Residential Green Infrastructure: Unpacking Motivations and Obstacles to Single-Family-Home Tree Planting in Diverse, Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods

Abstract

Urban tree planting on single-family-home lots represents a critical yet underexplored component of municipal greening strategies. This study examines residents’ perceptions of tree planting in Westpointe, a diverse neighborhood in Salt Lake City, Utah, as part of the city’s Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan development effort. Through a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative interviews (n = 24) and a tree signup initiative extended to 86 residents, with 51 participating, this research explores the complex interplay of demographic, economic, social, and infrastructure factors influencing residents’ willingness to plant trees on single-family-home lots. The findings reveal significant variations based on gender, with women expressing more positive environmental and aesthetic motivations, while men focused on practical concerns including maintenance and property damage. Age emerged as another critical factor, with older adults (65+) expressing concerns about long-term maintenance capabilities, while younger families (25–44) demonstrated future-oriented thinking about shade and property values. Property characteristics, particularly yard size, significantly influenced receptiveness, with owners of larger yards (>5000 sq ft) showing greater willingness compared to those with smaller properties, who cited space constraints. Additional barriers, i.e., maintenance, financial, and knowledge barriers, included irrigation costs, lack of horticultural knowledge, pest concerns, and proximity to underground utilities. Geographic analysis revealed that Spanish-speaking social networks were particularly effective in promoting tree planting. The study contributes to urban forestry literature by providing nuanced insights into single-family homeowners’ tree-planting decisions and offers targeted recommendations for municipal programs. These include gender-specific outreach strategies, age-appropriate support services, sliding-scale subsidy programs based on property size, and comprehensive education initiatives. The findings inform evidence-based approaches to increase urban canopy coverage through private property plantings, ultimately supporting climate resilience and environmental justice goals in diverse urban neighborhoods.

1. Introduction

1.1. Urban Forest Ecosystem Services and the Canopy Gap Challenge

Urban forests provide essential ecosystem services that enhance the quality of life in cities, from air purification and temperature regulation to stormwater management and mental health benefits [1]. While much attention has focused on public space greening, private property, specifically single-family housing, represents a significant and often untapped resource for expanding the urban tree canopy. In many American cities, 60–80% of potential planting space exists on private property, making resident participation crucial for achieving urban forestry goals [2].

Salt Lake City faces challenges in expanding its urban forest. The city’s semi-arid climate, combined with increasing temperatures due to climate change, creates harsh growing conditions that require careful species selection and ongoing maintenance [3]. Additionally, the city’s west side neighborhoods, including Westpointe, have historically received less investment in green infrastructure compared to more affluent east side areas, creating disparities in tree canopy coverage that correlate with income, ethnic, and racial demographics [4]. Recent research has documented these green infrastructure inequalities, showing that west side neighborhoods with higher minority populations have significantly less access to tree canopy coverage [5].

Westpointe, located in Salt Lake City’s west side, exemplifies these challenges. The neighborhood, developed primarily in the 1950s–1970s, features modest single-family homes with varying yard sizes. The area is home to a diverse population, including significant Latino and Pacific Islander communities, and faces environmental justice concerns related to air quality, heat island effects, and limited green space access [6]. Research has shown that west side residents value tree-lined streets for active transportation, with residents reporting greater enjoyment of walking and biking in areas with more trees [7]. However, the lack of existing green infrastructure creates barriers to realizing these benefits. As documented by Wu et al. [8], peri-urban areas like Westpointe experienced particularly acute inequities in park and green space access during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the urgent need for equitable urban greening strategies.

As part of the Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan development effort, the city identified Westpointe as a priority area for increasing tree canopy coverage. This study emerged from a collaboration between the University of Utah’s College of City and Metropolitan Planning, Salt Lake City Public Lands Department, University Neighborhood Partners and the Westpointe Community Council. Other community partners supported the endeavor, including the Bennion Center at the University of Utah, Ivory Homes, and Tree Utah. The research aimed to understand the complex factors influencing Westpointe residents’ decisions about planting trees on single-family home lots, with the goal of informing evidence-based strategies to increase participation in urban greening initiatives.

The significance of this research extends beyond Westpointe. As cities nationwide grapple with climate adaptation and environmental justice concerns, understanding the barriers to and motivations for private property tree planting becomes increasingly critical. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on urban forestry by providing nuanced insights into how demographic factors, property characteristics, and socio-cultural considerations shape residents’ tree-planting decisions.

Through a mixed-methods approach, this research addresses several key questions: What factors motivate residents to plant trees on single-family home lots? What barriers prevent participation in tree-planting programs? How do demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and property ownership influence these decisions? And finally, what targeted strategies can municipalities employ to increase tree planting on single-family home lots in diverse urban neighborhoods?

Based on the theory of planned behavior and environmental justice frameworks, we hypothesized that demographic factors (gender, age, ethnicity) would significantly influence tree-planting attitudes and intentions; property characteristics would moderate the relationship between attitudes and planting willingness; financial and knowledge barriers would be more pronounced among lower-income and non-English speaking residents; and social norms and neighborhood dynamics would significantly influence individual planting decisions.

The findings reveal a complex landscape of motivations and barriers that vary significantly across demographic groups and property types. By understanding these nuances, cities can develop more effective and equitable urban forestry programs that engage diverse communities in creating greener, more resilient urban environments.

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1. Urban Forestry and Ecosystem Services

Urban forests provide multifaceted benefits that extend far beyond aesthetic improvements. Nowak et al. [9] quantified the ecosystem services of urban trees, demonstrating their role in removing air pollutants, sequestering carbon, reducing stormwater runoff, and lowering energy consumption through shade and windbreak effects. In the context of climate change, urban trees serve as critical infrastructure for adaptation, with mature trees capable of reducing surrounding air temperatures by 2–9 °F through evapotranspiration and shade provision [10].

The health benefits of urban trees have received increasing attention in recent literature. Kardan et al. [11] demonstrated that increasing tree coverage by just 10 trees per city block can enhance residents’ perceived health to a degree comparable with a USD 10,000 rise in annual income or a reduction in biological age by seven years—highlighting the substantial public health value of urban greening initiatives. Mental health benefits include reduced stress, improved cognitive function, and increased social cohesion in tree-lined neighborhoods [12]. These findings underscore the importance of equitable tree distribution as a public health intervention.

1.2.2. Environmental Justice and Urban Tree Canopy

The distribution of the urban tree canopy often reflects broader patterns of environmental injustice. Schwarz et al. [13] analyzed tree cover in seven U.S. cities and found consistent disparities based on income, ethnicity, and race—with low-income neighborhoods and communities of color exhibiting significantly less tree cover. This “luxury effect” perpetuates health disparities, as residents in underserved areas experience higher temperatures, poorer air quality, and fewer nature-based health benefits [14].

Historical redlining practices have created lasting impacts on urban tree distribution. Hoffman et al. demonstrated that formerly redlined neighborhoods have 23% less tree canopy and are, on average, 5 °F warmer than non-redlined areas [4]. These disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions in historically marginalized communities to address cumulative environmental burdens. In Salt Lake City specifically, Wu et al. [5] documented how COVID-19 exacerbated existing green infrastructure inequalities, with west side neighborhoods experiencing reduced access to parks and trails compared to that of more affluent areas.

1.2.3. Single-Family Homes Tree Planting: Motivations and Barriers

While public space tree planting receives substantial attention, private property represents the largest potential for urban forest expansion. Conway [15] identified key motivations for residential tree planting, including aesthetic preferences, property value enhancement, environmental benefits awareness, and emotional connections to nature. However, motivations vary significantly based on cultural background, with some communities prioritizing food production or preferring manicured landscapes over tree cover [16].

Barriers to private property tree planting are multifaceted. Practical concerns dominate, including maintenance requirements, potential property damage from roots or falling branches, interference with utilities, and pest attraction [17]. Financial constraints represent significant barriers, particularly for low-income households who may struggle with initial planting costs and ongoing maintenance expenses [18].

