Socio-Economic Benefits of Austin’s Tree Canopy

A proposal for analysis presented by:

Kyle Fuchshuber (Project Manager)

Jerad Laxson (Asst. Project Manager)

Megan Thomas (Editor & Researcher)

Eric Tijerina (Graphic Designer & Researcher)

Zachary Dye (GIS Specialist & Researcher)

IntroductionUrban Tree Canopy and Socio-Economic

Benefits:◦ Carbon sequestration◦ Reduce Storm Water Runoff◦ Energy Reduction◦ Higher Quality of Life◦ Less $$

Benefits of our study◦ COA legislative decisions◦ Green future that is economically feasible for Austin, TX

Primary Areas of StudyPavement Conditions

◦Less maintenance = less cost

Crime rates◦Lower crime = less costs and happy

citizens

Property values◦Higher property value = higher

property taxes and affluent citizens

ScopeCharacteristics within the City of Austin that will be focused on:

1. Heavy tree cover

2. Broad tree cover

3. Average tree cover

4. Limited tree cover

5. No tree cover

Pavement Costs ResearchPavement Costs for the City of Austin2010: $42,571,6742011: $50,163,1352012: $37,186,628(Wilson 2012)

Modesto, CA◦Over a 30-year period, up to 60% savings in

pavement maintenance and rehabilitation cost

(McPherson & Muchnick, 2005)

Property Values ResearchTwin Cities

◦Increasing tree cover w/in 250 meters = 60% gain in home sale prices

Comparison Model◦How do external factors relate?

(Sander 2010)

Crime Rates researchBaltimore

◦Strong negative relationship

Portland◦Moderately negative in old growth

forests(Donovan, Prestemon, 2010)

DataCity of Austin GIS data sets

◦ ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

COA Urban Forestry Program

MethodologyObjective 1 – Pavement Costs

◦External factors: Age, traffic, environment, material,

strength of pavement

◦Comparative analysis Model based on natural effect of external

factors How does this relate to tree cover?

◦Expect positive correlation

MethodologyObjective 2 – Crime rates

◦External factors: Median income, age of neighborhood, prevalence of

alarm systems, sidewalk traffic, and single family homes

◦Crime to be measured: Home invasion, burglary, auto theft, vandalism

◦Comparative analysis Model based on natural effect of external factors How does this relate to tree cover?

◦Expect negative correlation

MethodologyObjective 3 – Property Value

◦External factors: Environmental, Structural, Community

◦Comparative analysis Model based on natural effect of external factors How does this relate to tree cover?

◦Expect positive correlation

(Sander 2010)

MethodologyField assessment

◦On site analysis◦Pictures to match areas studied

Project ManagerHours: 100 Work hours over 20 daysHourly Rate: $40Sub-Total: $4000

Assistant Project ManagerHours: 100 Work hours over 20 daysHourly Rate: $36Sub-Total: $3600

Graphic Designer& ResearcherHours: 100 Work hours over 20 daysHourly Rate: $26Sub-Total: $2600

GIS Specialist& ResearcherHours: 100 Work hours over 20 daysHourly Rate: $29Sub-Total: $2900Editor & ResearcherHours: 100 Work hours over 20 daysHourly Rate: $30Sub-Total: $3000

Esri ArcGISHours Used: 100 Work hours over 20 daysHourly Rate for Subscription: $5.71Sub-Total: $571(5) Workstations2.5 MonthsRent per Station: $150Sub-Total: $750

(5) Depreciation ofComputers2.5 MonthsRent per Computer: $138Sub-Total: $690Transportation60 Mile Trip2 Trips55 cents per Mile: $33Sub-Total: $66

Supplies &Software Sub-Total: $2,077

Services Supplies & Software

Total Cost: $18,177

Services Sub-Total: $16,100

Budget

Final Deliverables(2) CDs that cover all aspects of project

including:◦Proposal report and presentation◦Progress report and presentation◦Final Report◦GIS data including metadata◦Maps for each objective covering all aspects of

analysisPhysical Final ReportPoster

◦Generalizes methodology of project and findings

ConclusionAn analysis of insight for the

future

Information to guide legislative decisions

Create a greener, more sustainable future for Austin

Sources Sander, H., Polasky, S. & Haight, R. G. (2010). The value of

urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecological Economics 69(2010), 1646-1656. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/ pubs/jrnl/2010/nrs_2010_sander_001.pdf

Wilson, P. Texas Department of Transportation, (2012).Transportation program expenditures fiscal year 2012. Retrieved from website: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/reports/expenditures/fy2012.pdf

McPherson, E. G., & Muchnick, J. (2005). Effects of street tree shade on asphalt concrete pavement performance. International Society of Aboriculture, 31(6), Retrieved from http://www.treebenefits.terrasummit.com/Documents/Business/psw_2005_mcpherson001_joa_1105.pdf

Questions or concerns?