The value of urban open space: Meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 92, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 2763-2773

  Brander, Luke M ^a   Koetse, Mark J ^b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Hedonic pricing; Meta analysis; Urban open space

Indexed keywords

COSTS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FORESTRY;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DEPENDENT VARIABLES; ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS; HEDONIC PRICING; HEDONIC PRICING MODELS; HOUSE'S PRICES; META-ANALYSIS; SOCIO-ECONOMICS; URBAN OPEN SPACE; URBAN POPULATION;

POPULATION STATISTICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ESTHETICS; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; META-ANALYSIS; OPEN SPACE; POPULATION DENSITY; SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY; URBAN AREA; URBAN ECONOMY;

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FOREST; HOUSING; LAND USE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); POPULATION DENSITY; SOCIOECONOMICS; URBAN AREA; URBANIZATION;

EID: 79960839968     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Anderson S.T., West S.E. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2006, 36:773-789.
2. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in U.K. Woodland recreation values. Land Economics 2003, 79:235-258.
3. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., Turner R.K., Willis K.G., Garrod G.D. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 1995, 12:161-179.
4. Bateman I.J., Lovett A.A., Brainard J.S. Applied Environmental Economics: a GIS Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Bates L., Santerre R. The public demand for open space: the case of connecticut communities. Journal of Urban Economics 2001, 50:97-111.
6. Bengochea-Morancho A. A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 66:35-41.
7. Bergstrom J.C., Dillman B.L., Stoll J.R. Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 1985, 17:139-149.
8. Bishop K. Assessing the benefits of community forests: an evaluation of recreational use benefits of two urban fringe woodlands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1992, 35:63-76.
9. Blomquist G.C. Valuing urban lakeview amenities using implicit and contingent markets. Urban Studies 1988, 25:333-340.
10. Bolitzer B., Netusil N.R. The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 59:185-193.
11. Bowker J.M., Diychuck D.D. Estimating the nonmarket benefits of agricultural land retention in eastern Canada. Agricultural and Resource Economic Review 1994, 23:218-225.
12. Brander L.M., Florax R.J.G.M., Vermaat J.E. The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 33:223-250.
13. Brander L.M., Koetse M.J. The Value of Urban Open Space: Meta-Analyses of Contingent Valuation and Hedonic Pricing Results 2007, IVM Working Paper 07/03, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam.
14. Breffle W.S., Morey E.R., Lodder T.S. Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighbourhood's willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land. Urban Studies 1998, 35:715-727.
15. Brookshire D.S., Thayer M.A., Schulze W.D., D'Arge R.C. Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. American Economic Review 1982, 72:165-177.
16. Brouwer R., Langford I.H., Bateman I.J., Turner R.K. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change 1999, 1:47-57.
17. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Martin K.M., Wright J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 1996, 72:80-99.
18. Chen M. Evaluation of Environmental Services of Agriculture in Taiwan 2005, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
19. Correll M.R., Lillydahl J.H., Singell L.D. The effects of greenbelts on residential property values: some findings on the political economy of open space. Land Economics 1978, 54:207-217.
20. Deacon R., Shapiro P. Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. American Economic Review 1975, 65:943-955.
21. Din A., Hoesli M., Bender A. Environmental variables and real estate prices. Urban Studies 2001, 38:1989-2000.
22. Driscoll P., Dietz B., Alwang J. Welfare analysis when budget constraints are nonlinear: the case of flood hazard reduction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:181-199.
23. Duke J.M., Ilvento T.W., Aull-Hyde R. Public Support for Land Preservation: Measuring Relative Preferences in Delaware 2002, Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware, Newark.
24. Dwyer J.F., Peterson G.L., Darragh A.J. Estimating the value of urban forests using the travel cost method. Journal of Arboriculture 1983, 9:182-185.
25. Fausold C.J., Lilieholm R.J. The economic value of open space: a review and synthesis. Journal Environmental Management 1999, 23:307-320.
26. Fleischer A., Tsur Y. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2000, 27:385-398.
27. Fleischer A., Tsur Y. The Amenity Value of Agricultural Landscape and Rural-Urban Land Allocation 2004, Discussion Paper No. 5.04, The Center for Agricultural Economic Research, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
28. Freeman A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theories and Methods 2003, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
29. Geoghegan J. The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy 2002, 19:91-98.
30. Geoghegan J., Wainger L.A., Bockstael N.E. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics 1997, 23:251-264.
31. Ghermandi A., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Brander L.M., de Groot H.L.F., Nunes P.A.L.D. Values of natural and human-made wetlands: a meta-analysis. Water Resources Research 2010, 46:1-12.
32. Hanley N.D., Wright J.L. Valuing the environment: recent UK experience and an application to Green Belt land. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1992, 35:145-160.
33. Hunter J.E., Schmidt F.L. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings 1990, Sage Publications, London.
34. Irwin E.G. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics 2002, 78:465-480.
35. Irwin E.G., Bockstael N.E. Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the evolution of residential land use patterns. Journal of Economic Geography 2002, 2:31-54.
36. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75:81-96.
37. Johnston R.J., Opaluch J.J., Grigalunas T.A., Mazzotta M.J. Estimating amenity benefits of coastal farmland. Growth and Change 2001, 32:305-325.