Knowledge gaps constitute another critical barrier. Many residents lack confidence in species selection, proper planting techniques, and long-term tree care [19]. This knowledge deficit is often more pronounced in communities with limited English proficiency or recent immigrant populations who may be unfamiliar with local species and growing conditions [20].

1.2.4. Demographic Influences on Tree-Planting Decisions

Gender differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors have been well-documented. Women generally express stronger pro-environmental attitudes and greater concern about environmental risks [21]. In the context of urban forestry, Zhang et al. [22] found that women were more likely to value trees for aesthetic and emotional reasons, while men focused on practical benefits such as increased property values and energy savings.

Age influences tree-planting decisions through multiple pathways. Older adults may have accumulated knowledge and resources for tree care but express concerns about physical limitations and long-term maintenance responsibilities [23]. Younger homeowners often lack experience but show greater receptiveness to environmental messaging and long-term thinking about climate adaptation [24].

Property characteristics significantly shape tree-planting possibilities and preferences. Larger yards provide more planting options and reduce concerns about space competition, while small yards constrain choices and amplify worries about tree size and root spread [25]. Rental status represents another critical factor, with renters often excluded from tree-planting decisions despite comprising significant portions of urban populations [26].

1.2.5. Cultural and Social Factors

Cultural background profoundly influences landscape preferences and tree-planting decisions. Latino communities, for instance, may prioritize functional landscapes that accommodate large family gatherings and food production [27]. Pacific Islander communities often value specific tree species with cultural significance and may have different aesthetic preferences than those favored by dominant Anglo-American landscaping norms [28].

Social networks and neighborhood norms exert powerful influences on tree-planting behaviors. Neighborhood “champions” who model and promote tree planting can catalyze broader adoption through social diffusion processes [29]. Conversely, neighborhoods with strong preferences for manicured, treeless lawns may create social pressure against tree planting [30].

1.2.6. Municipal Tree Programs and Community Engagement

Successful municipal tree programs require more than just tree distribution; they demand comprehensive community engagement strategies. Young [31] identified key elements of effective programs, including sustained funding, dedicated staff, community partnerships, and adaptive management based on monitoring and evaluation. Programs that involve residents in planning and decision making show higher success rates and degrees of community buy-in [32].

Targeted outreach strategies can address specific community needs and barriers. Carmichael and McDonough [33] demonstrated the effectiveness of culturally tailored messaging, trusted community messengers, and hands-on education in increasing participation among diverse communities. Programs that address multiple barriers simultaneously—providing free trees, planting assistance, and ongoing support—show the highest participation rates [34].

1.2.7. Theoretical Framework

This study employs an integrated theoretical approach that combines three complementary frameworks to address different levels of analysis in residential tree-planting decisions. The theory of planned behavior serves as the foundational individual-level framework, examining how attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence planting intentions. The environmental justice theory operates at the structural level, highlighting how historical inequities and systemic barriers shape current opportunities and constraints. The social-ecological systems theory provides a systems-level perspective, recognizing the complex interactions between human decisions and ecological outcomes across multiple scales.

These frameworks complement rather than compete: TPB explains individual decision-making processes, environmental justice illuminates the structural context within which these decisions occur, and SES theory captures the dynamic interactions between individual choices, community dynamics, and ecological outcomes. For instance, a resident’s attitude toward trees (TPB) may be influenced by neighborhood social norms (TPB subjective norms), which are themselves shaped by historical disinvestment patterns (environmental justice), all occurring within a complex urban ecosystem where individual choices aggregate to system-level outcomes (SES). While diffusion of innovations and social cognitive theory offer valuable insights into social modeling and community demonstration effects, TPB was selected as the primary framework in this study because it provides a comprehensive structure for understanding individual decision making while still accommodating social influences through subjective norms.

The theory of planned behavior [35] posits that behavioral intentions are influenced by attitudes toward the behavior; subjective norms; and perceived behavioral control. In the context of tree planting, attitudes encompass beliefs about tree benefits and drawbacks, subjective norms include neighborhood and cultural expectations, and perceived behavioral control relates to knowledge, resources, and physical capacity for tree planting and maintenance.

The environmental justice framework highlights how historical and ongoing inequities shape current tree-planting opportunities and constraints. This perspective emphasizes the need to address systemic barriers and ensure equitable access to urban greening benefits [36].

The social-ecological systems approach recognizes the complex interactions between human and natural systems in urban environments. This framework acknowledges that tree-planting decisions occur within nested systems of individual, household, neighborhood, and city-level factors that mutually influence outcomes [37].

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Area

Figure 1 shows Westpointe, a neighborhood in Salt Lake City’s west side, Utah, USA. The neighborhood houses roughly 8000 residents. According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2020, Westpointe’s population is 45% White, 35% Hispanic/Latino, 12% Pacific Islander, 5% Asian, and 3% other races. The median household income of USD 48,000 falls below the city average of USD 60,000, and 68% of residents own their homes.

The neighborhood’s urban forest is sparse, with an estimated 12% tree canopy coverage compared to the city average of 18% and the east side neighborhood average exceeding 30% [6]. Existing trees are predominantly mature Siberian elms and honey locusts planted in the 1960s–1970s, many of which are reaching the end of their lifespan. The area experiences significant heat island effects, with summer temperatures averaging 5–8 °F higher than those in well-treed neighborhoods [6].

2.2. Research Design

This study employed a convergent mixed-methods design, integrating qualitative interviews and a quantitative tree signup initiative to provide insights into tree-planting perceptions. The mixed-methods approach allowed for both depth of understanding through qualitative data and breadth of representation through quantitative data [38]. Research involved a community-wide tree signup campaign conducted in anticipation of the 30 April 2021, Arbor Day event at Westpointe Park.

2.2.1. Outreach and Response Patterns

Participants were recruited using purposive maximum variation sampling to ensure representation across key demographic variables [39]. Recruitment strategies included creating a flyer and distributing it through door-to-door canvassing, as well as disseminating it at schools, churches, and community centers throughout Westpointe; social media promotion through community Facebook groups; email distribution; the inclusion of QR codes on posters for easy mobile signup; and community event booths providing assisted registration.

2.2.2. Questions in the Form

In collaboration with Salt Lake City and the Westpointe Community Council, a tree distribution program was developed to assess community interest in the provision of free trees for private property planting. The program included a signup process through which residents could register to receive a free tree and indicate their support needs. The form was available in English and Spanish to ensure inclusive participation. The signup form collected confirmation of Westpointe residency (requirement for participation), demographic questions, interest in attending a tree care workshop, need for volunteer planting assistance, ability to pick up their own tree (approximately 6 feet tall), contact information and property address, and whether they would like to participate in a follow-up conversation.

The outreach team approached approximately 86 residents, with varying responses: 51 residents signed up to receive free trees, approximately 35 residents declined participation, and an unspecified number of people were not at home. Reasons for declining included concerns about maintenance, property constraints, and lack of interest. The response pattern itself provided valuable data about community receptiveness to tree-planting initiatives.

2.2.3. Interview Protocol

The people who completed the form were invited to participate in an interview. Semi-structured interviews lasted 20–60 min and were conducted in participants’ preferred language (English or Spanish). The interview protocol explored current yard use and landscape preferences, experiences with and attitudes toward trees, perceived benefits and concerns about trees, knowledge and confidence regarding tree planting and care, barriers to tree planting, motivations and conditions that would encourage tree planting, and preferred support and resources from the city. Interviews were audio-recorded, with consent, and transcribed verbatim. Spanish interviews were transcribed in Spanish, with key quotes translated for reporting. The final interview sample (n = 24) included the following:

• Gender: 14 women, 10 men;
• Age: five participants aged 25–34, seven aged 35–44, six aged 45–54, four aged 55–64, and two aged 65+.
• Ethnicity: 10 White, 8 Hispanic/Latino, 4 Pacific Islander, and 2 Asian.
• Property type: 18 homeowners; 6 renters.
• Yard size: 8 small (<3000 sq ft), 10 medium (3000–5000 sq ft), and 6 large (>5000 sq ft).

