Groningen Wants More Trees, but Who Speaks on Behalf of Them?

By Joep de Wild from the Netherlands - Runner up in the Article Competition

In 2024, the Dutch city of Groningen announced that it aims to significantly increase the number of trees in the city over the next fifty years. The municipality’s new Bomenplan (Tree Plan) sets an ambitious target: by 2075, at least 30% of Groningen should be covered by tree canopies. It plans to do this while also protecting existing trees, and prioritising planting of new trees in areas where greenery is currently limited.

This plan takes a long-term approach. Between 2022 and 2024, the city planted 3,285 new trees to compensate for losses. Most of these new trees were planted in the city’s edge neighbourhoods, where new housing developments had reduced greenery, rather than in the central neighbourhoods, where canopy cover is already low. This uneven distribution suggests that new planting does not always follow ecological needs. However, the Bomenplan is not only about how many trees Groningen will gain, but it also raises an important question about who gets to decide what happens to those trees.

Because trees and other non-human actors cannot speak for themselves.

Giving non-humans a voice

The Groningen Bomenplan is based on the Urban Forest Masterplan, which aims to treat urban trees not simply as part of the public space, but also as an important part of the city's ecology and liveability.

This is a step in seeing trees no longer simply as things we manage.

This fits with an idea in environmental planning theory known as ‘more-than-human planning’. The basic idea is simple: rather than focusing only on human interests when planning places, this approach also considers the interests of animals, plants, and other forms of non-human life. It asks planners to broaden the discourse around who counts as a ‘stakeholder’.

The 50-year plan duration echoes Metzger’s call for temporal humility, as environmental interests matter beyond short-term political cycles. By granting trees legal and policy protection, Groningen acknowledges them as co-producers of urban life, echoing the argument that planning must cultivate responsibility towards non-human entities. Yet acknowledging them as co-producers is not the same as creating institutions that shape everyday planning decisions, such as which streets get a row of new trees and which get more parking spaces instead.

However, the plan’s development relied heavily on spatial data and assessment by experts. Citizens could participate through online consultations and some workshops, but without ongoing dialogue, ecological care may be reduced to numerical targets rather than democratic dialogue. This problem is not unique to Groningen; multiple municipalities in the Netherlands have received criticism for treating public consultation as a required formality instead of genuinely guiding environmental policy through it. This raises the question of how much influence citizens' participation really had.

Having a real say

According to social scholar Adam Thorpe, this distinction is of great importance. He warns against 'tokenism,' a dynamic in which participation can easily become a collection of opinions while decision-making power remains with governments and experts. As a result, residents may stop showing up after learning that their input rarely changes the outcome.

In this context, public engagement was limited to initial consultations and online surveys, avoiding discussion about the core values, problem definition, or evaluation criteria. Because participation focused on providing input, it did not give them influence over the decision-making process, and final authority remained with the municipality. Citizens who attended the workshops can suggest tree locations, but this does not guarantee one will be planted there. Furthermore, they do not receive any information about the broader plan targets. This, combined with the focus on measurable results, increases the risk that participation becomes a technical process rather than meaningful dialogue.

This stands out because the Bomenplan relies strongly on figures like the 30% canopy cover. However, this does not tell us where trees are actually needed.

Not everyone benefits equally

The 30% target includes no measure of equity, as one neighbourhood with 50% and one with 10% still averages 30%. Because lower-income neighbourhoods are commonly connected to less green space, an equitable solution is needed.

One possible solution comes from spatial justice research. Pineda-Pinto developed a data-driven method to examine socio-economic vulnerability and ecological damage, representing both human and non-human interests. This can change standards such as the 30% target into an instrument for ecological democracy.

The target would then move beyond a goal and start discussions on the distribution of greenery across the city.

A tree council for Groningen

Currently, the interests of trees are represented only indirectly through the municipality and experts, creating a representation problem that hinders the dialogue needed for ethical negotiations.

A tree cannot attend a meeting, fill in a survey, or submit an objection when someone wants to cut it down.

So someone has to stand up for its interests.

The analysis proposes a new form of representation: a council where citizens, experts, and officials continuously work together on the city’s tree policy. This council would need an official standing, being consulted while plans are still being drafted, not only after the fact.

Of course, this will not make every conflict between non-humans and planning disappear.

But it would raise the question of how people and ecosystems could, and should, share the city.

Fifty years is a long time

The Bomenplan shows that Groningen is serious about urban greening. The plan has a substantial ambition and a long time horizon. However, because of the long time horizon, it becomes increasingly important how decisions are actually made.

When budgets change, or infrastructure needs expansion, trees risk being reduced to simple numbers.

The Bomenplan must therefore tackle more than planting trees. Groningen must also take on a position on its relation to nature in the city.

Other municipalities can offer partial relevant case studies. Melbourne, for example, treats urban trees as individual public assets with value, and even rivers in New Zealand have received legal status.

Groningen does not need to go as far as them, but a council with genuine powers to impact planning decisions would be a meaningful step beyond consultation.

From managing for trees, to governing with trees.