VALUATION OF TREE CANOPY ON PROPERTY VALUES OF SIX COMMUNITIES IN CINCINNATI, OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kelley C. Dimke, M.S. ***** The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. David Gardner, Advisor Dr. James Metzger Dr. Steven Still __________________________________ Dr. T. Davis Sydnor Advisor Horticulture & Crop Science Graduate Program ABSTRACT The value of the urban forest as a component of the urban environment is significant. Environmental benefits of the urban forest include improved air quality, energy conservation through reduction of heating and cooling costs, climate moderation, flood control, reduction in noise levels and wildlife habitat. The urban forest also provides many social benefits. Studies have shown that trees reduce stress and improve the physical health of urbanites. Financial support for urban forestry in many cities 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 socio-economic levels in Cincinnati, Ohio. Tax assessor records were obtained from 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. Using the hedonic method of cost benefit analysis it was determined that each percentage increase in tree cover added $783.98 to the property value. The average value of tree canopy across the 600 sites is $20,226 or 10.7% of the sale price of the home. The findings from this research will be useful to Urban Forestry ii Departments in their requests for funding. iii Dedicated to my husband, Tom and my children, Erika and Taylor for their love and encouragement as I pursued a dream. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Dave Gardner for his support and guidance throughout this project. I appreciate his kindness in accepting me as his student when Dr. Still retired and his patience and encouragement throughout the final phases of my studies. I am grateful to Dr. Jim Metzger for his dedication to education and the students that have the privilege of spending time in his classroom. Always generous with his time, I appreciate his guidance and editorial skills. I wish to thank Dr. Steven Still for his passion and support to the field of Horticulture and the patience and encouragement he has shown me as I pursue my passion. I am grateful to have been one of his many students. I wish to thank Dr. Davis Sydnor for his support, encouragement and enthusiasm throughout my studies. I appreciate his generosity with time and his vast knowledge of Arboriculture. This project would not have been possible without him. I wish to thank Dr. Fred Hitzhusen and Jack Schieffer, graduate student in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics for their assistance with the many Hedonics questions. Finally I want to thank all the wonderful people I have met through my association with the Horticulture Department at OSU. v VITA September 9, 1959………………………..Born – Burlington, Vermont 1979………………………………………A.S. University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont 1983………………………………………B.A. University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont 2005………………………………………M.S. The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 2004 – Present …………………………..Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Horticulture and Crop Science vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract.......................................................................................................................... ii Dedication......................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................v Vita ................................................................................................................................vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................. viii List of Figures .................................................................................................................x Chapters: 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................1 2. Literature Review…..……….………………………………………………………….4 3. Methods and Materials………………………………………………………………..27 4. Results and Discussion………………………………………………………………. 31 5. Summary……………………………………………………………………………... 87 Appendix Map………………………………………………………………………… 91 List of References……………………………………………………………………….. 93 vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Population of six Cincinnati, Ohio neighborhoods. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data…………………………………………34 2. Age Distribution of six communities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data……………………………………………..35 3. Household types of six communities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data………………………………………….36 4. Resident employment of those over 16 years old in six Cincinnati, Ohio communities. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data……………………………………………………………….. 37 5. Income levels for six Cincinnati, Ohio communities. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data…………………………………………..37 6. Median household income for six Cincinnati, Ohio communities. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data……………………………..37 7. Number of people and families in six Cincinnati, Ohio communities who fell below the poverty level in 2000. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data…………………………………………………………. 38 8. Number of people and families in six Cincinnati, Ohio communities who fell below the poverty level in 2000. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data…………………………………………………………. 38 9. Race distribution in six Cincinnati, Ohio communities. Information obtained from 2000 U.S. census data…………………………………………. 38 viii 10. Results of the analysis of the winter data. Data collected winter 2005-06 in the Cincinnati, Ohio communities of Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park, Kennedy Heights, and North Avondale............................ 67 11. Results of the analysis of summer data. Data collected in summer 2006 in the Cincinnati, Ohio communities of Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park, Kennedy Heights and North Avondale………………………………………………………….. 71 12 Results of the analysis of the combination of summer and winter data. Data collected in 2005-2006 in the Cincinnati, Ohio communities of Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park, Kennedy Heights and North Avondale………………………………………………… 76 13. Results of the analysis of quadratic effects…………………………………... 78 14. Results of the analysis of evergreen vs. deciduous trees on property values of the Cincinnati, Ohio communities of Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park and North Avondale………………………….. 80 15. Six most dominant genera for the combination summer/winter analysis with quantities noted………………………………………………… 82 16. Results of the analysis of tree genus on property values of the Cincinnati, Ohio communities of Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park, Kennedy Heights and North Avondale…………………………... 83 17. Results of the analysis of the effect of neighborhood tree cover on the property values of Cincinnati, Ohio communities of Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park, Kennedy Heights and North Avondale………. 86 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Typical Bond Hill property. Winter picture #1 February 25, 2006……………... 39 2. Typical Bond Hill property. Summer picture #1 September 20, 2006…………. 40 3. Typical Bond Hill property. Winter picture #2 February 25, 2006……………... 41 4. Typical Bond Hill property. Summer picture #2 September 19, 2006………….. 42 5. Typical Carthage property. Winter picture #1 March 5, 2006………………….. 43 6. Typical Carthage property. Summer picture #1 September 14, 2006…………… 44 7. Typical Carthage property. Winter picture #2 March 5, 2006………………….. 45 8. Typical Carthage property. Summer picture #2 September 14, 2006…………… 46 9. Typical Clifton property. Winter picture #1 March 26, 2006…………………… 47 10. Typical Clifton property. Summer picture #1 September 18, 2006…………….. 48 11. Typical Clifton property. Winter picture #2 March 26, 2006…………………… 49 12. Typical Clifton property. Summer picture #2 September 18, 2006…………….. 50 13. Typical Hyde Park property. Winter picture #1 March 26, 2006……………….. 51 14. Typical Hyde Park property. Summer picture #1 September 10, 2006…………. 52 15. Typical Hyde Park property. Winter picture #2 March 17, 2006……………….. 53 16. Typical Hyde Park property. Summer picture #2 September 26, 2006…………. 54 17. Typical Kennedy Heights property. Winter #1 picture March 17, 2006…………55 x 18. Typical Kennedy Heights property. Summer picture #1 September 20, 2006… 56 19. Typical Kennedy Heights property. Winter picture #2 March 17, 2006…………57 20. Typical Kennedy Heights property. Summer picture #2 September 20, 2006….. 58 21. Typical North Avondale property. Winter picture #1 March 25, 2006…………. 59 22. Typical North Avondale property. Summer picture #1 September 20, 2006…… 60 23. Typical North Avondale property. Winter picture