[ QUOTE ]
But on top of the tree maintenance cost, did they include how much money is spent on the replacement of broken hardtop, sidewalks (including residential repairs which won't be in municipal books), and pipe or water meter repairs? Because a presentation will likely show it's optimum figures.
At our own residence, I know trees don't take much money initially, and offer benefits like shade for reduced air conditioning costs. But if people don't know how to maintain trees, they can spend more than they gain. Say, a yard with three 100 foot tall Douglas firs that offer no shade from the west, and the canopy is raised so no blockage for wind on the east. With trees like that, the homeowners pay like $1000 every 2 to 3 years for pruning and $300 per year for gutter and roof cleaning. Financially, they get back $0.00 for ever $1.00 spent.
[/ QUOTE ]
They did in fact include those costs unlike previous studies done in California. Here's a link to the report.
http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resour...rce-analysis-1/
Stormwater management and air quality improvement would be the benefits gained in your example. These analyses are at a macro level pointing out how the canopy affects the urban environment underlying the importance of a broad management plan that includes all trees in the urban setting.
What you described also gives weight to an argument for proper pruning in order for the client to realize the maximum economic benefit of the trees.
When planting then these are further considerations not simply the aesthetics.