2.2.4. Sample Representativeness and Potential Biases

The interview sample closely mirrors neighborhood ethnic composition, with slight overrepresentation of Pacific Islander participants (17% vs. 12% in the neighborhood) and underrepresentation of Hispanic/Latino participants (33% vs. 35% in the neighborhood). The tree signup sample showed strong Spanish-language participation (92.2% of responses included Spanish elements), indicating effective outreach to Latino communities. However, potential self-selection bias toward environmentally interested residents should be considered when interpreting findings, as the study may have attracted those already predisposed to tree planting.

2.3. Analysis

2.3.1. Interviews

Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s [40] six-phase approach: gaining familiarity with the dataset through multiple readings, developing initial codes by applying both inductive and deductive reasoning, grouping codes to identify potential themes, comparing themes against specific excerpts and the overall dataset for consistency, clarifying and labeling each theme, and crafting the article using illustrative examples from the data. Atlas.ti software (Version 9.0, Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) supported data management and analysis.

2.3.2. Quantitative Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 30 to examine relationships between demographic characteristics and program support needs. Chi-square tests of independence were used to assess associations between categorical variables (language preference, geographic clustering) and support preferences (workshop interest, planting assistance needs, pickup capability). Fisher’s exact test was applied when expected cell counts were less than 5. Alpha level was set at 0.05 for all tests. The 51 residents who signed up for free trees provided insights into support needs through analysis of patterns related to age, ethnicity, and other demographics; workshop interest responses; planting assistance evaluation; pickup capability assessment; and geographic distribution mapping of participating households across Westpointe. This signup data, combined with field notes about declining residents stated reasons for refusal, informed understanding of both motivations for and barriers to tree planting.

2.3.3. Integration of Findings

Qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated using a joint display approach [41]. Convergent findings strengthened conclusions, while divergent findings prompted deeper exploration. Integration occurred at multiple levels: research questions addressed overlapping topics through both methods, interview findings informed outreach strategies during data collection, signup patterns were interpreted using qualitative insights during analysis, and meta-inferences were drawn from both data types during interpretation.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

This study received approval from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board (IRB #00128745). Key ethical considerations included informed verbal consent obtained from all participants, confidentiality protection through pseudonyms and data de-identification, cultural sensitivity in recruitment and data collection, community benefit sharing through results dissemination, and voluntary participation with right to withdraw. Data analysis protocols ensured participant confidentiality through unique identifier codes. Interview transcripts were stored on password-protected servers with access limited to research team members. All statistical analyses were conducted on de-identified data.

2.5. Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The signup campaign and overall study may have attracted those already interested in trees. Limited representation of renters occurred since we were targeting single-family homes. Focus on one neighborhood limits generalizability. COVID-19 restrictions affected some data collection activities. Statistical power was limited by the relatively small sample size (n = 51 for quantitative analysis), particularly for subgroup analyses by ethnicity. Some statistical tests required Fisher’s exact test due to small, expected cell counts. Future research should target larger sample sizes to enable more robust statistical comparisons. Despite these limitations, the mixed-methods approach and community partnership model provide robust insights into tree-planting perceptions in a diverse urban neighborhood.

3. Findings

3.1. Participant Characteristics and Community Response

3.1.1. Participant Characteristics and Response Patterns

The comprehensive outreach effort revealed significant insights about community receptiveness to urban tree planting. The outreach team approached approximately 86 Westpointe residents through door-to-door canvassing and community events. Of these, only 51 residents (approximately 60%) signed up to receive free trees, meaning 35 (40%) declined the offer despite the trees being provided at no cost.

3.1.2. Statistical Analysis of Support Needs by Demographics

Statistical analysis revealed significant patterns regarding support needs and language preferences. Geographic clustering analysis showed that Spanish-speaking social networks were particularly effective at spreading program information, with certain streets showing 80–100% Spanish-language responses (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.05). Language preference was significantly associated with delivery needs (χ² = 4.23, p < 0.05), with Spanish-speaking participants more likely to request tree delivery assistance.

Among the 51 residents who signed up for free trees, the data revealed important patterns regarding support needs and program preferences (

Table 1. Tree signup response patterns and support needs (n = 51).

Program Component	Response Category	Number	Percentage	95% CI
Workshop Interest	Yes	11	21.6%	11.3–35.3%
	Maybe	16	31.4%	19.1–45.9%
	No	24	47.0%	32.9–61.5%
Planting Help Needed	Yes	6	11.8%	4.4–23.9%
	Maybe	14	27.4%	15.8–41.7%
	No	31	60.8%	46.1–74.2%
Tree Pickup Capability	Yes	32	62.7%	48.1–75.9%
	No (need delivery)	19	37.3%	24.1–51.9%

). Educational support showed mixed patterns, with 11 residents expressing definite workshop interest, 16 remaining uncertain about workshops, and 24 declining participation. This distribution suggests that while approximately half showed some educational interest, many preferred independence or faced scheduling constraints. Regarding planting assistance, most participants indicated self-sufficiency, with 31 declining help, although 19 expressed uncertainty or need for assistance. This pattern may reflect either genuine confidence or cultural hesitancy to accept outside help. Pickup capability revealed a significant logistical challenge, with 32 participants able to transport trees independently, while 19 required delivery assistance. The 37% needing delivery assistance highlights transportation as a significant logistical barrier, particularly given that the trees were approximately 6 feet tall.

3.1.3. Interview Sample Characteristics and Representativeness

The interview sample demographics closely aligned with neighborhood composition, with minor variations in ethnic representation. Pacific Islander participants were slightly overrepresented at 17%, compared to a 12% neighborhood composition, while Hispanic/Latino participants comprised 33% vs. 35% in the broader community. This overrepresentation of Pacific Islander voices enhances understanding of this community’s perspectives but should be considered when interpreting findings. The strong Spanish-language participation in the signup data, representing 92.2% of responses, demonstrates effective community outreach to Latino residents. However, potential self-selection bias toward environmentally interested residents remains a consideration, as the study likely attracted those already predisposed to tree-planting activities.

3.2. Current Tree Conditions and Landscape Uses

3.2.1. Existing Tree Coverage and Species

Existing tree coverage varied significantly across participants’ properties. a total of 8 participants had no trees on their property, 10 had 1–3 trees, and 6 had 4 or more trees. Common species included aging Siberian elms, fruit trees (apple, pear, apricot), and ornamental varieties like flowering pears and maples. Many expressed concerns about the condition of existing trees.

“That big elm is probably 60 years old. I worry about branches falling on the house. But I can’t afford to take it down, and I’d feel guilty removing such a big tree.”—Maria, 58

3.2.2. Current Yard Uses and Cultural Preferences

Current yard uses reflected diverse household needs and cultural preferences. Latino participants often described yards as extensions of indoor living space, hosting large family gatherings and maintaining vegetable gardens. Pacific Islander participants emphasized open spaces for children’s play and family celebrations. White participants more frequently mentioned aesthetic considerations and privacy screening from neighbors.

3.3. Gender Differences in Tree Perceptions

3.3.1. Women’s Perspectives: Environmental and Aesthetic Motivations

Female participants consistently expressed more positive emotional connections to trees and stronger environmental motivations for planting. They frequently mentioned childhood memories, aesthetic preferences, and concerns about climate change. Environmental awareness emerged as a dominant theme, with women demonstrating greater knowledge of ecosystem services, including air quality improvement, temperature reduction, and wildlife habitat provision.

“I grew up climbing trees at my grandmother’s house. I want my kids to have those same experiences, that connection to nature even in the city.”—Jennifer, 34

Women demonstrated greater awareness of ecosystem services, mentioning air quality improvement (11 of 14 women), temperature reduction (9 of 14), and wildlife habitat preservation (7 of 14). They also expressed more concern about environmental legacy, viewing tree planting as intergenerational responsibility.

“With climate change, we need to do our part. Every tree helps, right? I think about what kind of world we’re leaving for our grandchildren.”—Patricia, 62

However, women also expressed specific anxieties about tree maintenance, particularly related to physical capabilities and long-term care responsibilities.

“I love trees, but I see my neighbor struggling to rake all those leaves. As a single woman, I worry about managing that as I get older.”—Susan, 45

3.3.2. Men’s Perspectives: Practical and Economic Considerations

Male participants approached tree planting more pragmatically, focusing on cost–benefit analyses and practical concerns. Property values featured prominently in their considerations, with economic benefits rather than environmental concerns serving as primary motivators.

“I’d plant a tree if it increases my property value. But I’ve also seen foundation damage from roots. It’s got to be the right tree in the right place.”—Robert, 41

Men expressed more skepticism about tree benefits and greater concern about potential problems, including maintenance requirements, property damage risks, and ongoing costs.

“Trees are nice and all, but they’re work. Pruning, leaves, worried about branches falling… I’ve got enough to maintain already.”—David, 55

Interestingly, men who had positive tree experiences in childhood showed more openness to planting, suggesting the importance of early experiences in shaping adult attitudes.

“My dad and I planted a maple when I was 10. It’s huge now. I wouldn’t mind doing that with my son, creating that memory.”—Carlos, 38

3.4. Age-Related Patterns in Tree-Planting Attitudes

3.4.1. Younger Adults (25–44): Future-Oriented Thinking

Younger participants demonstrated future-oriented thinking about trees, viewing them as long-term investments in property and quality of life. They expressed confidence in learning tree care through digital resources and online tutorials.

“YouTube has everything. I learned to fix my car watching videos. Trees can’t be that much harder.”—Tyler, 29

This group showed strongest concern about climate change and children’s health, viewing tree planting as an environmental action affecting future generations.

“The air quality here is terrible. If trees can help even a little, I want them for my kids’ sake.”—Ashley, 31

However, younger participants also faced unique barriers, including financial constraints from student loans and mortgages, limited time due to work and childcare responsibilities, and uncertainty about long-term residence in the neighborhood.

“We might move in a few years for work. Is it worth planting trees we won’t see grow?”—Nathan, 33

3.4.2. Middle-Aged Adults (45–64): Experience-Based Considerations

Middle-aged participants displayed the most complex considerations, balancing established landscape preferences with openness to change. Many had attempted tree planting with mixed results, creating both knowledge and wariness about future efforts.

“We planted three trees 10 years ago. One died, one’s okay, and one’s taking over the yard. I wish I’d known more about choosing species.”—Linda, 52

This group expressed moderate confidence in their tree care abilities but worried about increasing maintenance demands as they aged.

“I can handle it now, but in 10–15 years? My back already hurts from regular yard work.”—James, 58

3.4.3. Older Adults (65+): Maintenance and Liability Concerns

Older participants demonstrated extensive knowledge about neighborhood trees and their history but expressed strong concerns about their maintenance capabilities and physical limitations.

“I’ve watched this neighborhood’s trees grow for 40 years. Beautiful, but one is dead already. I want to remove the dead tree, but I cannot do it myself or afford it.”—Dorothy, 72

They also worried about tree hazards and liability issues, particularly regarding property damage and insurance implications.

“That windstorm, branches everywhere. What if one hits a parked car? I can’t afford a lawsuit at my age.”—George, 68

3.5. Property Characteristics and Spatial Constraints

3.5.1. Small Yards (<3000 sq ft): Space Limitation Challenges

Owners of small properties expressed significant frustration about space limitations and competing yard uses. Space constraints created fundamental conflicts between tree planting and other property needs.

“Look at this yard—where would I put a tree? I need every inch for the kids to play and my small garden.”—Miguel, 36

They worried about trees overwhelming small spaces and affecting neighboring properties through shade, root spread, and debris.

“My neighbor’s tree drops leaves in my yard, blocks my sun. In small lots, trees affect everyone.”—Kim, 44

When interested in trees, small yard owners preferred dwarf varieties or columnar forms that minimized space competition.

“If they have skinny trees that don’t spread much, maybe. But not those huge shade trees.”—Vanessa, 39

3.5.2. Medium Yards (3000–5000 sq ft): Optimal Planting Opportunities

Medium yard owners showed the most flexibility and interest in tree planting. They possessed sufficient space for strategic placement while maintaining other yard uses and functions.

“We could put one in the back corner for shade, maybe a fruit tree by the patio. There’s room if we plan it right.”—Sarah, 42

This group sought specific guidance on species selection and placement, demonstrating interest coupled with desire for expert advice.

“I want trees, but I need help choosing. What works here? What won’t destroy my pipes?”—Richard, 48

3.5.3. Large Yards (>5000 sq ft): Multiple Use Considerations

Large property owners generally embraced trees but mentioned different concerns related to scale and maintenance intensity.

“We have five trees already. Anymore and it’s a forest. The maintenance is already significant.”—William, 61

Some saw opportunities for multiple benefits including shade, food production, and aesthetic enhancement.

“With this space, we could have shade trees, fruit trees, maybe nuts. Make it productive.”—Elena, 45

3.6. Barriers to Tree Planting

3.6.1. Financial Considerations and Economic Constraints

Cost emerged as a significant barrier across demographics, but with varying emphases, depending on income levels and financial priorities. Initial tree and planting costs concerned lower-income participants who faced competing budget demands.

“Free trees sound great, but what about everything else? Soil, mulch, stakes… it adds up quick.”—Tony, 34

Ongoing maintenance costs worried fixed-income residents, particularly elderly participants concerned about water bills and professional care expenses.

“Water bills are already high. Trees need lots of water those first years. I can’t afford higher bills.”—Margaret, 67

Several participants mentioned unsuccessful past investments that created reluctance to invest again in tree planting.

“I spent $200 on a tree that died the first summer. Can’t afford to waste money like that again.”—Jason, 40

Figure 2 presents a conceptual model illustrating how environmental, practical, cost, and social factors influence tree-planting decisions. These motivations and barriers are moderated by demographic characteristics including gender, age, income, cultural background, and property size. The model demonstrates the complex interplay between individual attitudes, structural constraints, and social influences in shaping tree-planting behaviors.

3.6.2. Knowledge and Confidence Gaps

Lack of tree-related knowledge represented a major barrier across all demographics. Specific knowledge gaps created anxiety and hesitation about tree-planting decisions. Species selection knowledge gaps created overwhelming uncertainty about appropriate choices for local conditions and property constraints.

“The nursery has dozens of trees. How do I know which survives here? Which stays small? I’m overwhelmed.”—Amy, 37

Planting technique uncertainty prevented confident action, with many participants lacking confidence regarding proper installation methods.

“How deep? How wide? What about soil amendments? I don’t want to kill it by planting wrong.”—Derek, 43

Maintenance requirements uncertainty discouraged planting, as participants worried about long-term care obligations without clear guidance.

“When do you prune? How much water? When do you fertilize? It seems complicated.”—Nicole, 35

Problem diagnosis concerns created anxiety about recognizing and effectively addressing tree health issues.

“What if it gets diseased? I wouldn’t know what to do. Probably expensive to fix.”—Luis, 50

The 21.6% workshop interest rate suggests that while knowledge gaps exist, many residents prefer independent learning or face scheduling constraints preventing formal education participation.

3.6.3. Infrastructure and Utility Concerns

Proximity to utilities generated significant anxiety, particularly among homeowners who had experienced costly repairs or witnessed neighborhood infrastructure conflicts.

“My neighbor’s tree roots broke their sewer line. $25,000 repair because they are made of clay here. They had to take a big loan; they will be paying that for year and at a high interest. I can’t risk that.”—Steven, 46

Overhead power lines limited planting options and created concerns about future conflicts with utility maintenance.

“Look at these lines. Any tree tall enough for shade would hit them. The power company would just butcher it anyway.”—Rosa, 54

Foundation concerns predominated among owners of older homes with aging infrastructure systems.

“This house is from 1955. The foundations already got cracks. I’m not risking more damage from roots.”—Paul, 59

3.6.4. Pest and Nuisance Concerns

Pest attraction worried many participants, particularly those who had experienced infestations or ongoing pest management challenges.

“The old elm attracts box elder bugs something terrible. They cover the house every fall. No more trees for me.”—Carol, 63

Maintenance nuisances influenced perceptions based on negative experiences with specific species or tree characteristics.

