Kingsley’s tree canopy is 37%. Other vegetation comprises 41% of the land cover (Table 16). Impervious surfaces (buildings and roads) make up 18% of the land cover. The outskirts of the village—particularly in the northwest and southeast areas—have the greatest canopy cover (Figure 11). The areas along the main streets in the downtown area—particularly along Main Street and Clark Street—have the greatest amount of impervious surfaces.
All maps for this village can be found in the Story Map. Some of the maps are illustrated below to feature village canopy interests.
Along the ROW (Figure 11), some of the streets with the least amount of canopy include the entire Main Street corridor, as well as the roads in the developed residential areas of the Cherrywood Village mobile home park and Nightingale Lane. The areas that contain the highest priority levels for tree planting are concentrated on Main Street and along Nightingale, Gray’s, and Chickadee Lane.
All maps for this village can be found in the Story Map. Some of the maps are illustrated below to feature village canopy interests.
Along the ROW (Figure 11), some of the streets with the least amount of canopy include the entire Main Street corridor, as well as the roads in the developed residential areas of the Cherrywood Village mobile home park and Nightingale Lane. The areas that contain the highest priority levels for tree planting are concentrated on Main Street and along Nightingale, Gray’s, and Chickadee Lane.
The planting priority levels map layer (Figure 12) can be used to focus in on the locations in which plantings may deliver the most benefits in terms of ecosystem benefits and overall benefits to the community. Kingsley can use this as a guideline for deciding where future trees can be planted to have the greatest impact on benefits and stormwater runoff. Of the 213 acres, 67% of those acres (142 acres) are listed as Very High or High planting priority. If only the Very High and High priority planting areas are planted, Kalkaska could achieve 55% tree canopy. Areas of “High” and “Very High” priority for planting include the residential neighborhoods, many of the public ROWs, and some areas in the parks.
The tree canopy percent by census block analysis can be used as a supplemental tool to determine which neighborhoods are in most need of planting (Figure 13). For Kingsley, the tree canopy percent analysis largely confirms the results of the planting priority analysis, which reveals that the residential and commercial areas near the Cherrywood Village mobile home park are in highest need of tree canopy cover. The tree canopy percentage ranges from 0% to 13% in these areas.
Kingsley realizes an annual benefit of $416,519 for reductions in air pollution, stormwater reduction, and carbon sequestration from the tree canopy (Table 18). The village also benefits from carbon stored in the trees which contribute $1,339,574 over their lifetime.
Kingsley has a lot to offer. The village is an easy commute to Grand Traverse Bay which many of the year-round residents take advantage of. The school district has been recognized with the prestigious National Blue-Ribbon award. There is an impressive sports complex on the southern end of town which brings in residents of neighboring communities. With these assets, the village should maximize the interest of potential residents and pride in the village of current residents by increasing tree canopy.
Canopy levels can play a part in the property value these properties can attain. Consumers are willing to pay more to park and shop in landscaped business districts. On average, consumers will pay about 11% more for goods in landscaped areas, with this figure being as high as 50% for convenience goods[1]. Consumers also feel that the quality of products is better in business districts having trees over those that were considered barren[2]. Additionally, the quality of landscaping along the routes leading to the business district had a positive influence on consumers’ perceptions of the area[3].
Several studies in the U.S. analyzed the effect of tree cover on the price of residential home sales, finding that values of properties in tree-lined areas may be 3% to 7% higher when trees are in the yard, 5% to 20% when the property is next to natural open space, and 9% when adjacent to street trees. Commercial property rental rates were 7% greater when trees were present on the property[4]. This is beneficial to both property owner and city budget bottom lines. Property values increase and properties sell faster when communities become more desirable places to live.
Table 19 presents tree canopy by general land use and the associated property value. The table shows that residential properties amass more value per acre than any other land use in the village. This value is in part a result of the value trees provides residents. Trees provide a boost to property values of over $600,000. Kingsley is home to many families, young professionals, and individuals from all walks of life. In order to continue to attract residents to Kingsley, the community needs to invest in its property.
To increase property values in and around the residential and commercial areas, tree plantings should be focused in those parts of the village (Figure 14).
Takeaway. To attract homeowners, and increase property value and retail business, Kingsley should focus planting efforts in the areas of very high and high planting priority especially in and around the residential and business district.
Takeaway. To attract homeowners, and increase property value and retail business, Kingsley should focus planting efforts in the areas of very high and high planting priority especially in and around the residential and business district.
[1] Wolf, K. L. 1998a. “Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants.” University of Washington, College of Forest Resources Fact Sheet. 1(November).
———. 1999. “Grow for the Gold.” TreeLink Washington DNR Community Forestry Program. 14(spring).
———. 2003. “Public Response to the Urban Forest in Inner-City Business Districts.” J. Arbor 29(3):117–126.
[2] Wolf, K. L. 1998a. “Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants.” University of Washington, College of Forest Resources Fact Sheet. 1(November).
[3] Wolf, K.L. 2000. “Community Image: Roadside Settings and Public Perceptions.” University of Washington College of Forest Resources Factsheet. 32(August).
[4] Wolf, K.L. 2009. “Trees & Urban Streets: Research on Traffic Safety & Livable Communities.” http://www.naturewithin.info/urban.html. Accessed November 10, 2011.