India emerges as medical tourism hub increasingly drawing patients from West, Gulf
Hyundai Motor India set to raise car prices by up to Rs 12,800 from June
One street tree can boost Sydney house prices by $30,000 – or cost $70,000 if it’s too close: new study
A single street tree can potentially increase an average Sydney house price by A$30,000, our new research shows. This echoes past research showing street trees not only help boost property prices, but offer other benefits, from improved scenery and privacy to increased shade.
But there’s a catch. Our analysis, published in the international Cities journal, also found that if a street tree is too close, it can actually reduce the selling price by more than $70,000.
Our study looked at more than 1,500 house sales in the City of Sydney from 2021 to 2024, then matched those with detailed council data on nearly 50,000 public trees.
After accounting for other, better known price factors – number of bedrooms, bathrooms, car parking, land size, proximity to the CBD, transport, schools and more – we found trees can be associated with higher house prices. But that price boost only occurred when the trees were about 10–20 metres from a home, such as across the street or near the frontage.
In contrast, trees planted too close – within a 10m radius from the centre of the property – were actually associated with lower sale prices.
This matters beyond Sydney. Every Australian capital city has set tree-planting goals, such as the City of Sydney’s target for 23% tree canopy cover in 2030 and 27% in 2050. Yet many will struggle to meet them, with some facing resistance from residents. Our research explains why tree placement will be crucial if we ever want to meet those targets.
What’s new about this research
Past studies in Perth, as well as several cities in the United States and Canada, have consistently shown trees tend to increase property values.
But what we didn’t know before now was where the benefits stop and the costs begin.
Our study identifies a clear “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) boundary, of around 10m, within which street trees’ economic value turns negative.
That finding is important, because that’s when resident resistance to street trees is likely to be strongest.
This is a first study of its kind to quantify the economic value of public trees by taking advantage of using individual tree-level data managed by the City of Sydney from 2023.
It allowed us to measure tree effects at the finest possible distance from the centre of property: under 10m, 10–20m, 20–50m, 50–100m, and beyond 100m. This is something previous studies could not do when relying on satellite or street imagery.
How tree location affects price
We controlled for all the usual factors that influence house prices, including property features and location amenities. This meant we could measure the impact of trees after accounting for everything else.
We found that distance matters. In dollar terms, one additional tree within 10m of the centre of a property reduced its value by 2.96%. An average home sold in the City of Sydney from 2021 to 2024 was worth $2,613,000 – so that reduction worked out to be a $70,290 cost.
Given the average lot size of 176m² in the City of Sydney, the distance from the centre of an average property to its boundary is typically about 8m.
But if a tree was located 10-20 metres away, it increased the value by about 1.16%, worth an average of $30,310.
If the tree was further than 20 metres away, we found no price difference.
The new study identified a clear ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) boundary, within which street trees’ can actually hit house prices. Belle Co/Pexels, CC BYThis show a clear proximity effect. Trees being too close to a house are a cost risk; trees at a moderate distance are a valued feature; and trees further away are neutral and just part of the neighbourhood amenity.
Our study used more precise data than ever before to calculate the distance between street trees and the centre of each property.
But future research could take this further by measuring the distance from each tree to the house. It could also incorporate resident surveys to better understand how people perceive and value trees near their homes.
Why trees being too close matters
Street trees like these are much loved – but can have hidden downsides, such as damage from roots or branches. Jo Quinn/Unsplash, CC BYIt makes sense that people may see trees close to home as a financial risk.
Trees can cause structural damage to buildings and infrastructure, increase fire hazards, and safety concerns from falling branches.
Rather than dismissing residents’ concerns as NIMBYism, they should be seen as rational market responses to maintenance risks, structural damage, and amenity loss.
Planting plans need resident support
Every Australian capital city has adopted “urban forest” or tree planting strategies, many of them aiming to hit 30-40% canopy cover in coming decades. For example, the City of Melbourne’s target is 40% canopy cover by 2040, while Brisbane City Council is aiming for 50% shade for residential footpaths and bikeways by 2031.
However, there are doubts about whether many of those targets will be met.
There are good reasons for governments to invest in urban trees, as they can protect us from extreme heat and help as a response to climate change. But resistance from homeowners can undermine these policies.
Our research shows residents are more likely to welcome street trees if they’re planted not too close, and not too far, from their homes.
* Thanks to the coauthors of this paper, Qiulin Ke and Bin Chi from University College London.![]()
Song Shi, Associate Professor, Property Economics, University of Technology Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Tata Motors hits 10 lakh commercial vehicle milestone at Lucknow plant
India Deep Tech Accelerator announced to help scale up IIT startups
Amari Colombo wins Sri Lanka’s Leading Business Hotel 2025 at World Travel Awards

Hyundai Motor aims to develop India into a ‘strategic export hub’
More than 1 billion 5G subscriptions expected in India by 2031: Report
Intracom Telecom Expands Strategic Collaboration with Nova to Enhance Enterprise Connectivity

KKR–Singtel consortium near $10bn deal for STT GDC

Domestic travel demand drives structural growth in India's hospitality market
Yiwu: The world’s largest trading hub



AT&T drops DEI to get $1bn spectrum deal approved

Sri Lanka shines at World Travel Market 2025: Showcasing island’s tourism excellence to world




Paytm wants Sri Lanka to build “world’s most seamless travel corridor” for Indian tourists

