← Back to Stories

Research reveals how proximity to trees affects property values and public attitudes toward urban trees

Just now2 articles from 2 sources

Consensus Summary

New research from the University of Technology Sydney reveals a paradox in how trees influence property values: while trees 10–20 meters from a home boost value by $30,000, those within 10 meters can slash it by up to $70,000 after accounting for other factors. The study aligns with expert observations that homeowners universally appreciate street trees for neighborhood aesthetics—like Sydney’s Ocean Street or Paddington’s tree-lined boulevards—but often reject them on private property due to concerns over maintenance, seasonal litter, or obstructed views. Environmental benefits, such as cooling urban areas by nearly 10 degrees and cutting cooling costs by 20–30%, are frequently overlooked despite data showing western Sydney suburbs like St Marys have increased tree coverage while areas like Liverpool have lost it, possibly due to development pressures. Experts like landscape architect Matt Cantwell and architect Adam Haddow highlight practical challenges, such as tree roots limiting pool placement or native species dropping debris, which outweigh the perceived risks for many residents. The findings underscore a tension between public appreciation of trees and private property preferences, with urban planners noting that strategic tree placement could mitigate both aesthetic and environmental trade-offs.

✓ Verified by 2+ sources

Key details reported by multiple sources:

  • Associate Professor Song Shi led a study (2021–2025) at UTS finding trees 10–20m from a house increased property value by $30,000, while trees within 10m reduced value by up to $70,000 (adjusted for bedrooms, land size, parking, CBD proximity)
  • Landscape architect Matt Cantwell (Secret Gardens) noted homeowners often oppose trees on private property despite valuing street trees for aesthetic appeal (e.g., Ocean Street, Woollahra; Paddington Street, Paddington)
  • Danielle Hughes (Greater Sydney Landcare) reported residents frequently cite gum trees dropping branches as a primary concern, despite trees cooling areas by ~10°C and reducing cooling costs by 20–30%
  • Dr Nader Naderpajouh (University of Sydney) and PhD candidate Amir Pakizeh found western Sydney suburbs like St Marys/Blacktown increased tree coverage, while Liverpool saw declines (potentially linked to airport expansion)
  • National president of Australian Institute of Architects Adam Haddow attributed reluctance to trees on private property to perceived high maintenance (e.g., litter, lawn growth, pool debris)

Points of Difference

Details reported by only one source:

SMH
  • Mentioned fines for tree poisoning are insufficient to deter homeowners blocking views
  • Specifically cited fig trees and liquidambars as problematic species near structures due to root/sap issues
  • Quoted Ande Bunbury (Melbourne architect) emphasizing loss of magpie calls in inner-city areas due to fewer large trees
  • Noted urban heat island effect mitigation via trees shading roofs/windows (no additional detail in THEAGE)

Contradictions

Conflicting information between sources:

  • No contradictions found between sources

Source Articles

THEAGE

We love them, just not on our property. And vendors are paying the price

As our lives become increasingly frenetic, the tolerance for any kind of home maintenance has diminished. And there’s one familiar feature in the firing line....

SMH

We love them, just not on our property. And vendors are paying the price

As our lives become increasingly frenetic, the tolerance for any kind of home maintenance has diminished. And there’s one familiar feature in the firing line....