The Value of Valuing: Recognising the Benefits of the Urban Forest

  • Kenton RogersEmail author
  • Maria-Beatrice Andreucci
  • Nerys Jones
  • Anže Japelj
  • Petar Vranic
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 7)


The urban forest (UF) is made up of urban trees and other green infrastructure (GI). It plays a critical role in the planning, design and management of established and emerging urban areas. It provides extensive ecosystem services (ES), i.e. the green infrastructure services directly valued by humans (Costanza et al. 1997) which include environmental, socio-cultural, public health and economic benefits (MEA 2005).

There is an increasing interest in both the measurement of ES and in placing an economic value on the multiple benefits associated with GI. This momentum is triggered in part by the European Union Biodiversity Strategy’s Target 2, which has determined that from 2020 onwards the following goals will be met:
  • ecosystems and their services will be maintained and enhanced by including green infrastructure in spatial planning

  • at least 15% of degraded ecosystems will be restored

One of the ways to meet these targets is defined in Action 5 of the Strategy, where member...


Ecosystem Service Green Space Urban Forest Green Roof Green Infrastructure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to Naomi Zürcher, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester, for her valuable insights and substantive contributions to this chapter.

Thanks also to: Barcelona SP: Lydia Chaparro, co-author of the Barcelona Study and to Rocio Alonso del Amo for her assistance in dissemination and translation; Ribnjak Park, Zagreb CR: Stjepan Posavec, Associate Professor, Department of Forest Inventory and Management, University of Zagreb for his questionnaire responses; Richard Mawdsley, Director of Development, Wirral Waters, Paul Nolan, Director, Mersey Forest, David Beamont, London Victoria Business improvement District, Neil Coish, Torbay Natural Environment Team and Matthew Thomsett of Kier for taking to time to talk and share their projects with the authors so that they could be included as case studies and referred to in the text.


  1. Bateman I, Brouwer R, Cranford M, Hime S, Ozdemiroglu E, Phang Z, Provins A (2009) Valuing environmental impacts: practical guidelines for the use of value transfer in policy and project appraisal. Value Transfer Guidelines. Eftec, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Beljan K, Posavec S, Jerčić K (2015) Economic valuation of urban trees: Ribnjak Park case study, Zagreb. SEEFOR (South-east European forestry) 6(1):119–127Google Scholar
  3. Chaparro L, Terradas J (2009) Ecological services of urban forest in Barcelona. Institut Municipal de Parcs i Jardins Ajuntament de Barcelona, Àrea de Medi AmbientGoogle Scholar
  4. Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol Econ 25(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cullen S (2007) Putting a value on trees—CTLA guidance and methods. Arbitr J 30(1):21–43. doi: 10.1080/03071375.2007.9747475 Google Scholar
  6. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41(3):393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Compr Ther 2011:244Google Scholar
  9. Freeman AM, Camino V, Boucher F, Ehrlich P, Ehrlich A, Pachauri R, Brockett CD, Cornia G, Jolly R, Stewart F (1992) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, vol GTZ-1574. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanley N, Shogren JF, White B (2001) Introduction to environmental economics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Hawken P, Lovins AB, Lovins LH (1999) Natural capitalism: the next industrial revolution. Earthscan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Helliwell D (1967) The amenity value of trees and woodlands. Arboricult Assoc J 1(5):128–131Google Scholar
  13. Mavsar R, Herreros F, Varela E, Fabrice G (2014) Methods and tools for socio-economic assessment of goods and services provided by Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Optimising the production of goods and services by Mediterranean forests in a context of global changes. EFIMED, CTFC, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  14. McPherson EG (2007) Benefit-based tree valuation. Arboricult Urban For 33(1):1–11Google Scholar
  15. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being, vol 5. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Neilan C (2009) CAVAT (capital asset value for amenity trees) full method: user’s guide. London Tree Officers’ Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Pascual U, Muradian R (2010) The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: Sukhdev P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 1–133Google Scholar
  18. Randrup TB (2005) Development of a Danish model for plant appraisal. J Arboric 31(3):114–123Google Scholar
  19. Riera P, Signorello G, Thiene M, Mahieu P-A, Navrud S, Kaval P, Rulleau B, Mavsar R, Madureira L, Meyerhoff J, Elsasser P, Notaro S, De Salvo M, Giergiczny M, Dragoi S (2012) Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: good practice guidelines. J For Eco 18(4):259–270. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.001 Google Scholar
  20. Sarajevs V (2011) Street tree valuation systems. Forestry Commission, RoslinGoogle Scholar
  21. Sunderland T, Rogers K, Coish N (2012) What proportion of the costs of urban trees can be justified by the carbon sequestration and air-quality benefits they provide? Arbitr J 34(2):62–82. doi: 10.1080/03071375.2012.701416 Google Scholar
  22. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. UNEP/Earthprint, London/Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For Urban Green 1(3):135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Watson G (2002) Comparing formula methods of tree appraisal. J Arboric 28(1):11–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenton Rogers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria-Beatrice Andreucci
    • 2
  • Nerys Jones
    • 3
  • Anže Japelj
    • 4
  • Petar Vranic
    • 5
  1. 1.Treeconomics Ltd. Innovation CentreUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.Faculty of ArchitectureSapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  3. 3.Strategic Greenspace ConsultantWolverhamptonUK
  4. 4.Slovenian Forestry InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia
  5. 5.University of NišNišSerbia

Personalised recommendations