Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 43(2): March 2017 these trees in developments. Developers clearly attribute value to the presence of mature trees at gateway areas into the development and as boundaries for the subdivision, but less so in the interior, in part because of the difficulty in over- coming soil compaction under mature trees within the development. This leads them to remove trees on the house lots, where (in the case of compact development) real estate agents say they are val- ued the most. Developers preserve trees mostly on the periphery to act as a buffer. The realtors interviewed confirmed the economic value of this practice, and confirmed that buyers appreci- ate the trees as buffers, and like having many trees around the development, but it’s the package (i.e., trees in the neighborhood, providing privacy at the boundary) rather than having trees specifi- cally on the home lots, that is appealing. These professionals testify that many buyers do not want mature trees near their house, no matter the other benefits they might provide, in fear of the costs of maintenance or trees falling on their homes. To encourage a view of tree preservation as an economic benefit, it would make sense to encour- age developers to pay attention to the location of trees at the time of site design. Developers prefer to develop where there are trees in adjacent land, but clearly neither the homebuyer nor the realtor know if these trees will exist in the future. That uncertainty may exert a downward pressure on sale price, and would likely affect future sale price if trees on adjacent lots are removed. This uncer- tainty might be a leverage point to incent develop- ers to leave mature trees at the periphery on the site they control, and if possible, keep trees in stands on the interior of the development so there is visual access to the trees from a majority of parcels. The research suggests that both economic and environmental value could be found by encourag- ing the development community to maintain trees in the periphery of subdivisions and along water courses, such as riparian areas, streams, and wet- lands. These practices would likely provide the most direct benefits to water resources, while enhancing the value of lots in subdivisions most significantly. The combined approach, using quantitative sale value and qualitative feedback from develop- ment and real estate professionals to understand the significance of tree canopy, enabled research- 69 ers to identify specifically where the value lies in preserving trees. This combination led to a better, if still incomplete understanding of this nuanced market, and a better basis for public pol- icy. There are many future avenues for research. The work that should come next would explore the nature of those situations where canopy does and does not matter. First, all canopy is not equal in the eyes of buyers, real estate agents or developers. The canopy collected through aerial photos does not differentiate by tree type, meaning that a conifer with a 3 m diameter canopy that extends to ground level would register much the same as would an oak tree. Future research could use site-specific data using the Google Earth method to distinguish these types of trees, in anticipation that homebuyers might value usable space under a tree canopy differently. A second research area to explore is to return to the GIS database and rerun the hedonic model so that it captures sales price impacts related to the presence of trees in 100 m and 200 m buffers from a given parcel, or at the edge of a develop- ment, to ascertain the impact of canopy in proxim- ity to a sale, rather than only on the sold parcel. This would in some way capture the associated value of trees (if any) as perceived by homebuy- ers at the subdivision level that was suggested by developers and real estate agents. Further model- ing on the existing data could be done to incorpo- rate tree canopy data in a series of buffers around the lot, which might capture the notion brought forward by realtors that the presence of trees in the neighborhood at large can affect home value as well. This research would provide quantified levels of economic benefits in Ohio’s markets. Third, future research could investigate whether there is a difference in value (real or perceived) if the percent canopy cover on a parcel is differ- ent depending on whether the canopy is con- tinuous/aggregated or fragmented across the site, as this might change use of the property, visual impacts, and therefore, home buyer perceptions. Clearly, additional research is warranted on this topic before results would form a suitable foundation for specific policy recommendations that might be applied basin-wide or statewide, but what is clear from this quantitative and quali- tative work, however, is that canopy does play a significant role in explaining house price varia- ©2017 International Society of Arboriculture
March 2017
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
