Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 131–144 | Cite as

Bird diversity indicates ecological value in urban home prices

  • Michael C. Farmer
  • Mark C. Wallace
  • Michael Shiroya


It is known that public greenspaces contribute positively to urban home prices; yet urban ecologists also have known that not all greenspaces are equally valuable. Also some ecologically valuable space appears on private residences, not only public spaces. This work examines directly whether using a variable derived from bird species richness and relative abundance adds new information regarding ecological value and if high values of that variable significantly improve urban housing prices. We collected information on approximately 368 home sales in Lubbock, TX from 2008 to 2009 from the Multiple Listing Service: Sale Price, Square Footage, Lot Size and Age in 17 neighborhoods identified by the Lubbock Realtor Association. We conducted bird counts in the vicinity of each home sale and recorded both the total numbers of birds and the number of bird species identified in a particular class—less ubiquitous bird species. Finally, we used GIS to record the percentage of tree cover in the immediate area surrounding each sale. We constructed a predictive model for a bird relative abundance and species richness variable (Bird) from AICc statistics. Home price for each sale then was regressed against the predicted value of ‘Bird’ from the selected model and regressed against home price along with other attributes from the Multiple Listing Service. The predicted value for Bird finds that the addition of another desirable, less ubiquitous bird species improves mean home price by $32,028, likely due to the human created landscapes on private properties immediately surrounding a home sale. Curiously, the presence of a nearby park neither explained variation in the ecological indicator nor contributed to home price elevation. This deliberately simple and inexpensive indicator helped to direct attention to the composition of local landscapes in specific areas to assess joint ecological and economic gains rather than presume a priori that open greenspace jointly satisfies these dual objectives.


Hedonic price analysis Greenscape Urban wildlife 


  1. Bark RH, Osgood DE, Colby BG, Katz G, Stromberg J (2009) Habitat preservation and restoration: do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecol Econ 68:1465–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell K, Irwin E (2002) Spatially explicit micro-level modeling of land-use change at the rural–urban interface. Ag Econ 27(3):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolund O, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29(2):293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breuste J, Feldmann H, Uhlmann O (1998) Urban ecology. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavailhés J, Brossard T, Foltête J-C, Hilal M, Joly D, Tourneux F-P, Tritz C, Wavresky P (2007) Seeing and being seen: a GIS-based hedonic price valuation of landscape, working paper. INRA-Cesaer and CNRS-Thma, Dijon-Besancon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho S-H, Poudyal NC, Roberts RK (2008) Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol Econ 66:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crooks KR, Suarez AV, Bolger DT (2004) Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biol Cons 115(3):451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeGraaf RM, Wentworth JM (1986) Avian guild structure and habitat associations in suburban bird communities. Urban Ecol 9:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeGraaf RM, Tilghman NG, Anderson SH (1985) Foraging guilds of North American birds. Environ Manag 9:493–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farmer MC, Lipscomb C (2006) The role of economic analysis in the design and evaluation of healthy communities and regions. In: Shevliakova E (ed) Regional economics: social and economic processes. Toglatti University Press. 326–340Google Scholar
  12. Fernández-Juricic E (2000) Bird community composition patterns in urban parks of Madrid: the role of age, size, and isolation. Ecol Res 15(4):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernández-Juricic E (2001) Avian spatial segregation at edges and interiors of urban parks in Madrid, Spain. Biodivers Conserv 10(8):1303–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jim CY, Chen WY (2006) Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China). Landsc Urban Plan 78(4):422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lipscomb CA, Farmer M (2005) Household diversity and market segmentation within a single neighborhood. Ann Reg Sci 39(4):791–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luttik J (2000) The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in The Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 48(3/4):161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, De Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P (2006) Green Space, urbanity, and health; how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Commun H 60(7):587–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacArthur RH, MacArthur JW (1961) On bird species diversity. Ecol 42:594–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mansfield C, Pattanayak SK, McDow W, McDonald R, Halpin P (2005) Shades of green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. J For Econ 11:177–199Google Scholar
  20. Morancho AM (2003) A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 66(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oleyar D, Greve A, Withey JC, Bjorn A (2008) An integrated approach to evaluating urban forest functionality. Urban Ecosys 11:289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pickett STA, Burch JWR, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grove JM, Rowntree R (1997) A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosys 1:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G (2006) Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landsc Urban Plan 77(1/2):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson R, Hanna R, Noel J, Piirto D (1999) Valuation of tree aesthetics on small urban interface properties. J Arboric 25(5):225–234Google Scholar
  26. Wolters MJJ (2001). The business of modularity of business. PhD Thesis, Rotterdam, Erasmus University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Farmer
    • 1
  • Mark C. Wallace
    • 2
  • Michael Shiroya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resources ManagementTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations