Capturing the value of green space in urban parks in a sustainable urban planning and design context: Pros and cons of hedonic pricing

Ecology and Society

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  Engström, Gustav ^a   Gren, Asa ^a  

^a ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Health benefits from urban parks; Hedonic pricing; Sustainable urban planning; Urban ecosystem services; Urban green space; Valuing urban parks

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GREENSPACE; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; PARK DESIGN; PRICE DETERMINATION; SUSTAINABILITY; URBAN DESIGN; URBAN ECOSYSTEM; URBAN PLANNING;

EID: 85021832464     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-09365-220221     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Alriksson, S., and T. Öberg. 2008. Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 15(3):244-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/espr2008.02.479.
2. Andersson, E., M. Tengö, T. McPhearson, and P. Kremer. 2015. Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosystem Services 12:165-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002.
3. Andersson, R., and L. Hedman. 2016. Economic decline and residential segregation: a Swedish study with focus on Malmö. Urban Geography 37(5):748-768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1133993.
4. Annerstedt, M. 2011. Nature and public health: aspects of promotion, prevention, and intervention. Dissertation. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, Alnarp, Sweden.
5. Anselin, L. 1988. Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7799-1.
6. Anselin, L., and D. Arribas-Bel. 2013. Spatial fixed effects and spatial dependence in a single cross-section. Papers in Regional Science 92(1):3-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00480.x
7. Anselin, L., A. K. Bera, R. Florax, and M. J. Yoon. 1996. Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Regional Science and Urban Economics 26:77-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(95)02111-6.
8. Arraiz, I., D. M. Drukker, H. H. Kelejian, and I. R. Prucha. 2010. A spatial Cliff-Ord-type model with heteroskedastic innovations: small and large sample results. Journal of Regional Science 50:592-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00618.x
9. Bateman, I. J., A. R. Harwood, G. M. Mace, R. T. Watson, D. J. Abson, B. Andrews, A. Binner, A. Crowe, B. H. Day, S. Dugdale, C. Fezzi, J. Foden, D. Hadley, R. Haines-Young, M. Hulme, A. Kontoleon, A. A. Lovett, P. Munday, U. Pascual, J. Paterson, G. Perino, A. Sen, G. Siriwardena, D. van Soest, and M. Termansen. 2013. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decisionmaking: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341 (6141):45-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379.
10. Bin, O., and S. Polasky. 2004. Effects of flood hazards on property values: evidence before and after hurricane Floyd. Land Economics 80:490-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3655805.
11. Boyer, T., and S. Polasky. 2004. Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 24(4):744-755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0744:vuwaro]2.0.co;2.
12. Colding, C. 2007. ‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 81(1-2):46-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.016.
13. Costanza, R., M. A. Wilson, A. Troy, A. Voinov, S. Liu, and J. D’Agostino. 2006. The value of New Jersey’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
14. de Groot, R. S. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:175-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016.
15. Drukker, D. M., P. Egger, and I. R. Prucha. 2013. On two-step estimation of a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances and endogenous regressors. Econometric Reviews 32 (5-6):686-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2013.741020.
16. Elmqvist, T., M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson. 2013. Global urbanization, biodiversity, and ecosystems: challenges and opportunities. A global assessment. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
17. Escobedo, F. J., T. Kroeger, and J. E. Wagner. 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution 159(8-9):2078-2087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010.
18. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Å. Gren, D. N. Barton, J. Langemeyer, T. McPhearson, P. O’Farrell, E. Andersson, Z. Hamstead, and P. Kremer. 2013. Urban ecosystem services. Pages 175-251 in T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson, editors. 2013. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. A global assessment. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11.
19. Grahn, P., and U. A. Stigsdotter. 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2:1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00019.
20. Grahn, P., and U. K. Stigsdotter. 2010. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 94:264-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012.
21. Hartig, T., and P. H. Kahn Jr.. 2016. Living in cities, naturally. Science 352(6288):938-940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3759.
22. Hartig, T., R. Mitchell, S. de Vries, and H. Frumkin. 2014. Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35:207-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.
23. Hatton MacDonald, D., N. D. Crossman, P. Mahmoudi, D. Summers, L. O. Taylor, D. M. Summers, and P. C. Boxall. 2010. Valuing public and private green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning 95:192-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.01.003.
24. Helm, D. 2015. Natural capital: valuing our planet. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
25. Hillier B. 2003. The architectures of seeing and going: or, are cities shaped by bodies or minds? And is there a syntax of spatial cognition? Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium in Space Syntax, London, UK.
26. James, P., M. Holden, M. Lewin, L. Neilson, C. Oakley, A. Truter, and D. Wilmoth. 2013. Managing metropolises by negotiating mega-urban growth. Pages 217-232 in H. A. Mieg and K. Töpfer, editors. Institutional and social innovation for sustainable urban development. Routledge, London, UK.
27. Kaczynski, A. T., and K. A. Henderson. 2007. Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Science 29(4):315-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865.
28. Kazmierczak, A. 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighborhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning 109:31-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007.
29. Kelejian, H. H., and I. R. Prucha. 1998. A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedures for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 17:99-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007707430416.
30. Kelejian, H. H., and I. Prucha. 1999. A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model. International Economic Review 40:509-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2354.00027.