“Cottonwoods are the worst. That cotton clogs everything—air conditioners, gutters. Never again.”—Frank, 57

Wildlife interactions elicited mixed responses, with some viewing birds and wildlife as benefits while others focused on property damage and maintenance issues.

“Birds are nice, but they poop on cars. And don’t get me started on squirrels in the attic.”—Monica, 41

3.7. Cultural and Social Influences

3.7.1. Cultural and Aesthetic Preferences by Ethnicity

Cultural background significantly influenced tree preferences and landscape aesthetics. Latino participants often prioritized functional landscapes that accommodated cultural practices and family activities.

“We need space for quinceañeras, family BBQs. Trees are nice but can’t interfere with gatherings. What I would like to do eventually, when I have money is to put a nice gazebo in the backways, so I need space for it.”—Eduardo, 49

Some expressed preference for fruit trees that combined aesthetic and productive functions, connecting to cultural food traditions.

“Fruit trees remind me of Mexico. Beautiful flowers and fresh fruit. That’s worthwhile.”—Isabella, 55

Pacific Islander participants mentioned specific cultural preferences and connections to homeland species.

“Back home, in Tonga, the trees I see have meaning. Here, I don’t know these trees. No connection.”—Sione, 44

Some participants mentioned preference for “clean” landscapes that aligned with suburban aesthetic norms.

“I like things neat and tidy. Trees are messy—leaves, seeds, branches. Not for me.”—Barbara, 60

3.7.2. Social Influences and Neighborhood Norms

Neighborhood social dynamics powerfully influenced tree-planting decisions through multiple pathways. Positive peer influence emerged as a motivating factor in several interviews.

“Three neighbors planted trees last year. They look great. Makes me want to do it too.”—Rachel, 38

Conversely, negative examples discouraged planting through demonstration of potential problems or conflicts.

“You see that house with the jungle yard? I don’t want neighbors thinking I’m like that.”—Kevin, 52

Some mentioned explicit or implicit neighborhood pressure regarding maintenance standards and property appearance.

“The HOA doesn’t technically ban trees, but they hassle you about ‘maintenance standards’ if leaves blow around.”—Justin, 36

3.7.3. Community Champions and Peer Effects

Community champions generated significant differences in neighborhood tree-planting adoption through knowledge sharing and encouragement.

“Mrs. Johnson down the street knows everything about trees. She helped several neighbors choose and plant. We need more like her.”—Diane, 45

3.8. Motivations and Support Preferences

3.8.1. Environmental and Climate Motivations

Climate change concerns specifically motivated younger participants, who viewed tree planting as an environmental action and a climate response.

“If everyone planted just one tree, imagine the difference. I want to be part of the solution.”—Amber, 30

Air quality concerns in the Salt Lake Valley motivated many participants who experienced respiratory issues or family health concerns.

“My daughter has asthma. If trees help air quality even slightly.”—Omar, 40

3.8.2. Economic and Property Value Motivations

Economic benefits appealed across demographics, with property value enhancement serving as a significant motivator.

“Zillow says mature trees add 10% to property value. That’s like $20,000 for us. Worth considering.”—Mark, 44

Creating lasting memories motivated parents who viewed tree planting as family activity and legacy building.

“Planting a tree when each child is born, watching it grows with them—that’s special.”—Christina, 35

Beauty and neighborhood pride motivated various participants who desired aesthetic improvement and community enhancement.

“This neighborhood could be so much prettier with more trees. Like those fancy east side streets.”—Wendy, 48

3.8.3. Desired Municipal Support and Resources

Cost removal emerged as essential for many participants who expressed interest contingent on financial accessibility.

“If the tree’s free and decent size, I’d try it. But I can’t spend hundreds on landscaping.”—Victor, 33

Proper installation support appealed across demographics, with many preferring professional planting followed by personal maintenance.

“If someone who knows what they’re doing could plant it right, I’d maintain it after.”—Gloria, 56

Continued learning opportunities were crucial for building confidence and addressing ongoing concerns.

“Not just a pamphlet—real classes, maybe a hotline for questions. Ongoing help.”—Beth, 43

Assistance with difficult tasks would enable participation among those with physical limitations or skill concerns.

“If the city helped with major pruning every few years, I could handle the daily stuff.”—Henry, 64

Specific recommendations for individual properties addressed the desire for customized guidance and expert advice.

“Someone should look at my exact yard and tell me: plant this tree in this spot. Take out guesswork.”—Sophia, 39

4. Discussion

4.1. Synthesis of Key Findings and Theoretical Connections

This study reveals the complex, multifaceted nature of private property tree-planting decisions in a diverse urban neighborhood. The findings demonstrate that simplistic approaches to urban greening, i.e., merely providing free trees, fail to address the numerous intersecting barriers residents face. Instead, successful urban forestry initiatives must recognize and respond to the diverse motivations, concerns, and constraints that vary significantly across demographic groups and property types.

The theoretical framework integration proves valuable for understanding these complex dynamics. Our findings strongly support the theory of planned behavior components, with attitudes toward trees varying significantly based on personal experiences and demographic factors. Women’s positive environmental attitudes align with McCright’s (2010) [21] findings on gender differences in regards to environmental concerns, while men’s focus on practical benefits confirms Zhang et al.’s (2007) [22] research on utilitarian tree valuations. However, our research extends this literature by revealing the paradox that positive attitudes do not automatically translate into planting behavior when structural barriers exist.

Subjective norms emerged as particularly powerful influences, with neighborhood expectations and social pressure significantly affecting intentions. This finding supports both TPB theory and insights from diffusion of innovations research, as community champions and peer effects demonstrated a clear impact on adoption patterns. Perceived behavioral control—especially knowledge, physical capability, and financial resources—represented the most significant barriers for many participants, confirming the TPB emphasis on control beliefs.

The environmental justice framework illuminates how historical disinvestment in neighborhoods like Westpointe creates cumulative disadvantages for urban greening. A limited existing canopy means fewer positive tree examples, aging infrastructure increases risk perceptions, economic constraints limit participation ability, and language barriers impede access to resources. These findings align with Schwarz et al.’s (2015) [13] documentation of environmental inequities while extending understanding of how these patterns affect private property decisions specifically.

The gender differences identified in this study align with and extend previous research on environmental attitudes and behaviors. Women’s stronger emotional connections to trees and environmental motivations confirm patterns identified by McCright [21] and Zhang et al. [22]. However, our findings reveal an important nuance that extends previous research: while women express more positive attitudes toward trees, they simultaneously harbor specific anxieties about long-term maintenance capabilities, particularly single women and widows who anticipate managing properties alone as they age. This paradox suggests that urban forestry programs must address not just initial planting but also long-term maintenance support to sustain women’s environmental enthusiasm.

Men’s pragmatic approach to tree planting, focusing on economic and practical considerations, presents both challenges and opportunities. This finding confirms Conway’s (2016) [15] research on resident motivations but provides a more nuanced understanding of how cost–benefit thinking influences decision-making processes. Their skepticism about tree benefits could be addressed through clear communication about property value increases and energy savings—tangible benefits that resonate with cost–benefit thinking. The finding that men with positive childhood tree experiences showed greater openness suggests the importance of creating memorable tree-planting experiences for current children, potentially shifting future generational attitudes.

4.2. Age as a Critical Factor in Tree-Planting Decisions

Age emerged as a critical factor influencing tree-planting decisions through multiple pathways, extending previous research by Conway and Bang (2014) [23] on residential support patterns. Our findings provide a more detailed understanding of how age influences different aspects of the decision-making process than those documented in previous studies. Younger adults’ future-oriented thinking and confidence in learning through digital resources represent significant assets for urban forestry programs. However, their financial constraints and residential mobility concerns require targeted solutions. This finding partially contradicts Locke and Grove’s (2016) [24] suggestion that younger residents are uniformly more supportive of greening programs, as our research reveals specific barriers within this demographic.

Programs offering “tree adoption” agreements that transfer tree ownership to subsequent residents could address mobility concerns while ensuring continued tree care. This recommendation emerges directly from our participants’ concerns about residential instability, a factor not extensively addressed in previous urban forestry literature.

The middle-aged cohort’s mixed experiences with previous tree-planting attempts highlight the importance of species selection and initial education. This group’s experience-based skepticism provides important insights not captured in previous studies that focus primarily on current attitudes rather than learned behaviors from past experiences. This group’s moderate confidence combined with growing maintenance concerns suggests a critical window for intervention, i.e., providing support before negative experiences or physical limitations discourage tree planting entirely.

Older adults present challenges and opportunities not fully explored in previous research. While Conway and Bang (2014) [23] noted age-related maintenance concerns, our research provides a deeper understanding of how liability worries and physical limitations interact with neighborhood knowledge and tree appreciation. Their deep neighborhood knowledge and tree appreciation conflict with their physical limitations and liability concerns. Rather than excluding this population from urban greening efforts, programs should develop age-appropriate participation methods. Intergenerational tree-planting programs could pair older adults’ knowledge with younger residents’ physical capabilities, creating community connections while addressing maintenance concerns.

4.3. Property Characteristics and Spatial Justice Implications

The influence of yard size on tree-planting willingness raises important spatial justice considerations that extend previous research on environmental equity. While Avolio et al. (2018) [25] documented how property characteristics influence tree composition, our research reveals how these characteristics create differential access to greening programs themselves. Small yard owners’ frustrations about space limitations reflect broader inequities in urban design and housing patterns. The concentration of small lots in lower-income neighborhoods like Westpointe means that standard shade tree programs may inadvertently exclude residents who most need heat island mitigation and air quality improvements.

This finding provides empirical support for environmental justice concerns about the distributional impacts of tree programs, extending theoretical frameworks into practical program design considerations. Addressing this requires innovative approaches to urban forestry that extend beyond the use of traditional shade trees. Dwarf and columnar tree varieties, as suggested by participants, could provide tree benefits in constrained spaces. Additionally, exploring alternative greening strategies—vine-covered structures, raised planters with small trees, or community orchards on vacant lots—could extend urban forest benefits to space-limited households.

The finding that medium-sized yard owners showed the greatest flexibility and interest suggests that this group represents “low-hanging fruit” for the adoption of urban forestry programs. This insight provides practical guidance for program implementation that prioritizes high-success approaches while developing more intensive strategies for constrained properties. Targeted outreach to these properties could yield quick wins, while longer-term strategies address small and large property challenges.

4.4. Knowledge Gaps and Educational Needs

The pervasive lack of confidence regarding tree selection, planting, and maintenance across all demographic groups underscores the critical need for comprehensive education programs. Our findings extend Roman et al.’s (2015) [19] research on stewardship challenges by documenting specific knowledge gaps and educational preferences across diverse communities. Current approaches that provide basic planting instructions fail to address the deep knowledge gaps and anxieties revealed in this study. Participants desire ongoing support rather than one-time information, suggesting the need for sustained educational infrastructure.

This finding contradicts assumptions in some municipal programs that residents simply need basic information to succeed with tree care. Instead, our research reveals that knowledge barriers are more complex and persistent than previously understood. Effective education must be culturally responsive and accessible. Latino participants’ preference for hands-on learning and demonstration, combined with language barriers, requires bilingual educators who can provide culturally relevant examples. Pacific Islander communities’ disconnect from unfamiliar tree species suggests the incorporation of culturally significant plants, where climatically appropriate, or explicitly connecting local species to familiar homeland varieties.

The workshop interest rate of 21.6% provides important insights into educational program design, suggesting that while knowledge gaps exist, many residents prefer alternative learning methods or face practical barriers to formal education participation. Combining traditional workshops with digital resources, peer mentoring, and ongoing support systems could address varied learning preferences across age groups.

4.5. Infrastructure Concerns and Risk Perception

Participants’ acute awareness of potential infrastructure damage reflects rational risk assessment based on neighborhood experiences. This finding extends Kirkpatrick et al.’s (2012) [17] research on resident attitudes by documenting how actual neighborhood experiences shape risk perceptions more powerfully than do abstract concerns. The prevalence of aging infrastructure in older neighborhoods like Westpointe amplifies these concerns. Dismissing these fears as unfounded would be counterproductive; instead, programs must acknowledge and address infrastructure risks through careful species selection and placement.

Our research reveals that infrastructure concerns are not simply attitudinal barriers but reflect real experiences with costly repairs and conflicts, requiring practical rather than educational solutions. Developing clear guidelines for infrastructure-safe planting distances, promoting species with non-invasive root systems, and providing pre-planting utility location services could mitigate risks. Partnering with utility companies to develop approved species lists for various infrastructure proximities would provide concrete guidance while addressing liability concerns.

The finding that negative examples like costly sewer repairs powerfully influence neighborhood perceptions suggests the importance of preventing and quickly addressing tree-related problems. This insight extends social diffusion theory into urban forestry contexts, showing how negative experiences spread through social networks more rapidly than do positive examples. A rapid response team for tree-infrastructure conflicts could prevent isolated incidents from generating neighborhood-wide resistance to trees.

4.6. Financial Barriers and Environmental Justice

Cost concerns permeated discussions across income levels but manifested differently, providing nuanced insights into economic barriers that extend previous environmental justice research. While Pincetl et al. (2013) [18] documented financial barriers to tree programs, our research reveals how these barriers operate differently across income levels and intersect with other demographic factors. While higher-income participants worried about return on investment, lower-income residents faced absolute affordability barriers. This economic dimension of tree planting intersects with environmental justice, as those most affected by heat islands and air pollution are least able to afford greening solutions.

Our findings provide empirical evidence for the “luxury effect” in urban forestry, where those most needing environmental benefits face the greatest barriers to accessing them. Current free tree programs, while helpful, fail to address total planting costs—soil amendments, mulch, stakes, and increased water bills during tree establishment. Comprehensive subsidy programs that address all establishment costs, potentially built on sliding scales based on income, could remove economic barriers while maintaining participant investment through sweat equity or community service contributions.

Long-term maintenance costs, particularly water bills in drought-prone Utah, require innovative solutions. This finding highlights regional variations in barrier types that previous research has not fully explored. Drought-tolerant species selection, rainwater harvesting incentives, and potential water bill assistance during establishment years could address ongoing cost concerns. Framing trees as “green infrastructure” deserving of public investment, similar to roads or utilities, could justify sustained municipal support.

4.7. Cultural Considerations and Inclusive Design

The cultural dimensions of landscape preferences revealed in this study challenge universal approaches to urban greening. Our findings extend Rishbeth’s (2001) [27] research on ethnic minority preferences by providing specific insights into how cultural values interact with tree-planting decisions in diverse neighborhoods. Latino participants’ emphasis on functional landscapes for family gatherings reflects deep cultural values that tree-planting programs must respect rather than override. Integrating trees into culturally preferred landscape designs—perhaps as gathering space borders or integrated with outdoor cooking areas—could align greening goals with cultural practices.

This research provides practical insights into how cultural responsiveness can improve program effectiveness, extending theoretical frameworks into specific design recommendations. The preference for fruit trees among Latino participants and interest in culturally significant species among Pacific Islander participants suggest opportunities for culturally responsive urban forestry. Developing approved lists of climate-appropriate fruit and nut trees, along with maintenance support for these more complex species, could increase participation while providing food security co-benefits.

The tension between some participants’ preference for “neat and tidy” landscapes and the inherent messiness of trees requires careful navigation. This finding reveals how dominant landscape aesthetics can create barriers for culturally diverse participants, extending environmental justice concerns into aesthetic and cultural domains. Education about maintenance techniques that minimize mess, combined with species selection emphasizing tidier varieties, could address aesthetic concerns while advancing canopy goals.

4.8. Social Dynamics and Community-Based Approaches

The powerful influence of neighborhood norms and social networks on tree-planting decisions suggests that individual-focused programs lack critical social dimensions. Our findings provide strong empirical support for social diffusion theories in urban forestry contexts, extending Moskell and Allred’s (2013) [29] research on stewardship beliefs into actual behavior change processes. Positive peer influence and community champions demonstrate the potential for the social diffusion of tree-planting behaviors. Conversely, negative examples and neighborhood pressure against trees reveal how social dynamics can impede greening efforts.

