Socioeconomic Resources Focused Outside of Florida

Research and Refereed Journal Articles

• Higher tree cover on single-family home lots in Athens, GA increased the selling value of the property by three to five percent.
  Anderson, L. M., and H. K. Cordell. 1988. Residential property values improve by landscaping with trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 9(3):162–166. [PDF]
• The urban forest structure, amount of tree cover, quantity, maintenance, and overall condition is associated with the level of management and investment by comunas (municipalities). Comunas in higher socioeconomic brackets maintain a larger amount of tree cover on private property, whereas, lower socioeconomic comunas depend on the government to provide trees.
  Escobedo, F. J., D. J. Nowak, J. E. Wagner, C. L. De la Maza, M. Rodriguez, D. E. Crane, and J. Hernandez. 2006. The socioeconomics and management of santiago de chile's public urban forests. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4: 105-114. [PDF]
• Comparing the costs of taking care of species specific street trees verses the benefits they provide can lead to improved urban tree planning and management and good fiscal management.
  McPherson, E. G. 2003. A benefit-cost analysis of ten street tree species in Modesto, California, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1): 1-8. [PDF]
• Analysis of the net benefits per tree and benefit-cost ratios were similar for both cities but for different reasons. Management recommendations for both locations aimed to increase net benefits of the urban forest.
  McPherson, E. G. and Simpson, J. R. 2002. A comparison of municipal forest benefits and costs in Modesto and Santa Monica, California, USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1(2): 61–74. [PDF]
• An analysis of tree benefits and costs indicated that benefits residents obtain from the trees exceeds management costs for the forest. Taking steps to build a more diverse forest with younger trees and partnering with local and regional organizations may allow Modesto to continue receiving the current level of benefit to cost ratio from the forest.
  McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J. and Xiao, Q. F. 1999. Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 25: 235–248. [PDF]
• Monitoring the benefit to cost ratio provides managers the opportunity to educate the community about the benefits of tree selection, placement, and care; while enhancing the positive investment of using taxpayer dollars to purchase and manage city trees.
  McPherson, G., J. R. Simpson, P. J. Peper, S. E. Maco, and Q. Xiao. 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. Journal of Forestry 103(8): 411-16. [PDF]
• Determination of the compensatory loss of a tree provided managers in Oakland, CA a dollar amount for trees in their urban forest. The determined values can assist managers in estimating the tree value loss following natural disasters, and provide justification for management and fiscal support of trees.
  Nowak, D. J. 1993. Compensatory value of an urban forest: An application of the tree-value formula. Journal of Arboriculture 19(3): 173-7. [PDF]
• An estimate of the total compensatory value of trees in the contiguous United States is $2.42 trillion. Challenges to quantifying functional benefits include differentiating between structural and functional values.
  Nowak, D. J., D. E. Crane, and J. F. Dwyer. 2002. Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28(4): 194-9. [PDF]
• A review of existing tools and assessments for analyzing the urban forests currently used in the U.S. that can be utilized in other countries.
  Nowak, D. J., D. E. Crane, J. T. Walton, D. B. Twardus, and J. F. Dwyer. 2003. “Understanding and Quantifying Urban Forest Structure, Functions and Value.” In Proceeding of the 5th Canadian Urban Forest Conference; 2002 October 7-9; Markham, Ontario. Eds. W. A. Kenney, J. McKay, and P. van Wassaneaer, 27-1 – 27-9. Region of York, Ontario: Ontario Urban Forest Council. [PDF]
• Urban areas occupy 3.5 percent of the contiguous United States with average tree cover at 27 percent. Urbanization is predicted to be the main challenge to managing the existing urban forests.
  Nowak, D. J., M. H. Noble, S. M. Sisinni, and J. F. Dwyer. 2001. People & trees: Assessing the US urban forest resources. Journal of Forestry 99(3): 37-42. [PDF]
• A comparison of urban land from 1990 to 2000 showed that urban areas increased, displacing agriculture and forested land. Forest fragmentation, exotic pests, and wildland fire are a few of the challenges faced by land managers as urban areas grow.
  Nowak, D. J., J. T. Walton, J. F. Dwyer, L. G. Kaya, and S. Myeong. 2005. The increasing influence of urban environments on US forest management. Journal of Forestry 103(8): 377-82. [PDF]

Return to top

Computer Programs

• The computer model helps managers to quantify urban forest structure and functions. The model calculates many urban forests attributes (e.g., species diversity) and forest functions and values as they relate to tree effects (e.g., air pollution).
  Nowak, D. J., D. E. Crane, J. C. Stevens, J. T. Walton, J. Bond, G. Ina, M. Binkley, L. Tian, T. Endreny, and J. Wang. 2005. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model. USDA Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Tools/UFORE.htm (accessed October 24, 2006).

Return to top

• Return to Socioeconomic main page