31. Kolbe, J., and H. Wüstemann. 2015. Estimating the value of urban green space: a hedonic pricing analysis of the housing market in Cologne, Germany. SFB 649. Discussion Paper 2015-002. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. [online] URL: http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/series/sfb-649-papers/2015-2/PDF/2.pdf
32. Kong, F., H. Yin, and N. Nakagoshi. 2007. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case study in Jinan City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:240-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.013.
33. Kuminoff, N. V., C. F. Parmeter, and J. C. Pope. 2010. Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60(3):145-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.06.001.
34. Kwan, M. 2000. Analysis of human spatial behaviour in a GIS environment: recent developments and future prospects. Journal of Geographical Systems 2:85-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s101090050034.
35. Lee, C., and A. V. Moudon. 2006. The 3Ds + R: quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 11:204-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2006.02.003.
36. Lovell, S.T., and J. R. Taylor. 2013. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology 28:1447-1463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y
37. Low, S. 2003. Behind the gates. Routledge, London, UK.
38. Lundberg, J., and F. Moberg. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6:87-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-002-0150-4.
39. Ma, S., J. M. Duggan, B. A. Eichelberger, B. W. McNally, J. R. Foster, E. Pepi, M. N. Conte, G. C. Daily, and G. Ziv. 2016. Valuation of ecosystem services to inform management of multiple-use landscapes. Ecosystem Services 19:6-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.005.
40. Mahan, B. L., S. Polasky, and R. M. Adams. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Economics 76:100-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3147260.
41. Mahmoudi, P., D. H. MacDonald, N. D. Crossman, D. M. Summers, and J. van der Hoek. 2013. Space matters: the importance of amenity in planning metropolitan growth. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 57:38-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00608.x
42. Marcus, L., M. Berghauser-Pont, and Å. Gren. 2014. Can spatial form support urban ecosystem services: developing descriptions and measures to capture the spatial demands for pollination using the framework of space syntax. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 11(2):255-270.
43. Martín-López B, E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. García-Llorente, and C. Montes. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem service assessment. Ecological Indicators 37:220–228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003.
44. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
45. Mitchell, R., and F. Popham. 2008. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities. Lancet 372:1655-1660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X
46. Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D. R. Cameron, K. M. A. Chan, G. Daily, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1):4-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080023.
47. Nutsford, D., A. L. Pearson, S. Kingham, and F. Reitsma. 2016. Residential exposure to visible blue space (but not green space) associated with lower psychological distress in a capital city. Health and Place 39:70-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.03.002.
48. Oh, K., and S. Jeong. 2007. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 82:25-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.014.
49. Polasky, S., E. Nelson, E. Lonsdorf, P. Fackler, and A. Starfield. 2005. Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecological Application 15:1387-1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/03-5423.
50. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., and G. D. Peterson. 2016. Scale and ecosystem services: how do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale—lessons from Québec. Ecology and Society 21(3):16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08605-210316.
51. Rosen, S. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy 82(1):34-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/260169.
52. Seto, K. C., B. Guneralp, L. R. Hutyra. 2012. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109(40):16083-16088. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109.
53. Soga, M., Y. Yamaura, T. Aikoh, Y. Shoji, T. Kubo, and K. J. Gaston. 2015. Reducing the extinction of experience: association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning 143:69-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.003.
54. Ståhle, A. 2006. Sociotope mapping: exploring public open space and its multiple use values in urban and landscape planning practice. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 19(4):59-71.
55. Stockholms Regionplane-och trafikkontor. 2001. Upplevelsevärden. Sociala kvaliteter i den regionala grönstrukturen. [Experiencing values. Social qualities in the regional green structure]. Regionplane- och trafikkontoret, Stockholms stad, Stockholm, Sweden.
56. Tallis, H., and S. Polasky. 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162:265-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04152.x
57. Taylor, A. F., and F. E. Kuo. 2009. Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders 12(5):402-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323000
58. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and economic foundations. UNEP/Earthprint, London, UK.
59. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2011. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Manual for cities: ecosystem services in urban management. UNEP and the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
60. Thor, S. 2016. Malmö är ingen genomsnittsstad. Fastighetsnytt, SYD, skåne och öresundsregionen, 11. September. [online] URL: http://fastighetsnytt.se/2016/09/malmo-ar-ingen-genomsnittsstad/
61. Treweek, J. 1999. Ecological impact assessment. Blackwell Science Ltd. London, UK.
62. Tyrväinen, L. 1997. The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban Planning 37:211-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80005-9.
63. Tyrväinen, L., and A. Miettinen. 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39:205-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1999.1097
64. van Herzele, A. 2005. A tree on your doorstep, a forest in your mind. Green space planning at the interplay between discourse, physical conditions, and practice. Dissertation. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
65. White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1912934.
66. Whyte, W. H. 2001. The social life of small urban spaces. 2001 edition. Project for Public Spaces, New York, New York, USA.
67. World Health Organization (WHO). 2014. Healthy cities. Healthy cities. Promoting health and equity - evidence for local policy and practice. Summary evaluation of Phase V of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. E. de Leeuw, A. D. Tsouros, M. Dyakova, and G. Green, editors. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.