The geographic clustering of Spanish-language responses provides compelling evidence for social network effects in program adoption, demonstrating how cultural and linguistic networks influence environmental behavior adoption. Successful programs should intentionally cultivate positive social norms surrouding trees. Identifying and supporting neighborhood tree champions, creating visible success stories, and facilitating peer learning networks could harness social influence for urban forestry goals. Block-based or neighborhood-zone approaches that create critical masses of tree planters could more effectively shift local norms than would scattered individual plantings.

The HOA pressure against “maintenance standards” reveals institutional barriers beyond individual control. This finding extends previous research by documenting how formal institutions can create barriers to individual environmental action, regardless of personal motivations. Engaging HOAs and neighborhood associations as partners rather than obstacles, potentially through awards or recognition programs for tree-friendly policies, could remove systemic barriers to private property planting.

4.9. Mixed-Methods Integration and Convergent Findings

The integration of quantitative signup data with qualitative interviews reveals important contradictions and convergences that strengthen the overall findings.

Table 2. Mixed-methods integration matrix.

Theme	Quantitative Findings	Qualitative Insights	Integration and Interpretation
Workshop Interest	21.6% definite interest, 31.4% uncertain.	Extensive knowledge gaps expressed regarding species selection, planting techniques, maintenance.	Uncertainty reflects anxiety rather than disinterest—targeted education addressing specific concerns needed.
Planting Assistance	60.8% claimed no help needed.	Interviews revealed physical capability concerns among older adults; confidence issues among inexperienced planters.	Self-reported independence may mask actual support needs—cultural reluctance to accept help from strangers.
Transportation	37.3% needed delivery assistance.	Limited exploration in interviews but significant logistical concern.	Transportation represents major but under-recognized barrier requiring program attention.
Language Preferences	92.2% Spanish-language responses.	Strong preference for bilingual services and culturally relevant education.	Spanish-speaking networks highly effective for program promotion but require sustained cultural responsiveness.
Geographic Clustering	Concentrated signup patterns on specific streets.	Interviews confirmed social network influences and neighbor modeling effects.	Social diffusion operates through cultural and linguistic networks—block-level approaches recommended.

presents a systematic comparison of these data streams.

This mixed-methods integration reveals that quantitative responses often mask underlying concerns and needs. Participants claiming independence in signup forms expressed detailed anxieties about capabilities in interviews. Similarly, the high uncertainty rates in regards to workshop interest reflect genuine educational needs rather than disinterest. These contradictions highlight the value of combining quantitative convenience with qualitative depth to understand complex environmental behaviors.

4.10. Study Limitations and Their Impact on Findings

Several limitations should be acknowledged and their potential impacts on the findings considered. The focus on one neighborhood limits generalizability to other urban contexts, particularly those with different demographic compositions, climate conditions, or housing patterns. Westpointe’s specific characteristics—aging infrastructure, diverse population, semi-arid climate—may not represent challenges in newer developments, wetter climates, or more homogeneous communities.

The signup campaign and overall study likely attracted participants already interested in trees, creating selection bias toward environmentally motivated residents. This bias may overestimate community receptiveness to tree planting while underestimating barriers among truly disinterested residents. The statistical power limitations due to small sample size (n = 51 for quantitative analysis) restricted subgroup analyses and prevented robust statistical comparisons across demographic categories.

COVID-19 restrictions affected data collection activities, potentially limiting community engagement and interview depth. Some participants may have been more receptive to tree planting during pandemic lockdowns when yard use intensified, while others may have been less available for participation due to health concerns or economic stress.

The limited representation of renters reflects the study’s focus on single-family homes but excludes a significant portion of urban populations from consideration. This limitation is particularly important for environmental justice analysis, as renters often face additional barriers to environmental improvements while experiencing disproportionate environmental burdens.

These limitations most directly affect the generalizability of specific demographic patterns and barrier prevalence rates. However, the underlying theoretical relationships between individual attitudes, social norms, and structural constraints likely transfer across contexts, with appropriate local adaptations.

4.11. Geographic Transferability and Climate Considerations

The transferability of these findings to other geographic and climatic contexts requires careful consideration of local variations in environmental conditions, cultural demographics, and urban infrastructure. While this study’s semi-arid context shapes specific concerns including irrigation costs and drought-tolerant species selection, the underlying demographic patterns and social dynamics likely transfer across climates, with appropriate adaptations.

Climate zone adaptations require significant modifications for different environmental contexts. In wetter regions, irrigation concerns would diminish, but pest and disease issues might intensify, requiring different educational focus and species selection criteria. Colder climates present shorter growing seasons, winter damage concerns, and different maintenance schedules that would alter both barrier types and support needs. Hurricane-prone areas would require enhanced focus on wind resistance, emergency preparedness, and potential property damage from severe weather events.

Cultural transferability appears more consistent across geographic contexts. Latino preferences for fruit trees and functional landscapes align with findings from other U.S. cities with similar populations, suggesting that cultural patterns transcend regional boundaries. However, Pacific Islander cultural preferences may vary significantly according specific island heritage and migration patterns, requiring local community engagement to understand specific needs. The community champion model shows promise across various contexts but requires adaptation to local social structures and communication patterns.

Urban context variations significantly affect program design requirements. Older cities with aging infrastructure require greater attention to utility conflicts and foundation concerns, while newer developments face different HOA dynamics and more modern utility systems. Higher-income areas may emphasize aesthetic and property value benefits, while lower-income neighborhoods require more intensive financial support and infrastructure considerations.

Implementation recommendations for other cities should include pilot testing approaches that assess local barrier patterns before full program launch. Partnership models must adapt to local governance structures, with some cities requiring stronger utility company coordination, while others need enhanced community organization engagement. Program components requiring direct transfer include comprehensive cost coverage, lifecycle maintenance support, and culturally responsive education, while species selection, infrastructure protocols, and social network approaches require local adaptation.

4.12. Recommendations for Municipal Programs

These findings support comprehensive approaches to increase private property tree planting in diverse neighborhoods. The evidence strongly suggests that successful programs require multi-level interventions addressing individual, household, neighborhood, and systems-level barriers simultaneously.

Tiered support programs should match assistance levels to resident capacity and demonstrated needs. Full-service planting programs would serve elderly or physically limited residents who express interest in trees but cannot manage installation independently. These programs should include professional planting, five-year maintenance contracts, annual health checks, and emergency response services delivered through in-person or telephone support systems. Assisted planting with resident participation would build skills while providing necessary support for middle-aged participants who desire involvement but lack confidence. DIY programs would offer equipment loans, guidance, and ongoing consultation for confident residents who primarily need resources rather than hands-on assistance.

Lifecycle tree care systems must extend support beyond initial planting through sustained maintenance assistance. Three-year establishment care programs with watering reminders, health checks, and troubleshooting support would address the critical mortality period during which most trees fail. Maintenance cooperatives could enable neighbors to share tools, knowledge, and labor costs for ongoing care while building social connections. City-supported major pruning cycles every five to seven years would address the physical and financial barriers that accumulate as trees mature. End-of-life tree removal and replacement assistance would complete the cycle, preventing dying trees from becoming neighborhood eyesores that discourage future planting.

Culturally responsive approaches must permeate all program elements rather than serve as add-on components. Bilingual education delivered through community-preferred formats and trusted messengers would ensure information accessibility while respecting cultural communication patterns. Specialized fruit and nut tree programs with enhanced maintenance support would honor cultural preferences while acknowledging these species’ greater care requirements. Programs should integrate trees with cultural landscape uses rather than impose dominant landscape aesthetics, supporting quinceañera spaces, family gathering areas, and food production priorities. Partnerships with trusted cultural organizations would facilitate authentic community engagement and overcome historical mistrust of government programs.

Space constraint solutions require creative approaches beyond traditional shade tree programs. Cities should develop approved small-space tree lists with clear mature size information, enabling informed decisions for constrained yards. Alternative greening strategies for tiny yards might include vine-covered structures, raised planters with dwarf trees, or shared trees planted on property lines via neighbor agreements. Community orchards on vacant lots could provide tree benefits to space-limited households while building social connections and food security. Green walls and vertical gardening support would acknowledge that not every property can accommodate trees while still advancing overall greening goals.

