Name of presentation Month 2009

Property value benefits of leafy streets : Brisbane case study

Lyndal Plant, Ph.D - School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management

Name of presentation Month 2009

Street trees - streetscapes

Name of presentation Month 2009

Shenyang, China.

Name of presentation Month 2009

Name of presentation Month 2009

Drivers Benefits Barriers

•  Pollution

•  Biodiversity

•  Urban development

•  Community health

•  Water management

•  Climate change

•  Population growth/

densification

•  Heritage & history

•  Liveability, sense of

place

•  Traffic congestion

Environmental •  shade and cooling Community •  Comfortable shaded

pathways- walking & cycling

Economic •  Property value

benefits/property tax returns

•  Competition for space

•  Competition for

funds •  Street trees nice to

have- not essential infrastructure

•  Community

preferences??

Name of presentation Month 2009

63.9%&10.9%&

25.2%&

Case study city: Brisbane

City-wide 51% tree cover Residential areas 35% tree cover

Name of presentation Month 2009

Effects of development time & type on tree cover on private residential property in 2010 – Brisbane. (Daniel, C. 2012)

Pre-war 37% Early Post-war (50s-60s) 33.6% Late Post-war (70s-80s) 35.2% Modern (1990s) 25.4% 2000-2005

Greenfield dwellings 17.3% Infill dwellings 20.2% Multiple Unit-dwellings 4.2%

Name of presentation Month 2009

Name of presentation Month 2009

Neighbourhood Shadeways – 50% tree shade cover along resi footpaths and park pathways by 2031 (35% av. in 2010, ? in 2014)

Street with about 60-70% footpath tree cover

Turning shade-hungry footpaths & ……..park paths, into shady, green, cool, attractive …….. walking and cycling routes

Name of presentation Month 2009

Quantifying and valuing urban forest benefits

•  Measuring and monetising ecosystem services of urban forests

•  “Green accounting”, building awareness, identifying opportunities and forecasting scenarios

Name of presentation Month 2009

Name of presentation Month 2009

Study data

House&a1ributes&

Property&a1ributes&

Tree&a1ributes& Suburb&A1ributes&

!Sale&price&!Transfer&date&!Number&of&bedrooms&!Number&of&bathrooms&!Number&of&car/garage&spaces&&&&&

!Property&size&!Proximity&to&park&!Size&of&the&nearest&park&!Proximity&to&shops&!Proximity&to&heavy&industry&!Proximity&to&busy&road&

!&Tree&cover&on&the&property&!&Tree&canopy&cover&within&30&and&100m&of&the&house&sale&!Tree&canopy&cover&in&nearest&park&!&Tree&canopy&cover&on&front&footpath&!&Tree&canopy&cover&on&footpath&within&30m&&and&100m&of&house&sale&(excl&frontage)&&&

!Age&of&suburb&!Household&income&!Household&educaGon&!Proximity&to&CBD&&&

Name of presentation Month 2009

Name of presentation Month 2009

Attributes of significance

House&a1ributes&

Property&a1ributes&

Tree&a1ributes& Suburb&A1ributes&

!Sale&price&!Transfer&date&!Number&of&bedrooms&!Number&of&bathrooms&!Number&of&car/garage&spaces&&&&&

!Property&size&!Proximity&to&park&!Size&of&the&nearest&park&!Proximity&to&shops&!Proximity&to&heavy&industry&!Proximity&to&busy&road&

!&Tree&cover&on&the&property&!&Tree&canopy&cover&within&30&and&100m&of&the&house&sale&!Tree&canopy&cover&in&nearest&park&!&Tree&canopy&cover&on&front&footpath&!&Tree&canopy&cover&on&footpath&within&30m&&and&100m&of&house&sale&(excl&frontage)&&&

!Age&of&suburb&!Household&income&!Household&educaGon&!Proximity&to&CBD&&&

Name of presentation Month 2009

Tree cover within 30m and 100m of the property

Tree cover on front footpath

Tree cover on footpath within 30m of property

- Tree cover within property

+ Tree cover on footpath within 100m of property

no significant effect - significant negative effect + significant positive effect

Name of presentation Month 2009

Hedonic price model

•  ln Pi (House Sale Price) = β0 + δDSaleYr + δDEra + δDParkprox +β1Hi + β2Li + β4Ti + β3Si + εi

•  35% footpath tree cover – added $1,871 (0.35%) to median house sale price in 2010

•  50% or greater footpath tree cover – added $29,000 (5.05%) to sale price

Name of presentation Month 2009

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

$29.5m

$1.67m

-$13m

$0.99m $1.23m

Property value benefits

Environmental benefits

Planting & Maintenance costs

BCC rates revenue

State tax revenue

Name of presentation Month 2009

Brisbane case study - Points of interest

•  street trees paying their way in property value benefits alone

•  local nuances •  street tree(s) out front made no difference •  smaller marginal effect of street trees in Brisbane than

other studies

•  range of property value/tax beneficiaries and partnership opportunities

•  local, revealed, monetised preferences = business case + policy evaluation tool