Research ArticleArticles

The Influence of Canopy Cover on Property Values in a Small Southern US City

Lee E. Bridges, Stephen C. Grado, Jason S. Gordon, Donald L. Grebner and John D. Kushla
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 2020, 46 (4) 262-275; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.019

LITERATURE CITED

  1. ↵
    1. Anderson L,
    2. Cordell HK
    . 1988. Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): a survey based on actual sales prices. Landscape and Urban Planning. 15:153-164.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Anselin L,
    2. Bera AK,
    3. Florax R,
    4. Mann JY
    . 1996. Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 26:77-104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Anselin L,
    2. Rey SJ
    . 2014. Modern spatial econometrics in practice. Chicago (IL, USA): GeoDa Press. p. 104-110.
  4. ↵
    1. Anthon S,
    2. Thorsen BJ,
    3. Helles F
    . 2005. Urban-fringe afforestation projects and taxable hedonic values. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 3:79-91.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Boslett AJ
    . 2011. Hedonic analyses of urban green spaces and urban tree cover in Syracuse, New York [Master’s thesis]. Syracuse (NY, USA): University of New York. 121 p.
  6. ↵
    1. Brander LM,
    2. Koetse MJ
    . 2011. The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. Journal of Environmental Management. 92:2763-2773.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Chin HC,
    2. Foong KW
    . 2006. Influence of school accessibility on housing values. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 132(3):120-129.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Cho S,
    2. Lambert DM,
    3. Kim SG,
    4. Roberts RK,
    5. Park WM
    . 2011. Relationship between value of open space and distance from housing locations within a community. Journal of Geographical Systems. 13(4):393-414.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. City of Lakeland
    . 2004. A Resolution outlining action steps to be taken to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to preservation of Lakeland’s natural resources. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland. Resolution 12-108. 2004.
  10. ↵
    1. City of Lakeland
    . 2006. Natural resources inventory. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland. p. 4.
  11. ↵
    1. City of Lakeland
    . 2007a. Comprehensive land use plan update: natural resources assessment. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland. p. 4; p. 21.
  12. ↵
    1. City of Lakeland
    . 2007b. Lakeland zoning map. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland.
  13. ↵
    1. City of Lakeland
    . 2009. Comprehensive land use plan: special area transportation study amendment. Appendix C. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland.
  14. ↵
    1. City of Lakeland
    . 2013a. Land development regulations: subdivision regulations. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland. Resolution 2013/08-01.
  15. ↵
    1. City of Lakeland
    . 2013b. Land development regulations: zoning regulations. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland. Ordinance 13-198.
  16. ↵
    1. Cropper ML,
    2. Deck LB,
    3. McConnell KE
    . 1988. On the choice of functional form for hedonic price functions. Review of Economics and Statistics. 70(4):668-675.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Dimke KC,
    2. Sydnor TD,
    3. Gardner DS
    . 2013. The effect of landscape trees on residential property values of six communities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 39(2):49-55.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Do AQ,
    2. Grudnitski G
    . 1995. Golf courses and residential house prices: an empirical examination. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. 10:261-270.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Donovan GH,
    2. Butry DT
    . 2010. Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning. 94:77-83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Donovan GH,
    2. Butry DT
    . 2011. The effect of urban trees on the rental price of single-family homes in Portland, Oregon. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 10:163-168.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Dwyer JF,
    2. McPherson EG,
    3. Schroeder HW,
    4. Rowntree RA
    . 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 18(5):227-234.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Escobedo FJ,
    2. Adams DC,
    3. Timilsina N
    . 2015. Urban forest structure effects on property value. Ecosystem Services. 12:209-217.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Federal Housing Finance Agency
    . 2013. Four-quarter percent change in FHFA MSA level house price indexes (all transactions index, 2013Q1). [Accessed 2013 July 21]. http://www.fhfa.gov
  24. ↵
    1. Champ PA,
    2. Boyle KJ,
    3. Brown TC
    1. Flores NE
    . 2003. Conceptual framework for nonmarket valuation. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC, editors. Primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 44-45.
