skills needs and consider how these can be met through the network. e. Coordinate peer support that enables greater utilisation of existing (collated) best-practice guidelines and toolkits. 4.3. Enabling the coordination of policy and advocacy efforts a. Share plans and experience of advocating for urban trees and forests between member organisations and within regional areas. b. Identify and share influencing opportunities for positive change. c. Create shared responses to evolving policy proposals and consultations. d. Broker access to decision-making processes (in policy and within larger ENGOs), enabling placebased initiatives and alliances to have more influence. 4.4. Widening access to funding opportunities a. Share information about funding opportunities regionally and nationally. b. Build/broker trusting relationships with regional philanthropic actors and capital. c. Turn potential conflicts over limited funding pots into positive opportunities for collaboration by providing proformas and templates for effective partnership work between organisations of different sizes and sectors. 66 5. Network coordination The Urban Forest Network is coordinated by a set of larger ENGOs working on urban forestry. There are two primary roles – the Network Convenors and the Network Host – which work together to facilitate the UFN using the guiding principles of practice. 5.1. Network Convenors The proposed Network Convenors are Trees for Cities, Community Forest Trust, National Trust and Woodland Trust. They have been identified due to their specific expertise in convening collaborations for urban trees or their organisational influence and capacity. Trees for Cities has specialised in increasing the number of urban trees and enhancing their benefits for communities since its inception in 1993. Starting life as a small group of friends wanting to support London’s treescape, the organisation has grown and now works in 42 cities around the UK. Alongside their expertise in urban forestry and tree management, Trees for Cities have credibility and a strong reputation for working with smaller community-based groups. They also coordinate the Tree Cities of the World programme. Trees for Cities has helped to drive the urban forest agenda over the last three decades and will bring a wealth of expertise in policy and practice to the UFN. Community Forest Trust (CFT)’s mission is to support and enable community forestry as a driver of environmental, social, and economic benefits. The organisation is deeply collaborative – sharing knowledge, advocating for best practice, and working in partnership with diverse stakeholders. CFT enables and champions the work of England’s Community Forests, which seeks to complement and amplify existing local efforts by working closely with place-based initiatives in and around the 15 Community Forest catchment areas. With expertise in convening large-scale initiatives and a commitment to innovation, CFT is ideally positioned to unite smaller urban forestry groups. By providing strategic leadership, resources, and a platform for collaboration, it can amplify local efforts and create a stronger, more connected urban forest movement. The National Trust is the UK’s largest nature and heritage conservation organisation and looks after some of the nation’s most loved natural landscapes. A lesser known but core aspect of their work in recent years has been establishing teams that focus on greening urban areas and ending unequal access to nature. They led the Urban Forest Accelerator programme, which worked with placebased organisations in several UK cities to increase tree cover and tree equity. The National Trust is a founding partner of Nature Neighbourhoods and Nature Towns and Cities , programmes that build capacity and connect practitioners to enhance urban green infrastructure where it’s needed most. They are highly experienced in partnership working, including many collaborations with England’s Community Forests as part of their extensive tree planting strategy. The National Trust offers institutional recognition, influence and capacity to the team of UFN Convenors. The Woodland Trust has championed the protection and restoration of UK woodlands for over 50 years. They manage some of the nation’s few remaining ancient woodlands and in recent years have been working more closely with local authorities to support urban forests as well. An important aspect of this has been their work create the UK Tree Equity Score (alongside partners American Forests and the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare). Each year, they run the ‘Tree of the Year’ competition, a highprofile public engagement initiative where communities and individuals can nominate their favourite trees to be nationally recognised. The respected national reputation of the Woodland Trust brings political influence to the UFN, which is crucial for effective policy advocacy. 67 5.2. Network Host The UFN could be digitally hosted by the Nature Towns and Cities network, which is in the process of being established. Nature Towns and Cities is a partnership initiative led by the National Trust, Natural England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Its creation has been guided by learning from the Future Parks Accelerator and Nature Neighbourhood projects. Nature Towns and Cities could provide the network infrastructure, reach, and institutional weight with organisational capacity provided to the UFN by the convenors listed above. Furthermore, Nature Towns and Cities brings expertise in navigating the inherent power dynamics of asymmetrical partnerships between organisations of different sizes and structures. 