MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976553908 · doi:10.60692/gxww6-e4w51

Influence of urban forests on residential property values: A systematic review of remote sensing-based studies

2023· article· en· W6976553908 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Management and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReforestationUrban forestUrban planningUrban forestryResidential propertyForest managementVegetation (pathology)Forest coverTree canopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban forests provide direct and indirect benefits to human well-being that are increasingly captured in residential property values. Remote Sensing (RS) can be used to measure a wide range of forest and vegetation parameters that allows for a more detailed and better understanding of their specific influences on housing prices. Herein, through a systematic literature review approach, we reviewed 89 papers (from 2010 to 2022) from 21 different countries that used RS data to quantify vegetation indices, forest and tree parameters of urban forests and estimated their influence on residential property values. The main aim of this study was to understand and provide insights into how urban forests influence residential property values based on RS studies. Although more studies were conducted in developed (n = 55, 61.7%) than developing countries (n = 34, 38.3%), the results indicated for the most part that increasing tree canopy cover on property and neighborhood level, forest size, type, greenness, and proximity to urban forests increased housing prices. RS studies benefited from spatially explicit repetitive data that offer superior efficiency to quantify vegetation, forest, and tree parameters of urban forests over large areas and longer periods compared to studies that used field inventory data. Through this work, we identify and underscore that urban forest benefits outweigh management costs and have a mostly positive influence on housing prices. Thus, we encourage further discussions about prioritizing reforestation and conservation of urban forests during the urban planning of cities and suburbs, which could support UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and urban policy reforms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it