  25. ↵
    1. Freeman AM III.
    . 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theories and methods. Washington (DC, USA): Resources for the Future. 479 p.
  26. ↵
    1. Holmes TP,
    2. Murphy EA,
    3. Bell KP
    . 2006. Exotic forest insects and residential property values. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 35(1):155-166.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Holmes TP,
    2. Murphy EA,
    3. Bell KP,
    4. Royle DD
    . 2010. Property value impacts of hemlock woolly adelgid in residential forests. Forest Science. 56(6):529-540.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Kennedy P
    . 2008. A guide to econometrics. 6th Ed. Malden (MA, USA): Blackwell Publishing. p. 117.
  29. ↵
    1. Kim YS,
    2. Wells A
    . 2005. The impact of forest density on property values. Journal of Forestry. 103(3):146-151.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Lakeland Tree Management Ordinance
    . 2004. City of Lakeland, Tennessee Municipal Code, Title 13, Chapter 4. Lakeland (TN, USA): City of Lakeland. 26 p.
  31. ↵
    1. Lutzenhiser M,
    2. Netusil NR
    . 2001. The effect of open spaces on a home’s sales price. Contemporary Economic Policy. 19:201-298.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Maco SE,
    2. McPherson EG
    . 2003. A practical approach to assessing structure, function, and values of street tree populations in communities. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(2):84-97.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Maddison D
    . 2008. A spatio-temporal model of farmland values. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 60(1):171-189.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Mansfield C,
    2. Pattanayak S,
    3. McDow W,
    4. McDonald R,
    5. Halpin P
    . 2005. Shades of green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. Journal of Forest Economics. 11:177-199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. McConnell V,
    2. Walls M
    . 2005. The value of open space: evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits. Washington (DC, USA): Resources for the Future. p. 1-5; p. 10-15.
  36. ↵
    1. Mei Y,
    2. Hite D,
    3. Sohngen B
    . 2017. Demand for urban tree cover: a two-stage hedonic price analysis in California. Forest Policy and Economics. 83:29-35.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Morales DJ
    . 1980. The contribution of trees to residential property value. Journal of Arboriculture. 6:305-308.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Mueller JM,
    2. Loomis JB
    . 2008. Spatial dependence in hedonic property models: do different corrections for spatial dependence result in economically significant differences in estimated implicit prices? Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics. 33(2):212-231.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Nesbitt L,
    2. Hotte N,
    3. Barron S,
    4. Cowan J,
    5. Sheppard SRJ
    . 2017. The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: a review and suggestions for future research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 25:103-111.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Netusil NR,
    2. Chattopadhyay S,
    3. Kovacs KF
    . 2010. Estimating the demand for tree canopy: a second-stage hedonic price analysis in Portland, Oregon. Land Economics. 86(2):281-293.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Nicholls S,
    2. Crompton JL
    . 2007. The impact of a golf course on residential property values. Journal of Sport Management. 21:555-570.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Hoehn III RE,
    3. Crane DE,
    4. Stevens JC,
    5. Walton JR
    . 2007. Assessing urban forest effects and values, New York City’s urban forest. Resource Bulletin NRS-9. Newtown Square (PA, USA): Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 22 p.