5.3 Guiding principles of practice Crucially, the convenors and host are not the ‘leaders’ of the network. Instead, they will coordinate the establishment of the Urban Forest Network and work in line with the five key principles of best practice for cultivating reciprocal relationships between larger ENGOs and smaller placebased organisations. These principles help larger ENGOs to mitigate the potential for power and resource inequalities when working with smaller organisations, including place-based initiatives. Inequalities can show up in a variety of ways, including finances, brand recognition and influence, internal organisational capacity and resourcing for advocacy and partnership work. The Principles for Partnership infographic (available for download here) provides practical suggestions for putting the principles into practice. i. Enable equitable financial agreements in partnerships between organisations of different sizes. ii. Recognise and complement existing place-based work, giving credit where credit is due. iii. Be generous with your internal capacity by supporting the administrative and logistical aspects of partnerships iv. Coordinate with other ENGOs to mitigate unequal power dynamics in partnerships. v. Commit to ongoing learning about community relationships and how to actively mitigate power dynamics between organisations of different sizes. 6. Organising nodes Initially, the UFN will be organised into four nodes. More nodes can be created when the need arises. These nodes allow organisations of similar types to collaborate and share information, best practice and peer support (e.g., troubleshooting around common issues of contention or difficulty). Some organisations may find that they straddle more than one node (e.g., a networked organisation with place-based initiatives). The following nodes and criteria are suggested as a starting point. 6.1. Place-based voluntary sector organisations These organisations come in a large range of sizes – from organisations with a turnover of less than £10,000 to those closer to £500,000. The criteria for joining this node are: a. Working in a place-based setting with a specific geography/community (this could be a whole borough or a single neighbourhood) b. Working directly with communities to manage and care for urban trees c. Charitable and/or not-for-profit legal structure (e.g., Charitable Trust, Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO), Company limited by guarantee, Charitable company, Community Interest Company (CIC), Community Benefit Society, Cooperative Society, unincorporated association) d. Working with volunteers or community members who give their time freely to support the aims of the organisation 6.2. Statutory organisations This node is primarily directed at urban tree specialists and teams based within government-funded departments and agencies, including local authorities (e.g., county council, borough council) and national statutory bodies (e.g., Natural England, Natural Resources Wales). The criteria for joining this node are: a. Working for a statutory organisation b. Working with urban trees in some capacity (e.g., parks and recreation, street tree management, urban green spaces, natural resource management) c. some responsibilities around community involvement, engagement and/or consultation in decisions about and practices for urban tree care 6.3. Networked organisations Networked organisations may straddle multiple nodes, as they often sit within or adjacent to the voluntary or statutory sectors. This node is primarily intended to connect organisations who are inherently networked (i.e., they operate across multiple geographic locations and are structured to ensure internal sharing of best practice). The criteria for joining this node are: a. Working/volunteering for or member of a networked organisation that coordinates across multiple geographies and/or virtual spaces b. Having expertise in a particular model or approach that has been or could be scaled (e.g., community orchards, street tree guardianship) c. Supporting grassroots operations relating to trees in urban spaces in multiple locations across the UK 6.4. National ENGOs This node is the place for large nationally-facing ENGOs. These organisations have a variety of structures, sizes and areas of focus, but are united by their interest in supporting the urban forest to flourish. The criteria for joining this node are: a. Established as a national non-governmental organisation (as opposed to being singularly place-based) with an environmental purpose which relates to urban trees b. Charitable and/or not-for-profit legal structure (e.g., Charitable Trust, Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO), Company limited by guarantee, Charitable company, Community Interest Company (CIC), Community Benefit Society, Cooperative Society). c. Registered with the Charity Commission. d. Actively working on or advising about trees in urban areas in policy and/or practice e. Substantial institutional recognition, influence, reach and/or capacity-sharing capabilities that offer substance to the UFN’s agreed purpose and functions 68 6.5 Examples of initiatives that could join each Organising Node Place-based Voluntary Sector Organisations • Forest Gardens • Urban Orchards • Community tree nurseries • Tree activists/defenders/campaigners • Nature-based arts practitioners • Education and wellbeing practitioners • Urban community forests • Tiny Forests (individual sites) • Tree guardian schemes • National Park Cities (individual sites) • Incredible Edible (individual sites) Networked Organisations • Arboricultural Association • Trees and Design Action Group • Ancient Tree Forum • Fellowship of the Trees / Community Tree Nursery Collaborative • The Orchard Project • Tiny Forests (EarthWatch) • NHS Forest • Association of Tree Officers • London Tree Officer Association • The Tree Council Tree Warden Network • Social Farms and Gardens • Agroforestry Research Trust Statutory Organisations • London Tree Officer Association • Association of Tree Officers • Local Authorities • Relevant liaison with national and devolved statutory organisations • Forestry Commission • Forestry and Land Scotland • NatureScot • Natural Resources Wales • Natural England • NI Forest Service • National Parks Authorities • Devolved government heritage organisations (e.g., Cadw in Wales) National ENGOs • Woodland Trust • England’s Community Forests • The Tree Council • The Wildlife Trusts • RSPB • English Heritage • National Trust • Trees for Cities • Trees for Streets 69 7. What does success look like? With the proposed establishment of the UFN in early 2026, we hope to see the following by the end of 2028 [NB: these success indicators and the creation of an impact measurement process will be discussed and finalised by the Convenors]: a. Members of Organising Nodes are well connected to one another and able to share learning, best practice and opportunities they might otherwise miss. b. All members of the UFN have a greater understanding of each other’s roles and contributions to cultivating the urban forest, enabling a sense of togetherness and unity even when there are different approaches or contexts. c. Members of the UFN are working in ways which show symbiosis, including a reduction in duplication and contradiction of resources, messaging, etc. d. Convenors are working effectively behind the scenes to ensure the UFN is resourced and coordinated and are able to draw in extra support from within the Network (usually from the ENGO node) where needed. e. In-person gatherings of individual or cross-cutting nodes are happening quarterly in geographic areas and annually for the whole of the UK. f. Virtual spaces have been developed to collate and/or signpost to best practice, guidelines, toolkits and other resources and to host chat-based forums for peer support. g. Information is shared effectively across organisational and regional nodes so that all urban forest initiatives have easy access to consistent, high-quality guidance, resources and assessment tools to inform good management of urban trees and work with communities. h. 50% of members are actively engaging in the virtual spaces at least once a month. i. The extent and significance (locally and globally) of urban forest treescapes are better understood by organisations across the UK. j. Local expertise and experience from grassroots organisations are reflected in higher-level policy-making spaces as a result of relationships forged through the UFN. k. The UFN coordinates with ENGOs to ensure effective advocacy to governments (with appropriate variation between nations) which delivers community-based urban forest canopy expansion and improved funding to place-based groups. l. UFN members are better able to access significant funding streams through cooperation, coordination and partnership working. 70 8. Next steps for establishing the UFN To kick-start the UFN, the following tasks have been identified as first steps. 8.1. Agree governance structure and parameters a. Agree Terms of Reference to establish effective governance and ways of working –this document provides a draft that can be finalised by the Host, Convenor organisations and key stakeholders at an online meeting b. Establish working/partnership agreement between the Host and Convenor organisations which outlines the roles and responsibilities of each c. Determine a decision-making process to support efficiency and transparency (e.g., use of a decision tree) 8.2. Establish the working model of the UFN a. Create a bespoke and separate space within the existing Nature Towns and Cities Network for the UFN b. Set up the UFN hub area for initial member sign-up c. Draft and agree membership form and agreement/code of conduct d. Create organising nodes and structure for their virtual space e. Enable geographic connections so that organisations from different nodes within one region can connect 8.3. Publicly launch the UFN a. Launch the network and invite key organisations (e.g., list in Section 6.5) to join b. Coordinate with networked organisations to collate and signpost their existing guidelines, resources and best practice c. Create an organising team and set a date for the first annual in-person UFN event to take place in Summer 2026 8.4. Consolidate and plan for the new year a. Speak to funders and/or philanthropists sharing the story of the UFN, and look for funding opportunities that would support its maintenance, reach and annual in-person events from 2026–2030 b. Ongoing background organising for the first annual in-person UFN event 71 Renewing biodiversity through a people-in-nature approach ExCASES is a ‘solutions generator’ designed to tackle issues facing biodiversity renewal that are not covered by RENEW’s four core themes. It provides an agile, flexible mechanism to work collaboratively with partners, researchers, and organisations from diverse sectors on focused topics. This cross-cutting theme is run by an interdisciplinary team of researchers based at the National Trust and the University of Exeter. To contact RENEW and ExCASES RENEW Environment and Sustainability Institute University of Exeter Penryn Campus, Penryn Cornwall, TR10 9FE renewbiodiversity.org.uk Email: ex[email protected].uk Email: [email protected] Image credits ©National Trust Images/Trevor Ray Hart/Paul Harris/James Dobson/Iolo Penri/Arnhel de Serra/Annapurna Mellor/Peter Katic/Emma Weston/Sarah Davis/Ray Dale/Megan Taylor/ Matthew Oates/Rob Coleman/Chris Lacey/Kirsty Gibbons/Rob Stothard. Urban Forest project photography: Dan White. Unsplash photography: sq lim on Unsplash, GeoJango Maps on Unsplash, Daoud Abismail on Unsplash, david hughes on Unsplash, Matt Seymour on Unsplash. Mission Report Cultivating communities who care for urban trees