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

Trees in residential neighborhoods and communities provide benefits for homeowners that are capitalized into residential property values. In this paper, we collected data from hedonic property value studies and merged these data with ancillary spatial data describing forest and socio-economic characteristics surrounding each study area to conduct a meta-analysis of the impact of tree canopy cover on the value of residential properties. The meta-analysis suggests that property-level tree cover of about 30% and county-level tree cover of about 38% maximize the implicit price of tree cover in property values. Currently, tree cover in the original study areas was about 14%, on average, around or near study properties. The empirical results, therefore suggest under investment of tree cover on private property from the perspective of individual property owners and from a societal perspective. The findings also have implications for community forest programs regarding planting trees and protection of mature trees to address potential changes in tree abundance, species diversity and stand age due to development and climate change.

[1]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[2]  Roland K. Roberts,et al.  Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands , 2009 .

[3]  Roland K. Roberts,et al.  Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space , 2008 .

[4]  A. Ghermandi,et al.  A Global Map of Coastal Recreation Values: Results from a Spatially Explicit Meta-Analysis , 2011 .

[5]  D. Nowak,et al.  Tree and impervious cover change in U.S. cities , 2012 .

[6]  Roland K. Roberts,et al.  Relationship between value of open space and distance from housing locations within a community , 2011, J. Geogr. Syst..

[7]  C. Gries,et al.  Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  A. Troy,et al.  Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[9]  Louis R. Iverson,et al.  Atlases of Tree and Bird Species Habitats for Current and Future Climates , 2009, Ecological Restoration.

[10]  W. Greene.  Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error: Comment , 1981 .

[11]  Noelwah R. Netusil,et al.  Estimating the Demand for Tree Canopy: A Second-Stage Hedonic Price Analysis in Portland, Oregon , 2010, Land Economics.

[12]  Christopher A. Barnes,et al.  Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. , 2011 .

[13]  Andrew O. Finley,et al.  An indicator of tree migration in forests of the eastern United States , 2009 .

[14]  D. Calkin,et al.  The effects of wildfire and environmental amenities on property values in northwest Montana, USA. , 2010 .

[15]  A. Prasad,et al.  Potential Changes in Tree Species Richness and Forest Community Types following Climate Change , 2001, Ecosystems.

[16]  N. Khanna,et al.  Assessing the Precision of Turning Point Estimates in Polynomial Regression Functions , 2007 .

[17]  J. Wickham,et al.  Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States , 2007 .

[18]  K. Bell,et al.  Exotic Forest Insects and Residential Property Values , 2006, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[19]  R. Berrens,et al.  Insect infestation and residential property values: A hedonic analysis of the mountain pine beetle epidemic , 2010 .

[20]  J. Morgan Grove,et al.  Predicting Opportunities for Greening and Patterns of Vegetation on Private Urban Lands , 2007, Environmental management.

[21]  Y. Kim,et al.  The impact of forest density on property values , 2005 .

[22]  Laura O. Taylor.  The Hedonic Method , 2003 .

[23]  Christopher F. Parmeter,et al.  Due Diligence in Meta-analyses to Support Benefit Transfers , 2013 .

[24]  R. Huggett.  Fire in the Wildland-Urban Interface: An Examination of the Effects of Wildfire on Residential Property Markets. , 2004 .

[25]  Robert I. McDonald,et al.  Shades of Green: Measuring the Value of Urban Forests in the Housing Market , 2005 .

[26]  R. Alig,et al.  Sustaining America's urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge report , 2010 .

[27]  R. Haight,et al.  Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[28]  Peter E. Kennedy,et al.  The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: an Assessment , 2022 .

[29]  H. Schroeder,et al.  Residents’ Attitudes Toward Street Trees in the UK and U.S. Communities , 2006, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[30]  A. Lugo,et al.  Climate Change and Forest Disturbances , 2001 .

[31]  J. Heckman.  Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

[32]  K. Bell,et al.  Property value impacts of hemlock woolly adelgid in residential forests , 2010 .

[33]  Elena Y. Besedin,et al.  Enhanced Geospatial Validity for Meta-analysis and Environmental Benefit Transfer: An Application to Water Quality Improvements , 2017 .

[34]  Kathleen L Wolf.  Trees And Business District Preferences: A Case Study Of Athens, Georgia, U.S. , 2004, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[35]  Robert G. Haight,et al.  The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA , 2010 .

[36]  K. C. Dimke.  Valuation of Tree Canopy on Property Values of Six Communities in Cincinnati, Ohio , 2008 .

[37]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Using GIS to Incorporate Visibility in Hedonic Property Value Models , 2002, Land Economics.