38. Kahn M.E., Matsusaka J.G. Demand for environmental goods: evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics 1997, 40:137-173.
39. Kim Y., Johnson R.L. The Impact of forests and forest management on neighboring property values. Society and Natural Resources 2002, 15:887-901.
40. Kline J., Wichelns D. Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Economics 1994, 70:223-233.
41. Kline J., Wichelns D. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space. Ecological Economics 1998, 26(2):211-224.
42. Kline J. Public demand for preserving local open space. Society and Natural Resources 2006, 19:645-659.
43. Kong F., Yin H., Nakagoshi N. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modelling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case study in Jinan City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 79:240-252.
44. Kotchen M.J., Powers S.M. Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 52:373-390.
45. Krieger D. Saving Open Spaces: Public Support for Farmland Protection 1999, Working Paper Series WP 99-1, Center for Agriculture in the Environment, Northern Illinois University, Chicago.
46. Kwak S.J., Yoo S.H., Han S.Y. Estimating the public's value for urban forest in the Seoul metropolitan area of Korea: a contingent valuation study. Urban Studies 2003, 40:2207-2221.
47. Lindsey G., Man J., Payton S., Dickson K. Property values, recreation values and urban greenways. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 2004, 22:69-90.
48. Lindsey G., Knaap G. Willingness to pay for urban greenway projects. Journal of the American Planning Association 1999, 65:297-313.
49. Lockwood M., Tracy K. Nonmarket economic valuation of an urban recreation park. Journal of Leisure Research 1995, 27:155-167.
50. Lutzenhiser M., Netusil N.R. The effect of open spaces on a home's sale price. Contemporary Economic Policy 2001, 19:291-298.
51. Mallawaarachchi T., Morrison M.D., Blamey R.K. Choice modelling to determine the significance of environmental amenity and production alternatives in the community value of peri-urban land: Sunshine Coast, Australia. Land Use Policy 2006, 23:323-332.
52. Mansfield C., Pattanayak S.K., McDow W., McDonald R., Halpin P. Shades of green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. Journal of Forest Economics 2005, 11:177-199.
53. Maxwell S. Valuation of rural environmental improvements using contingent valuation methodology: a case study of the Marston vale community forest project. Journal of Environmental Management 1994, 41:385-399.
54. McConnell V., Walls M. The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Nonmarket Benefits 2005, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
55. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A Meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
56. Valuing the Benefits of Undeveloped Land 2002, ODPM, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, UK.
57. Orford S. Modelling spatial structures in local housing market dynamics: a multi-level perspecitive. Urban Studies 2000, 37:1643-1671.
58. Palmquist R.B. Valuing localized externalities. Journal of Urban Economics 1992, 31:59-68.
59. Palmquist R.B., Fulcher C.M. The Economic valuation of shoreline: 30 years later. Explorations in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: Essays in Honor of Gardner M. Brown, Jr 2006, 208-223. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. R. Halvorsen, D.F. Layton (Eds.).
60. Powe N.A., Garrod G.D., Willis K.G. Valuation of urban amenities using a hedonic price model. Journal of Property Research 1995, 12:137-147.
61. Rasbash J., Steele F., Browne W., Prosser B. A User's Guide to MLwiN Version 2.0 2003, Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.
62. Ready R.C., Berger M.C., Blomquist G.C. Measuring amenity benefits from farmland: hedonic pricing vs. contingent valuation. Growth and Change 1997, 28(4):438-458.
63. Romero F., Liserio A. Saving open spaces: determinants of 1998 and 1999 antisprawl ballot measures. Social Science Quarterly 2002, 83:341-352.
64. Rosenberger R.S., Walsch R.G. Nonmarket value of western valley Ranchland using contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1997, 22:296-309.
65. Rosenberger R.S., Loomis J.B. Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 2000, 32:459-470.
66. Sanchez-Meca J., Marin-Martinez F. Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in meta-analysis: a simulation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1998, 58:211-220.
67. Scarpa R., Hutchinson W.G., Chilton S.M., Buongiorno J. Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation study of Irish forests. Forest Policy and Economics 2000, 1:315-329.
68. Shabman L., Stephenson K. Searching for the correct benefit estimate: empirical evidence for an alternative perspective. Land Economics 1996, 72:433-449.
69. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a "Scope" test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 31:287-301.
70. Smith V.K., Pattanayak S.K. Is Meta-analysis a Noah's ark for non-market valuation?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:271-296.
71. Smith V.K., Poulos C., Kim H. Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resource and Energy Economics 2002, 24:107-129.
72. Stanley T.D. Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2001, 15:131-150.
73. Tajima K. New estimates of the demand for urban green space: implications for valuing the environmental benefits of Boston's big dig project. Journal of Urban Affairs 2003, 25:641-655.
74. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) Landvote Database 27-10-2006, TPL. http://www.tpl.org.
75. Tyrvainen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 2001, 62:75-92.
76. Tyrvainen L., Miettinen M. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2000, 39:205-223.
77. Tyrvainen L., Vaananen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning 1998, 43:105-118.
78. Vaughan R.J. The value of urban open space. Research in Urban Economics 1981, 1:103-130.
79. Wagtendonk A., Omtzigt N. Analysis of Population Density Around Wetland Areas in GPW (Gridded Population of the World) Files. SPINlab Document 2003, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam.
80. Willig R.D. Consumers' surplus without an apology. American Economic Review 1976, 66:589-597.
81. Willis K.G., Whitby M.C. The value of Green Belt Land. Journal of Rural Studies 1985, 1:147-162.
82. Woodward R.T., Wui Y.S. The economic value of wetland sevices: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2001, 37:257-270.