These two articles worked together very well to first, explain and describe some of the benefits of urban forestry, then to analyze how these benefits fit into the economics of the city. I thought that the "Benefits of Urban Trees" article explained many well-known benefits that trees offer in the urban environment. What was most interesting was the secondary and tertiary benefits trees offer. That is to say that trees not only provide a sense of place and natural cycling of air and water, but they can also serve as local recreation spaces. So not only are they trees reducing the cost of air conditioning and flood water management, they are reducing the cost of gas, costs to run a power plant, and, this article even suggests, cost of medicine for people with attention disorders and people in hospitals. The monetary values of these benefits are surely incalculable.

This sentiment progresses nicely into the second article, “Trees as Capital Assets.” I am not sure if I understand completely the economic models presented in this article, but it seems to me that Dudley Hartel wanted to calculate the incalculable benefits that trees offer in order to increase their value in the eyes of local governments. It would make sense to provide a budget for the planting and maintenance of urban trees on state owned property. While the author of “Benefits of Urban Trees” would argue that tree planting and maintenance are community building activities and thus the responsibility lies within the community, this idea is rather vague. What does the phrase “the community” mean? Who is included? Is it just the residents of the area or does it include the government and its employees that do no necessarily live in the area? Hartel’s argument for monetary representation of the benefits that trees provide tries to assign some responsibility to the local government. The economic models for increased taxation seem like a good idea but may be seen negatively if not properly articulated. The idea of having a debt so that the future community also must pay for the trees seems like it would be unpopular and seems to view urban trees’ negative aspects far more than their positive aspects. The idea of making a place for urban forestry in the tax laws as assets that need to be protected is definitely a good one and I would like to understand better how to this all works.