IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2172-d749160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Assessment of Urban Ash Tree Management Options in New Jersey

Author

Listed:
  • Nazia Arbab

    (Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520, USA)

  • Jason Grabosky

    (Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551, USA)

  • Richard Leopold

    (Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551, USA)

Abstract

A cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is an economic approach to estimate the value of alternative programs, policies or management options. Net present value in CBA is one of the standard approaches to value the future benefits of investments. Due to the complexity of urban tree benefits, little is known about how to estimate the monetary value of the ecosystem services that urban trees provide as future benefits. We modeled the economic analyses of emerald ash borer (EAB) ( Agrilus planipennis ) management scenarios for urban ash trees ( Fraxinus spp.) in New Jersey. These scenarios include: (1) no infestation or baseline scenario, (2) infestation with no action, (3) immediate removal and replacement and (4) the treatment of ash trees. The net present value for each management option is calculated using discount rates of 0%, 2% and 5%. The National Tree Benefit Calculator (NTBC) tool is used to quantify the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the ash trees based on their diameter at breast height (DBH) values. The horizon over which benefits and costs are calculated was set at up to 20 years to estimate the net present value of ash trees that have DBH values of 4 inches. Results from the NPV outputs conclude that across most discount rates, the treatment of ash trees provided greater dollar (USD) values of ecosystem services over time when compared to inaction or the removal and replacement of ash trees. The present research suggests that removing and replacing ash trees is not cost effective at any discount rate due to the high future costs associated with retaining the newly planted trees over a twenty-year time horizon.

Suggested Citation

  • Nazia Arbab & Jason Grabosky & Richard Leopold, 2022. "Economic Assessment of Urban Ash Tree Management Options in New Jersey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2172-:d:749160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2172/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2172/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. G. Willis & G. D. Garrod, 1991. "An Individual Travel‐Cost Method Of Evaluating Forest Recreation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 33-42, January.
    2. Escobedo, Francisco J. & Adams, Damian C. & Timilsina, Nilesh, 2015. "Urban forest structure effects on property value," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 209-217.
    3. Gatto, Paola & Vidale, Enrico & Secco, Laura & Pettenella, Davide, 2014. "Exploring the willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services by residents of the Veneto Region," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-23, April.
    4. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Miettinen, Antti, 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 205-223, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Suchocka, Marzena & Heciak, Jakub & Błaszczyk, Magdalena & Adamczyk, Joanna & Gaworski, Marek & Gawłowska, Agnieszka & Mojski, Jacek & Kalaji, Hazem M. & Kais, Karolina & Kosno-Jończy, Joanna & Hec, 2023. "Comparison of Ecosystem Services and Replacement Value calculations performed for urban trees," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Fernando García-Muñoz & Miguel Alfaro & Guillermo Fuertes & Manuel Vargas, 2022. "DC Optimal Power Flow Model to Assess the Irradiance Effect on the Sizing and Profitability of the PV-Battery System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-16, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta Sylla & Tadeusz Lasota & Szymon Szewrański, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities in Peri-Urban Areas: Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Lyndal Plant & Alicia N. Rambaldi & Neil Sipe, 2016. "Property value returns on investment in street trees: a business case for collaborative investment in Brisbane, Australia," Discussion Papers Series 563, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    3. Plant, Lyndal & Rambaldi, Alicia & Sipe, Neil, 2017. "Evaluating Revealed Preferences for Street Tree Cover Targets: A Business Case for Collaborative Investment in Leafier Streetscapes in Brisbane, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 238-249.
    4. Å aszkiewicz, Edyta & Heyman, Axel & Chen, Xianwen & Cimburova, Zofie & Nowell, Megan & Barton, David N, 2022. "Valuing access to urban greenspace using non-linear distance decay in hedonic property pricing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Donovan, Geoffrey H. & Prestemon, Jeffrey P. & Butry, David T. & Kaminski, Abigail R. & Monleon, Vicente J., 2021. "The politics of urban trees: Tree planting is associated with gentrification in Portland, Oregon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    6. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Hernan A. Ortiz-Ramirez, 2021. "Understanding Green Street Design: Evidence from Three Cases in the U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Caruso, Geoffrey & Peeters, Dominique & Cavailhes, Jean & Rounsevell, Mark, 2007. "Spatial configurations in a periurban city. A cellular automata-based microeconomic model," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 542-567, September.
    8. K. Willis & J. Snowball & C. Wymer & José Grisolía, 2012. "A count data travel cost model of theatre demand using aggregate theatre booking data," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 36(2), pages 91-112, May.
    9. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    10. Hardie, Ian W. & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2003. "The Effect Of A Forest Conservation Regulation On The Value Of Subdivisions In Maryland," Working Papers 28575, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. H. Allen Klaiber & Joshua K. Abbott & V. Kerry Smith, 2017. "Some Like It (Less) Hot: Extracting Trade-Off Measures for Physically Coupled Amenities," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1053-1079.
    12. Evan Elderbrock & Chris Enright & Kathryn A. Lynch & Alexandra R. Rempel, 2020. "A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    13. Galarraga, Ibon & González-Eguino, Mikel & Markandya, Anil, 2011. "Willingness to pay and price elasticities of demand for energy-efficient appliances: Combining the hedonic approach and demand systems," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(S1), pages 66-74.
    14. repec:zbw:inwedp:662016 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Park, Mi Sun & Shin, Seongmin & Lee, Haeun, 2021. "Media frames on urban greening in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    16. Whelan, Adele & McGuinness, Seamus & Barrett, Alan, 2021. "Review of International Approaches to Evaluating Rural and Community Development Investment and Supports," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS124, June.
    17. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    18. Toke Panduro & Bo Thorsen, 2014. "Evaluating two model reduction approaches for large scale hedonic models sensitive to omitted variables and multicollinearity," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 85-102, July.
    19. Lakhani, Raksha & Doluweera, Ganesh & Bergerson, Joule, 2014. "Internalizing land use impacts for life cycle cost analysis of energy systems: A case of California’s photovoltaic implementation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 253-259.
    20. Atalel Wubalem & Teshale Woldeamanuel & Zerihun Nigussie, 2023. "Economic Valuation of Lake Tana: A Recreational Use Value Estimation through the Travel Cost Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, April.
    21. Hadi Soltanifard & Elham Jafari, 2019. "A conceptual framework to assess ecological quality of urban green space: a case study in Mashhad city, Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1781-1808, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2172-:d:749160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.