Urban forest structure effects on property value

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 12, Issue , 2015, Pages 209-217

  Escobedo, Francisco J ^a   Adams, Damian C ^a   Timilsina, Nilesh ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN STEVENS POINT   (United States)

Author keywords

Cultural ecosystem services; Ecosystem service tradeoffs; Hedonic analyses; Non market valuation; Urban ecosystems; Urban tree cover

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939897129     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adams J.B., Gillespie A.R. Remote Sensing of Landscapes with Spectral Images: A Physical Modeling Approach 2006, 362. Cambridge University Press.
2. Alachua County, 2011. Property Search. (Accessed 15.09.13 from ). http://acpafl.org/.
3. Anderson L.M., Cordell H.K. Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): a survey based on actual sales prices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1988, 15:153-164.
4. Conway D, Li C.Q., Wolch J., Kahle C., Jerrett M. A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2010, 41:150-169.
5. Des Rosiers F., Theriault M., Kesten Y., Villeneuve P. Landscaping and house values: an empirical investigation. J. Real Estate Res. 2002, 23:139-162.
6. Dobbs C., Escobedo F., Zipperer W. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landsc. Urban Plan 2011, 99:196-206.
7. Dombrow J., Rodriguez M., Sirmans C.F. The market value of mature trees in single-family housing markets. Apprais. J. 2000, 68:39-43.
8. Donovan G.H., Butry D.T. Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94:77-83.
9. Escambia County 2011. Property Search. [Accessed 15.9.2013] from . http://www.escpa.org/.
10. Escobedo F., Kroeger T., Wagner J. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159:2078-2087.
11. Escobedo F., Varela S., Zhao M., Wagner J., Zipperer W. Analyzing the efficacy of subtropical urban forests in offsetting carbon emissions from cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13:362-372.
12. Escobedo, F., Varela, S., Staudhammer, C., Thompson, B., 2010b. Southern Escambia County Florida's urban forests. University of Florida-IFAS, EDIS FOR 231(accessed 15.09.13] from ). http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fr293.
13. Escobedo F., Wagner J., Nowak D.J., de la Maza C.L., Rodríguez M., Crane D.E. Analyzing the cost-effectiveness of Santiago Chile's policy of using urban forests to improve air quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86:148-157.
14. Flock J., Escobedo F., Varela S., Wald C., Wade J. Environmental justice implications of urban tree cover in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environ. Justice 2011, 4:125-134.
15. Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, 2011. Housing Profiles by County. (accessed 15.09.13 from ). http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu.
16. Garrod G., Willis K. The environmental economic-impact of woodland - a 2 -stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Appl. Econ. 1992, 24:715-728.
17. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2008, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 6th ed.
18. Hess D.B., Almeida T.A. Impact of proximity to light rail rapid transit on station-area property values in Buffalo, New York. Urban Stud. 2007, 44:1041-1068.
19. Holmes T.P., Murphy E.A., Bell K.P. Exotic forest insects and residential property values. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2006, 35:155-166.
20. Kadish J., Netusil N.R. Valuing vegetation in an urban watershed. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104:59-65.
21. Kennedy P. A Guide to Econometrics 2003, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 5th edition.
22. Lyytimäki J., Sipilä M. Hopping on one leg - the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Urban Green 2009, 8:309-315.
23. Mansfield C., Pattanayak S.K., McDow W., McDonald R., Halpin P. Shades of green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. J. For. Econ. 2005, 11:177-199.
24. McPhearson T., Kremer R., Hamstead Z.A. Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: applying a social-ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.005.
25. McPherson E.G., Scott K.I., Simpson J.R. Estimating cost effectiveness of residential yard trees for improving air quality in Sacramento, California using existing models. Atmos. Environ. 1998, 32:75-84.
26. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US Cities. J. For. 2005, 103:411-416.
27. Miami-Dade County, 2012. Property Value, Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser (accessed 15.9.13 from ). http://www.miamidade.gov/pa/property_value.asp.
28. Miami-Dade County, 2011. Property Search. (accessed 15.9.13] from ). http://www.miamidade.gov/pa/property_value.asp.
29. Morales D.J., Micha F.R., Weber R.L. Two methods for valuating trees on residential sites. J. Arbor. 1983, 9:21-24.
30. Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., Ibarra, M., 2002. Brooklyn's Urban Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-290, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
31. Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., Stevens J.C., Hoehn R.E., Walton J.T., Bond J. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Abor. Urban For. 2008, 34:347-358.
32. Orange County, 2011. Property Search. (accessed 15.9.13 from ). http://www.ocpafl.org/.
33. Pandit R., Laband D.N. Energy savings from tree shade. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1324-1329.
34. Poudyal N., C., Hodges D., G., Tonn B., E., Cho S. Valuing the diversity, spatial pattern and configuration of open space plots in urban neighborhood. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11:194-201.
35. Rosen S. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ. 1974, 82:34-55.
36. Sander H.A., Haight R.G. Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 113:194-205.
37. Sander H., Polasky S., Haight R.G. The value of urban tree cover: a hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1646-1656.
38. Saphores J.D., Li W. Estimating the value of urban green space areas: a hedonic pricing analysis of the single family housing market in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104:373-387.
39. Schiller R.J. Historic turning points in real estate. East. Econ. J. 2008, 34:1-13.
40. Seminole County, 2011. Property Search. (accessed 15.09.13 from ). http://www.scpafl.org/.
41. Stigarll A., Elam E. Impact of improved landscape quality and tree cover on the price of single-family homes. J. Environ. Hort. 2009, 27:24-30.
42. Thompson R., Hanna R., Noel J., Piirto D. Valuation of tree esthetics on small urban-interface properties. J. Arbor. 1999, 25:225-234.
43. Tyrväinen L., Miettinen A. Property prices and urban forest amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2000, 39:205-223.
44. USCB, 2009. American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. (accessed 15.09.13 from ). http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.
45. Wyman M., Escobedo F., Stein T., Orfanedes M., Northrop R. Community leader perceptions towards coastal urban forests and hurricanes in Florida. South. J. Appl. For. 2012, 36:152-158.