Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:59:46.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exotic Forest Insects and Residential Property Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Thomas P. Holmes ,
Elizabeth A. Murphy  and
Kathleen P. Bell
Thomas P. Holmes
Affiliation:
Southern Research Station at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Elizabeth A. Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma
Kathleen P. Bell
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics and Policy at the University of Maine, Orono, Maine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of the economic damages to homeowners in a northern New Jersey community due to an exotic forest insect—the hemlock woolly adelgid. Hedonic property value methods are used to estimate the effect of hemlock health on property values. A statistically significant relationship between hemlock health and residential property values is established. Moreover, there are some signs of spillover impacts from hemlock decline, as negative effects are realized on the parcels where the declining hemlock stands are located as well as on neighboring properties. These results give some indication of the benefits of potential control programs and strategies and also show support for community- or neighborhood-based programs in residential settings.

Keywords

invasive specieseconomic impactshedonic property valuesgeneral spatial model
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 155 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, G. and Bennett, L.L. 2001. “Valuing Open Space and Land Use Patterns in Urban Watersheds.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(2/3): 221–237.Google Scholar
Anderson, L.M. and Cordell, H.K. 1988. “Influence of Trees on Residential Property Values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): A Survey Based on Actual Sales Prices.” Landscape and Urban Planning 15(1): 153–164.Google Scholar
Anselin, L. 1988. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Anselin, L. Florax, R. and Rey, S. 2004. Advances in Spatial Econometrics: Methodology, Tools & Applications. New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
Bell, K. and Bockstael, N. 2000. “Applying the Generalized-Moments Estimation Approach to Spatial Problems Involving Microlevel Data.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 82(1): 72–82.Google Scholar
Benson, E.D. Hansen, J.L. Schwartz, A.L. and Smersh, G.T. 1998. “Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of a View.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 16(1): 55–73.Google Scholar
Brush, R.O. 1979. “The Attractiveness of Woodlands: Perception of Forest Landowners in Massachusetts.” Forest Science 25(3): 495–506.Google Scholar
Dombrow, J.M.R. and Sirmans, C.F. 2000. “The Market Value of Mature Trees in Single-Family Housing Markets.” The Appraisal Journal 68(1): 39–43.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III 1993. The Theory and Practice of Environmental Valuation. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Garrod, G. and Willis, K. 1992. “The Amenity Value of Woodland in Great Britain: A Comparison of Economic Estimates.” Environmental and Resource Economics 2(4): 415–434.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, J. 2002. “The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use.” Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, J. Wainger, L.A. and Bockstael, N.E. 1997. “Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS.” Ecological Economics 23(3): 251–264.Google Scholar
Irwin, E. 2002. “The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values.” Land Economics 78(4): 465–480.Google Scholar
Jakus, P. and Smith, V.K. 1991. “Measuring Use and Nonuse Values for Landscape Amenities: A Contingent Behavior Analysis of Gypsy Moth Control.” Discussion Paper No. QE92-07, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Lathrop, R.G. 2000. “New Jersey Land Cover Change Analysis Project.” Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
LeSage, J.P. 1999. Spatial Econometrics. Department of Economics, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH. Available at http://www.spatial-econometrics.com/ (accessed February 14, 2006).Google Scholar
Liebhold, A.M. MacDonald, W.L. Bergdahl, D. and Mastro, V.C. 1995. “Invasion by Exotic Forest Pests: A Threat to Forest Ecosystems.” Forest Science Monographs 30, Society of American Foresters, Washington D.C. Google Scholar
McClure, M.S. 1991. “Density-Dependent Feedback and Population Cycles in Adelges tsugae (Homoptera: Adelgidae) on Tsuga canadensis.” Environmental Entomology 20(1): 258–264.Google Scholar
Miller, J.D. and Lindsey, B.E. 1993. “Willingness to Pay for a State Gypsy Moth Control Program in New Hampshire: A Contingent Valuation Case Study.” Forest Entomology 86(3): 828–837.Google Scholar
Morales, D. Boyce, B.N. and Favretti, R.J. 1976. “The Contribution of Trees to Residential Property Value: Manchester, Connecticut.” Valuation (October/November): 26–43.Google Scholar
Orwig, D.A. and Foster, D.R. 1998. “Forest Response to the Introduced Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in Southern New England, USA.” Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125(1): 60–73.Google Scholar
Pace, K. and Zou, D. 2000. “Closed-Form Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Nearest Neighbor Spatial Dependence.” Geographical Analysis 32(2): 154–172.Google Scholar
Paterson, R.W. and Boyle, K.J. 2002. “Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Using GIS to Incorporate Visibility in Hedonic Property Value Models.” Land Economics 78(3): 417–425.Google Scholar
Pimental, D. 1986. “Biological Invasions of Plant and Animals in Agriculture and Forestry.” In Mooney, H.A. and Drake, J.A. eds., Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Powe, N.A. Garrod, G.D. and Willis, K.G. 1995. “Valuation of Urban Amenities Using an Hedonic Price Model.” Journal of Property Research 12(1): 137–147.Google Scholar
Royle, D.D. and Lathrop, R.G. 2002. “DiscriminatingTsuga Canadensis Hemlock Forest Defoliation Using Remotely Sensed Change Detection.” Journal of Nematology 34(3): 213–221.Google Scholar
Royle, D.D. and Lathrop, R.G. 1997. “Monitoring Hemlock Forest Health in New Jersey Using Landsat TM Data and Change Detection Techniques.” Forest Science 43(3): 327–335.Google Scholar
Souto, D. Luther, T. and Chianese, B. 1996. “Past and Current Status of HWA in Eastern and Carolina Hemlock Stands.” In Salom, S.M. Tignor, T.C. and Reardon, R.C. eds., Proceedings of the First Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Review. Morgantown, WV: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
Thorsnes, P. 2002. “The Value of a Suburban Forest Preserve: Estimates from Sales of Vacant Residential Building Lots.” Land Economics 78(3): 426–441.Google Scholar
Tyrväinen, L. and Miettinen, A. 2000. “Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(2): 205–223.Google Scholar