The Effect of Landscape Trees on Residential Property Values of Six Communities in Cincinnati, Ohio

The value of the urban forest as a component of the urban environment is significant. Trees provide both environmental and social benefits to urban dwellers. In many cities, financial support for urban forestry is on the decline. The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact trees have on property values of six communities (Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park, Kennedy Heights, and North Avondale) of varying socioeconomic levels in Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Tax assessor records were obtained for property sales between the years 2000 and 2005. One hundred sites were randomly selected from each of the six communities. Data were collected from each site during the winter as well as the summer months. Dominant genus, caliper of dominant genus, estimate of tree cover, and overall property maintenance were recorded. The hedonic method was used for this analysis. The average (mean) effect of tree canopy across all six communities was an increase of approximately USD $780 per one percent increase in tree cover. The mean sale price across the 600 sites was $188,730; the mean canopy cover was 25.8%. This indicates the average value of tree canopy is $20,226 or 10.7% of the sale price of the home.

[1]  Wei Li,et al.  Estimating the value of urban green areas: A hedonic pricing analysis of the single family housing market in Los Angeles, CA , 2012 .

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

[3]  J. Ottensmann,et al.  Valuing the benefits of the urban forest: a spatial hedonic approach , 2008 .

[4]  G. R. Johnson,et al.  State Urban and Community Forestry Program Funding, Technical Assistance, and Financial Assistance within the 50 United States , 2008, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[5]  Joseph Heimlich,et al.  Attitudes of Residents Toward Street Trees on Four Streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. Before Removal of Ash Trees (Fraxinus spp.) from Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) , 2008, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[6]  R. C. Maggio,et al.  THE CONTRIBUTORY VALUE OF TREES TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE AUSTIN, TEXAS METROPOLITAN AREA , 2006 .

[7]  C. Sunstein.  Cost‐Benefit Analysis and the Environment* , 2004, Ethics.

[8]  Tracy M. Turner.  The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values , 2004 .

[9]  A. B. Morancho.  A hedonic valuation of urban green areas , 2003 .

[10]  F. E. Kuo,et al.  Social Aspects of Urban Forestry: the Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology , 2003 .

[11]  Katherine A. Kiel,et al.  A Survey of House Price Hedonic Studies of the Impact of Environmental Externalities , 2001 .

[12]  W. A. Kenney,et al.  Cultural Background and Landscape History as Factors Affecting Perceptions of the Urban Forest , 2000, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[13]  S. Farber.  Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies , 1998 .

[14]  L. Tyrväinen.  The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method , 1997 .

[15]  R. Sommer,et al.  Further Cross-National Studies of Tree Form Preference , 1997 .

[16]  S. Robert,et al.  Cross-National Rankings of Tree Shape , 1996 .

[17]  E. Gregory McPherson,et al.  Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest , 1992, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[18]  R. Ulrich.  View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. , 1984, Science.

[19]  D. J. Morales,et al.  The Contribution of Trees to Residential Property Value , 1980, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[20]  J. Kielbaso,et al.  Resident Attitudes Toward Selected Characteristics of Street Tree Plantings , 1979, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.