Socio-Economic Benefits of Austin’s Tree Canopy
description
Transcript of Socio-Economic Benefits of Austin’s Tree Canopy
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?