1. 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)

2. Introduction Urban 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

3. Primary Areas of Study Pavement 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

4. Scope Characteristics 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

5. Pavement Costs Research Pavement Costs for the City of Austin 2010: $42,571,674 2011: $50,163,135 2012: $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)

6. Property Values Research Twin Cities ◦ Increasing tree cover w/in 250 meters = 60% gain in home sale prices Comparison Model ◦ How do external factors relate? (Sander 2010)

7. Crime Rates research Baltimore ◦ Strong negative relationship Portland ◦ Moderately negative in old growth forests (Donovan, Prestemon, 2010)

8. Data City of Austin GIS data sets ◦ ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html COA Urban Forestry Program

9. Methodology Objective 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

10. Methodology Objective 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

11. Methodology Objective 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)

12. Methodology Field assessment ◦ On site analysis ◦ Pictures to match areas studied

13. Project Manager Hours: 100 Work hours over 20 days Hourly Rate: $40 Sub-Total: $4000 Assistant Project Manager Hours: 100 Work hours over 20 days Hourly Rate: $36 Sub-Total: $3600 Graphic Designer & Researcher Hours: 100 Work hours over 20 days Hourly Rate: $26 Sub-Total: $2600 GIS Specialist & Researcher Hours: 100 Work hours over 20 days Hourly Rate: $29 Sub-Total: $2900 Editor & Researcher Hours: 100 Work hours over 20 days Hourly Rate: $30 Sub-Total: $3000 Esri ArcGIS Hours Used: 100 Work hours over 20 days Hourly Rate for Subscription: $5.71 Sub-Total: $571 (5) Workstations 2.5 Months Rent per Station: $150 Sub-Total: $750 (5) Depreciation of Computers 2.5 Months Rent per Computer: $138 Sub-Total: $690 Transportation 60 Mile Trip 2 Trips 55 cents per Mile: $33 Sub-Total: $66 Supplies & Software Sub-Total: $2,077 Services Supplies & Software Total Cost: $18,177 Services Sub-Total: $16,100 Budget

15. 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 analysis Physical Final Report Poster ◦ Generalizes methodology of project and findings

16. Conclusion An analysis of insight for the future Information to guide legislative decisions Create a greener, more sustainable future for Austin

17. 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

18. Questions or concerns?