The impact of forest density on property values

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 103, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 146-151

  Kim, Yeon Su ^a   Wells, Aaron ^b  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Economics; Geographic information systems; Hedonic price method; Wildland urban interface

Indexed keywords

COSTS; FIRE HAZARDS; FUELS; HOUSING;

CANOPY; FOREST DENSITY; FUEL REDUCTION TREATMENT; WILDFIRE HAZARDS;

FORESTRY;

FIRE MANAGEMENT; HAZARD MANAGEMENT; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; PROPERTY MARKET; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; WILDFIRE;

COSTS; FIRES; FORESTS; FUELS; HAZARDS; HOUSINGS;

ARIZONA; FLAGSTAFF; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 19944390685     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Arthur, L.M.: 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests. Forest Science 23(2):151-160.
2. Brown, T.C., and T.C. Daniel. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper 256. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 35 p.
3. Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest structure: Ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2:153-181.
4. Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. Journal of Forestry 95:23-29.
5. Dahms, F., and J. McComb. 1999. Counterubanization, interaction and functional change in a rural amenity area-A Canadian example. Journal of Rural Studies 15:129-146.
6. Farnsworth, A., and P. Summerfelt. 2004. Flagstaff interface treatment prescription: Results in the wildland/urban interface. Available online at www.gffp.org/pine/fit_rx/default.htm; accessed 2/2/ 04.
7. Freeman, A.M., III. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. 516 p.
8. Geoghegan, J., L.A. Wainger, and N.E. Bockstael. 1997. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: An ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics 23:251-264.
9. Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership. 2004. Flagstaff area wildfire risk assessment. Available online at www.gffp.org/about_gffp/ firerisk.htm; accessed 2/2/04.
10. Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership and Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council. 2004. Community wildfire protection plan for Flagstaff and surrounding communities in the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests of Coconino County AZ. Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership, Flagstaff, AZ. 145 p.
11. Halliday, J., and M. Coombes. 1995. In search of counterurbanism: Some evidence from Devon on the relationship between patterns of migration and motivation. Journal of Rural Studies 11:433-446.
12. Schroeder, H., and T.C. Daniel. 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science 27:71-80.
13. Scott, J.H. 1998. Fuel reduction in residential and scenic forests: A comparison of three treatments in a western Montana ponderosa pine stand. USDA Forest Service Research Paper 5. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 19 p.
14. Vining, J., T.C. Daniel, and H.W. Schroeder. 1984. Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research 20:124-135.