From valuation to governance: Using choice experiment to value street trees

Ambio

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 492-501

  Giergiczny, Marek ^a   Kronenberg, Jakub ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LODZ   (Poland)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Poland; Street trees; Urban ecosystem services

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; GREENSPACE; RESIDENT POPULATION; STREET CANYON; TAX SYSTEM; URBAN ECOSYSTEM; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

LODZ [POLAND]; POLAND;

ARTICLE; CITY; ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND RELATED PHENOMENA; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; POLAND; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREE;

CITIES; ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES; HUMANS; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; MODELS, ECONOMIC; POLAND; TREES;

EID: 84902104819     PISSN: 00447447     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-014-0516-9     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Austin, M.E. 2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Arboriculture 28: 178-186. (Pubitemid 35182141)
2. Bae, H. 2011. Urban stream restoration in Korea: Design considerations and residents' willingness to pay. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10: 119-126. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.02.001.
3. Bullock, C.H. 2008. Valuing urban green space: Hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51: 15-35. doi:10.1080/09640560701712242. (Pubitemid 350263503)
4. Burgess, J., J. Clark, and C. Harrison. 2000. Culture, communication, and the information problem in contingent valuation surveys: A case study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme. Environment and Planning C 18: 505-524. doi:10.1068/c1s.
5. Davies, A.-M., and R. Laing. 2002. Designing choice experiments using focus groups: Results from an Aberdeen case study. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3: art. 5.
6. Donovan, G.H., and D.T. Butry. 2010. Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning 94: 77-83. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.019.
7. Getz, D.A., A. Karow, and J.J. Kielbaso. 1982. Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 8: 258-263.
8. Giergiczny, M., S. Valasiuk, M. Czajkowski, M. De Salvo, and G. Signorello. 2012. Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with "exploding" implicit prices in mixed logit models. Journal of Forest Economics 18: 370-380. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.002.
9. Gorman, J. 2004. Residents' opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree location. Journal of Arboriculture 30: 36-44. (Pubitemid 38135731)
10. Hanley, N., R.E. Wright, and V. Adamowicz. 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental & Resource Economics 11: 413-428.
11. Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose, and W.H. Greene. 2005. Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Hubacek, K., and J. Kronenberg. 2013. Synthesizing different perspectives on the value of urban ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2012.10.010.
13. Ishikawa, N., and M. Fukushige. 2012. Effects of street landscape planting and urban public parks on dwelling environment evaluation in Japan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11: 390-395. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.08.001.
14. Kabisch, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990-2006. Landscape and Urban Planning 110: 113-122. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.017.
15. Kronenberg, J. 2012. Barriers to preserving urban trees and ways of overcoming them. Sustainable Development Applications 3: 31-49.
16. Lanz, B., and A. Provins. 2011. Valuing local environmental amenity: Using discrete choice experiments to control for the spatial scope of improvements. CEPE Working Paper Series 79. Zurich: Centre for Energy Policy and Economy.
17. Larson, E.K., and C. Perrings. 2013. The value of water-related amenities in an arid city: The case of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 45-55. doi:10.1016/j. landurbplan.2012.10.008.
18. Lohr, V.I., C.H. Pearson-Mims, J. Tarnai, and D.A. Dillman. 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture 30: 28-35.
19. McPherson, E.G. 2007. Benefit-based tree valuation. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 33: 1-11. (Pubitemid 46131768)
20. McPherson, E.G. 2010. Tools for valuing tree and park services. Western Arborist 36: 58-63.
21. Melichar, J., and K. Kaprová. 2013. Revealing preferences of Prague's homebuyers towards greenery amenities: The empirical evidence of distance-size effect. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 56-66. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.003.
22. Morales, D., B.N. Boyce, and R.J. Favretti. 1976. The contribution of trees to residential property value: Manchester, Connecticut. Valuation 23: 26-43.
23. Morris, J., S. Colombo, A. Angus, K. Stacey, D. Parsons, M. Brawn, and N. Hanley. 2009. The value of public rights of way: A choice experiment in Bedfordshire, England. Landscape and Urban Planning 93: 83-91. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.06.007.
24. Orland, B., J. Vining, and A. Ebreo. 1992. The effect of street trees on perceived values of residential property. Environment and Behavior 24: 298-325. doi:10.1177/0013916592243002.
25. Pandit, R., M. Polyakov, S. Tapsuwan, and T. Moran. 2013. The effect of street trees on property value in Perth, Western Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 110: 134-142. doi:10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.001.
26. Pavlyuk, D., and I. Jankowska. 2012. Using of stated preference models for forest management: a case of Riga. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference "Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication", ed. I. Kabashkin and I. Yatskiv, pp. 45-52. Riga: Transport and Telecommunication Institute.
27. Payne, B.R., and S. Strom. 1975. The contribution of trees to the appraised value of unimproved residential land. Valuation 22: 36-45.
28. Piwowarczyk, J., J. Kronenberg, and M. Dereniowska. 2013. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: Do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their importance? Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 85-93. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.009.
29. Reichhart, T., and A. Arnberger. 2010. Exploring the influence of speed, social, managerial and physical factors on shared trail preferences using a 3D computer animated choice experiment. Landscape and Urban Planning 96: 1-11. doi:10.1016/j. landurbplan.2010.01.005.
30. Schläpfer, F., A. Roschewitz, and N. Hanley. 2004. Validation of stated preferences for public goods: A comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour. Ecological Economics 51: 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.04.006. (Pubitemid 39622799)
31. Schroeder, H., J. Flannigan, and R. Coles. 2006. Residents' attitudes toward street trees in the UK and US communities. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 32: 236-246. (Pubitemid 44463602)
32. Sommer, R., H. Guenther, and P.A. Barker. 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal 9: 79-85. doi:10.3368/lj.9.2.79.
33. Sommer, R., F. Learey, J. Summit, and M. Tirrell. 1994. The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture 20: 170-175.
34. Street, D.J., and L. Burgess. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
35. Street, D.J., L. Burgess, and J.J. Louviere. 2005. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22: 459-470. doi:10.1016/j. ijresmar.2005.09.003.
36. Summit, J., and R. Sommer. 1998. Urban tree-planting programs: A model for encouraging environmentally protective behavior. Atmospheric Environment 32: 1-5. (Pubitemid 27503692)
37. Todorova, A., S. Asakawa, and T. Aikoh. 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 403-416. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.11.001. (Pubitemid 39282760)
38. Wcisło, E., ed. 2008. Ocena s'rodowiskowych zagrożeń zdrowia mieszkańców dużych miast Polski. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Ekonomia i S ́ rodowisko (in Polish).
39. Westphal, L.M. 1993. Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations. In Managing urban and high-use recreation settings, ed. P.H. Gobster, pp. 19-23. General Technical Report 163. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.