  43. ↵
    1. Pandit R,
    2. Polyakov M,
    3. Sadler R
    . 2014. Valuing public and private urban tree canopy cover. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 58:453-470.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Pandit R,
    2. Polyakov M,
    3. Tapsuwan S,
    4. Moran T
    . 2013. The effect of street trees on property values in Perth, Western Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning. 110:134-142.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Payton S,
    2. Lindsey G,
    3. Wilson J,
    4. Ottensmann JR,
    5. Man J
    . 2008. Valuing the benefits of the urban forest: a spatial hedonic approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 51(6):717-736.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Poudyal NC,
    2. Hodges DG,
    3. Fenderson J,
    4. Tarkington W
    . 2010. Realizing the economic value of a forested landscape in a viewshed. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 34(2):72-78.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Price JI,
    2. McCollum DW,
    3. Berrens RP
    . 2010. Insect infestation and residential property values: a hedonic analysis of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Forest Policy and Economics. 12:415-422.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Sander HA,
    2. Haight RC
    . 2012. Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. Journal of Environmental Management. 113:194-205.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Sander HA,
    2. Polasky S
    . 2009. The value of views and open space: estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County, Minnesota. Land Use Policy. 26:837-845.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Sander HA,
    2. Polasky S,
    3. Haight RG
    . 2010. The value of urban tree cover: a hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota. Ecological Economics. 69:1646-1656.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  51. ↵
    1. Saphores J,
    2. Li W
    . 2012. Estimating the value of urban green areas: a hedonic pricing analysis of the single family housing market in Los Angeles, CA. Landscape and Urban Planning. 104:373-387.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  52. ↵
    1. Schlapfer F,
    2. Waltert F,
    3. Segura L,
    4. Kienast F
    . 2015. Valuation of landscape amenities: a hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning. 141:24-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Shelby County Schools
    . 2013. Shelby County Board of Education district maps and school zone finder. [Accessed 2013 July 21]. http://www.scsk12.org
  54. ↵
    1. Siriwardena SD,
    2. Boyle KJ,
    3. Holmes TP,
    4. Wiseman PE
    . 2016. The implicit value of tree cover in the U.S.: a meta-analysis of hedonic property value studies. Ecological Economics. 128:68-76.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Smith VK,
    2. Poulos C,
    3. Kim H
    . 2002. Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resource and Energy Economics. 24:107-129.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Song XP,
    2. Tan PY,
    3. Edwards P,
    4. Richards D
    . 2018. The economic benefits and costs of trees in urban forest stewardship: a systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 29:162-170.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Champ PA,
    2. Boyle KJ,
    3. Brown TC
    1. Taylor LO
    . 2003. The hedonic method. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC, editors. Primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 332-393.
  58. ↵
    1. Tyrvainen L
    . 1997. The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban Planning. 37:211-222.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. ↵
    1. Tyrvainen L,
    2. Miettinen A
    . 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 39(1):205-223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. University of Tennessee
    . 2019. Incorporated cities in Tennessee. Institute for Public Service, Municipal Technical Advisory Service. [Accessed 2019 July 17]. https://www.mtas.tennessee.edu
  61. ↵
    1. U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics
    . 2005. Consumer price index for all urban consumers: regions, by expenditure category and commodity and service group, all items, southern region. Table 11A. [Accessed 2014 March 17]. www.bls.gov
  62. ↵
    1. U.S. Census Bureau
    . 2011. Community facts. [Accessed 2013 August 3]. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml
  63. ↵
    1. U.S. Census Bureau
    . 2017. American community survey 2013-2017 5-year estimates. The U.S. Census Business Builder: Regional Analyst Edition – 2.5. [Accessed 2019 July 26]. https://cbb.census.gov/rae/#
  64. ↵
    1. U.S. Department of Agriculture
    . 2006. National agricultural imagery program mosaic, Shelby County, Tennessee ortho imagery. The Natural Resource Conservation Service Geospatial Data Gateway. [Accessed 2014 May 30]. http://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov
  65. ↵
    1. Zygmunt R,
    2. Gluszak M
    . 2015. Forest proximity impact on undeveloped land values: a spatial hedonic study. Forest Policy and Economics. 50:82-89.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
The Influence of Canopy Cover on Property Values in a Small Southern US City
Lee E. Bridges, Stephen C. Grado, Jason S. Gordon, Donald L. Grebner, John D. Kushla
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2020, 46 (4) 262-275; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2020.019
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords