The implicit value of tree cover in the U.S.: A meta-analysis of hedonic property value studies

Ecological Economics

Volumn 128, Issue , 2016, Pages 68-76

  Siriwardena, Shyamani D ^a   Boyle, Kevin J ^a   Holmes, Thomas P ^b   Wiseman, P Eric ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate change; Community forestry; Forest matrix; Hedonic valuation; Tree canopy cover

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; CANOPY; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNITY FORESTRY; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; INVESTMENT; META-ANALYSIS; NEIGHBORHOOD; SPATIAL DATA; SPECIES DIVERSITY; TREE; VALUATION; VEGETATION COVER;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84964807329     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.016     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bentz B. Western U.S. bark beetles and climate change 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center, (http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/bark-beetles.shtml, accessed 11.02.2014).
2. Boyle K.J., Parmeter C.F., Boehlert B.B., Paterson R.W. Due diligence in meta-analyses to support benefit transfers. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2013, 55(23):357-386.
3. Cho S.-H., Poudyal N.C., Roberts R.K. Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66(2):403-416.
4. Cho S.-H., Kim S.G., Roberts R.K., Jung S. Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(10):2646-2657.
5. Cho S.H., Lambert D., Kim S., Roberts R., Park W. Relationship between value of open space and distance from housing locations within a community. J. Geogr. Syst. 2011, 13(4):393-414.
6. Coley M.C. House and Landscape Value: An Application of Hedonic Pricing Technique Investigating Effects of Lawn Area on House Selling Price 2005, (MS Thesis), The University of Georgia.
7. Dale V.H., Joyce L.A., McNulty S., Neilson R.P., Ayres M.P., Flannigan M.D., Hanson P.J., Irland L.C., Lugo A.E., Peterson C.J., Simberloff D., Swanson F.J., Stocks B.J., Wotton B.M. Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 2001, 51(9):723-734.
8. Dimke K.C. Valuation of Tree Canopy on Property Values of Six Communities in Cincinnati, Ohio 2008, (PhD Dissertation), The Ohio State University.
9. Drake-McLaughlin N., Netusil N.R. Valuing walkability and vegetation in Portland, Oregon. Twenty-second Interim Report and Proceedings from the Annual Meeting, W2133 2011, 173-201. R.H. von Haefen (Ed.).
10. Frankel S.J. Forest Plant Diseases and Climate Change 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center, (http://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/plant-diseases.shtml, accessed 11.02.2014).
11. Ghermandi A., Nunes P.A. A global map of coastal recreation values: results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:1-15.
12. Heckman J.J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1979, 47(1):153-161.
13. Holmes T.P., Murphy E.A., Bell K.P. Exotic forest insects and residential property values. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2006, 35(1):155-166.
14. Holmes T.P., Murphy E.A., Bell K.P., Royle D.D. Property value impacts of hemlock woolly adelgid in residential forests. For. Sci. 2010, 56(6):529-540.
15. Homer C., Dewitz J., Fry J., Coan M., Hossain N., Larson C., Herold N., McKerrow A., VanDriel J.N., Wickham J. Completion of the 2001 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2007, 73(4):337-341.
16. Hope D., Gries C., Zhu W., Fagan W.F., Redman C.L., Grimm N.B., Nelson A.L., Martin C., Kinzig A. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2003, 100(15):8788-8792.
17. Huggett R.J. Fire in the Wildland-Urban Interface: An Examination of the Effects of Wildfire on Residential Property Markets 2003, (PhD Dissertation), North Carolina State University.
18. Iverson L.R., Prasad A.M. Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosystems 2001, 4(3):186-199.
19. Johnston R.J., Besedin E.Y., Stapler R. Enhanced geospatial data for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements. Presented at the Meta-analysis of Economics Research Network, MAER-Net 2014 Athens Colloquium, Athens, Greece 2014.
20. Kim Y.S., Wells A. The impact of forest density on property values. J. For. 2005, 103(3):146-151.
21. 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(3):177-199.
22. Nelson J.P., Kennedy P.E. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42(3):345-377.
23. Netusil N.R., Chattopadhyay S., Kovacs K.F. Estimating the demand for tree canopy: a second-stage hedonic price analysis in Portland, Oregon. Land Econ. 2010, 86(2):281-293.
24. Nowak D.J., Greenfield E.J. Tree and impervious cover change in US cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11(1):21-30.
25. Nowak D.J., Stein S.M., Randler P.B., Greenfield E.J., Comas S.J., Carr M.A., Alig R.J. Sustaining America's urban trees and forests: a forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62 2010, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
26. Paterson R.W., Boyle K.J. Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Econ. 2002, 78(3):417-425.
27. Pickett S.T., Cadenasso M.L., Grove J.M., Booned C.G., Groffman P.M., Irwin E., Kaushal S.S., Marshall V., McGrath B.P., Nilon C.H., Pouyat R.V., Szlavecz K., Troy A., Warren P. Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92(3):331-362.
28. Plassmann F., Khanna N. Assessing the precision of turning point estimates in polynomial regression functions. Econ. Rev. 2007, 26(5):503-528.
29. Prasad A., Iverson L.S., Matthews S., Peters M. Atlases of tree and bird species habitats for current and future climates. Ecol. Restor. 2009, 27(3):260-263.
30. Price J.I., McCollum D.W., Berrens R.P. Insect infestation and residential property values: a hedonic analysis of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Forest Policy Econ. 2010, 12(6):415-422.
31. Sander H., 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.
32. 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(8):1646-1656.
33. Schroeder H., Flannigan G., Coles R. Residents' attitudes toward street trees in the UK and US communities. Arboricult. Urban For. 2006, 32(5):236-246.
34. Stetler K.M., Venn T.J., Calkin D.E. The effects of wildfire and environmental amenities on property values in northwest Montana, USA. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(11):2233-2243.
35. Taylor L.O. The hedonic method. A primer on nonmarket valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York. P. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds.).
36. Troy A.R., Grove J.M., O'Neil-Dunne J.P., Pickett S.T., Cadenasso M.L. Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environ. Manag. 2007, 40(3):394-412.
37. U.S.Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2016 2015, (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/, accessed July 2013).
38. Wolf K.L. Trees and business district preferences: a case study of Athens, Georgia, US. J. Arboric. 2004, 30(6):336-346.
39. Woodall C.W., Oswalt C.M., Westfall J.A., Perry C.H., Nelson M.D., Finley A.O. An indicator of tree migration in forests of the Eastern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257(5):1434-1444.
40. Wooldridge J. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data 2002, MIT Press, Cambridge.