- Says modern tourism depends on seamless, invisible payments and destinations become more attractive when travellers do not worry about currency or acceptance
- Notes with UPI acceptance in Sri Lanka, Indian arrivals boosted; opines country could attract 1 m Indians annually if payments become fully frictionless
- Stresses digital payments must reach micro-merchants and SMEs, enabling homestays, guides, tuk-tuk drivers and fishermen to earn instantly, become visible to all
- Suggests creating a national fintech-tourism task force to build a unified digital journey for travellers, make India-Sri Lanka travel corridor most seamless in the region
World cereal output to pass record threshold in 2025 – FAO
Franchise businesses have long been plagued by scandals. Domino’s is just the latest
Jenny Buchan, UNSW Sydney
The blue and red boxes with white dots are immediately recognisable as containing Domino’s pizzas. The pizza chain is Australia’s largest and is run as a franchise, with the ASX-listed public company Domino’s Pizza Enterprises holding the Australian master franchise rights.
Industry analysts IBISWorld calculate Domino’s has 4.2% of the fast food and takeaway market in Australia.
But recent reports suggest all is not well with many of the store owners, who are struggling with rising costs and declining profitability.
Troubling reports
The central issue appears to be what the federal government describes in its code of conduct as the “the imbalance of power between franchisors and franchisees”.
The Australian Financial Review has reported troubling claims in two key areas:
Domino’s appears to have doubled the margin on the key food ingredients it sells to franchisees and increased its advertising levy, according to a letter from store owners represented by the Australian Association of Franchisees. This could reduce their profitability
Domino’s Australian chief operating officer, Greg Steenson, reportedly encouraged franchisees in a presentation to take advantage of restructuring schemes that allow insolvent companies to continue to trade by negotiating repayment plans with the tax office and other creditors.
In a letter to Domino’s quoted in the report, the franchisees said their earnings have remained flat for 15 years, and have not kept up with inflation.
A long history of disputes
A former franchisee told a parliamentary inquiry into the franchising model the margin squeeze meant
franchisees can be ripped off by [Domino’s Pizza Enterprises] when forced to buy supplies at a higher price than they could get through their wholesalers.
He said the cost of food, labour, rent and other fixed costs had risen, but in 2019 pizzas were still sold at 1990s prices. “Nobody is left to pay for this but the franchisees,” the former owner said.
According to the Financial Review article, the cost of supplies remains a problem for franchisees. Time will tell whether Domino’s proposed 70 cent increase in pizza prices will help.
In response to questions from the Financial Review, Domino’s said the food margin had not “materially changed” in five years, despite volatility in ingredients prices.
Government reviews found the previous regulations had loopholes that did not sufficiently protect franchisees. There have been a string of high-profile disputes involving auto services company Ultra Tune, coffee chain 85 Degrees Coffee, Pizza Hut and others.
Following a 2024 inquiry, changes to the code of conduct were introduced this year.
Advertising costs on the rise
Advertising expenditure comes from what is now known as a “special purpose fund” in the code of conduct. Franchisors need to provide franchisees with disclosure about how the money is spent.
In 2017, the consumer regulator Australian Competition and Consumer Commission fined Domino’s A$18,000 for allegedly slipping on its obligations to advise franchisees about its marketing spend.
Ensuring franchisees have a genuine say in how their increased contribution is spent could help to address any imbalance of power between Domino’s and its franchisees.
Franchisees reportedly now pay 6% of their earnings to Domino’s for marketing and advertising, up from 5.35%. That is in addition to 7% of gross sales paid as royalties, and other costs for email and bookkeeping.
What insolvent means
The insolvency law for small businesses is explained by the Australian Taxation Office as a process that enables financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debts and continue to trade.
The press reports say the franchisees of about 65 Domino’s stores were on repayment plans with the Australian Taxation Office. Many franchisees own two or more outlets.
Under the Corporations legislation, companies on these repayment plans may be trading insolvent, or believe they will become insolvent. Insolvent means they cannot pay their debts when they fall due. If this is the case, a key question that needs to be answered by Domino’s is whether their franchised outlets can become profitable.
In another media report, Domino’s was quoted as saying it disputed the number of stores on repayment plans, adding it was a “significantly smaller” number of franchisees.
The company was contacted for comment but did not respond before deadline.
What this means for the stores
So what does this mean for Domino’s store owners who may be trading insolvent?
Under the law, the restructuring process allows eligible small business companies:
- to retain control of the business, property and affairs while developing a plan to restructure with the assistance of a small business restructuring practitioner
- to enter into a restructuring plan with creditors.
If a company proposes a restructuring plan to its creditors, it is taken to be insolvent. This is a game changer for the franchisee and its creditors.
Franchisees receive protection from creditors who want to enforce rights under existing contracts. A franchisee’s creditors include suppliers, its landlord, employees, the tax office and the franchisor (in this case, Domino’s).
Currently these store owners are protected from any creditors pushing them to pay their debts. The restructuring process gives the store owners some breathing room while the debt negotiations take place.
The imbalance of power persists
Despite government inquiries and reviews, it seems the imbalance of power between the Domino’s franchisees and their franchisor persists.
But Domino’s can’t afford to stay the same. Franchisees need to make a profit. The move to enter restructuring could be a temporary band aid.
Domino’s largest shareholder and executive chairman, Jack Cowin, was appointed in July after the former chief executive left after just seven months. Cowin understands the franchised fast food sector and has pledged to lead a cost reduction program that will improve the profitability of stores.![]()
Jenny Buchan, Emeritus Professor, Business School, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Canva, The Conversation,