Infrastructure risk management must acknowledge and address residents’ legitimate concerns about property damage through proactive planning and response systems. Free utility location services before planting would prevent costly accidents and build resident confidence. Clear infrastructure setback guidelines developed in partnership with utility companies would provide concrete guidance while addressing liability concerns. Rapid response teams for tree-infrastructure conflicts would prevent isolated incidents from generating neighborhood-wide resistance to trees. In older neighborhoods, coordinating infrastructure upgrades with tree-planting programs could address the root causes of conflict while maximizing public investment efficiency.

Comprehensive financial support must address both immediate and long-term costs through multiple funding mechanisms. Programs should cover full establishment costs for low-income households, including soil amendments, mulch, stakes, and initial watering supplies. Sliding scale programs based on income would ensure that middle-income households are not excluded while maintaining program sustainability. Water bill assistance during the critical three-year establishment period would address ongoing cost concerns in drought-prone regions. Group purchasing programs could reduce supply costs for all participants while building community connections. Property tax incentives for tree planting and maintenance would recognize trees as green infrastructure deserving public support similar to that warranted by other municipal investments.

Knowledge-building systems should provide sustained learning opportunities rather than one-time information distribution. Neighborhood-based tree mentors drawn from successful local tree planters would provide culturally relevant, trusted guidance while creating leadership opportunities. Seasonal workshop series with hands-on practice would build confidence through experiential learning while accommodating different schedules and learning preferences. Digital resources with visual guides would support younger residents’ learning preferences, while printed materials serve those less comfortable with technology. Tree health diagnostic services would address the anxiety many residents feel about recognizing and treating tree problems. School programs would build next-generation knowledge while potentially influencing current family decisions through children’s enthusiasm.

Social norm cultivation can harness the power of peer influence for urban forestry goals through intentional community engagement strategies. Neighborhood tree champion recognition programs would elevate positive role models and create social rewards for tree-planting leadership. Block party tree-planting events would transform individual actions into community celebrations while building social cohesion. Before-and-after documentation of tree benefits in local contexts would provide compelling evidence for skeptics while celebrating community achievements. Peer testimonials from trusted community members would carry more weight than government messaging while respecting cultural communication preferences. Partnerships with neighborhood associations and HOAs would address institutional barriers while potentially shifting organizational policies toward tree-friendly positions.

Analysis of geographic distribution patterns revealed that Spanish-speaking social networks proved particularly effective at spreading program information, with streets showing multiple signups demonstrating 80–100% Spanish-language responses. This clustering pattern demonstrates the critical role of culturally appropriate outreach and trusted community messengers while suggesting block-level program approaches. Additionally, support needs varied significantly by geographic area, with some streets showing universal interest in educational workshops while others preferred independent tree acquisition, suggesting the need for neighborhood-specific program tailoring rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

5. Conclusions

This study provides comprehensive insights into the complex factors influencing private property tree-planting decisions in a diverse urban neighborhood. Among Westpointe residents, significant variations in tree-planting motivations and barriers were identified based on gender, age, property characteristics, and cultural background. These findings challenge simplistic approaches to urban greening and highlight the need for nuanced, culturally responsive, and demographically targeted programs.

The research reveals that while environmental benefits and aesthetic improvements motivate many residents, particularly women and younger adults, substantial barriers prevent translation of interest into action. These barriers include knowledge gaps about species selection and maintenance; financial constraints, affecting both initial planting and ongoing care; infrastructure concerns based on neighborhood experiences; physical limitations, particularly among older adults; and cultural preferences for different landscape uses. Additionally, social norms and neighborhood dynamics powerfully influence individual decisions, suggesting the importance of community-based approaches.

The theoretical integration of TPB, environmental justice, and social-ecological system frameworks proves valuable for understanding these complex dynamics. Individual attitudes and perceived behavioral control strongly influence intentions, but structural inequities and social-ecological system constraints significantly moderate these relationships. The mixed-methods approach reveals important contradictions between stated preferences and underlying concerns, highlighting the necessity of comprehensive research designs for understanding environmental behaviors.

For cities pursuing ambitious canopy coverage goals while addressing environmental justice concerns, this study offers evidence-based strategies for engaging diverse communities in urban greening. Success requires moving beyond tree distribution to comprehensive programs addressing the full lifecycle of urban trees and the diverse needs of urban residents. Key elements include tiered support systems accommodating different resident capacities, sustained maintenance assistance addressing long-term care concerns, culturally responsive education and species selection, innovative approaches for space-constrained properties, and systematic addressing of infrastructure and financial barriers.

Table 3. Recommended program components by resident characteristics.

Resident Type	Recommended Support Level	Key Program Elements	Delivery Method
Elderly Homeowners	Full Service	Professional planting, 5-year maintenance contract, annual health checks, emergency response.	In-person, telephone support.
Young Families	Assisted DIY	Free trees and supplies, planting workshops, establishment period support, child-friendly activities.	Digital and hands-on workshops.
Small Yard Owners	Specialized Selection	Dwarf/columnar varieties, placement consultation, alternative greening options, neighbor mediation.	Individual consultation.
Latino Households	Culturally Adapted	Bilingual services, fruit tree options, family planting events, trusted messengers.	Community partnerships.
Working Adults	Flexible Support	Weekend/evening programs, online resources, tool lending library, peer networks.	Digital-first, self-service.
Renters	Alternative Programs	Potted tree options, community orchards, landlord engagement, transferable benefits.	Property manager coordination.

outlines a tailored, equity-driven approach to expanding residential green infrastructure by offering tree-planting support that meets the unique needs of different household types. Elderly homeowners benefit from a full-service model that includes professional planting, a five-year maintenance contract, annual health checks, and emergency response, paired with in-person or phone support. Young families are supported through an assisted DIY approach featuring free supplies, planting workshops, establishment-period assistance, and child-friendly activities, delivered through digital and hands-on workshops. Small yard owners are offered specialized selection services including dwarf or columnar trees, placement consultations, greening alternatives, and neighbor mediation, with one-on-one consultations. For Latino households, a culturally adapted model includes bilingual services, fruit tree options, family planting events, and trusted messengers, supported by community partnerships. Working adults have access to a flexible support structure, with evening and weekend programs, digital tools, a tool lending library, and peer networks, using a self-service digital-first model. Lastly, renters are included through alternative programs via the use of potted trees, community orchards, landlord engagement, and transferable benefits, facilitated via coordination with property managers.

The study’s implications extend beyond Westpointe to other diverse urban neighborhoods facing similar challenges. As cities confront climate change impacts, expanding urban forests through private property planting becomes increasingly critical. However, achieving equitable canopy coverage requires acknowledging and addressing the complex realities of urban residents’ lives, particularly in historically disinvested communities.

The transferability of these findings requires careful adaptation to local contexts, particularly regarding climate conditions, cultural demographics, and infrastructure characteristics. While underlying social dynamics and demographic patterns likely transfer across contexts, specific barrier types and solution strategies require local modification. Cities implementing similar programs should conduct pilot assessments to understand local variations before full-scale implementation.

Future urban forestry initiatives must recognize trees not merely as biological organisms but as components of complex social-ecological systems. Success depends on understanding how trees fit into—or conflict with—residents’ daily lives, cultural practices, economic realities, and future aspirations. By developing programs responsive to these complexities, cities can create more inclusive and effective approaches to urban greening.

The urgency of climate adaptation and environmental justice demands innovative approaches to urban forestry. This study demonstrates that residents of diverse neighborhoods like Westpointe possess interest in contributing to urban greening but require sustained, culturally appropriate, and comprehensive support to overcome significant barriers. Municipal programs that acknowledge these realities and provide targeted solutions can unlock the vast potential of private property for expanding urban forests. Ultimately, creating greener, more equitable cities requires partnership between municipalities and residents, recognition of diverse perspectives and needs, and commitment to long-term support beyond initial tree planting.