Revealing Preferences for Urban Green Spaces: A Scale-sensitive Hedonic Pricing Analysis for the City of Leipzig

Ecological Economics

Volumn 146, Issue , 2018, Pages 536-548

  Liebelt, Veronika ^a,b   Bartke, Stephan ^a,c   Schwarz, Nina ^a,d  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^c UMWELTBUNDESAMT   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; GREENSPACE; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; LAND MANAGEMENT; LAND USE CHANGE; MARKET CONDITIONS; URBAN AREA; URBAN ECOSYSTEM; URBAN PLANNING;

GERMANY; LEIPZIG; SAXONY;

EID: 85037693071     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ahlfeldt, G.M., Maennig, W., External Productivity and Utility Effects of City Airports. 2011, 10.1080/00343404.2011.581652.
2. Akaike, H., A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19 (1974), 716–723, 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
3. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Kommunale Bürgerumfrage 2007 (Municipal Civil Survey 2007). 2007 (Leipzig).
4. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Ortsteilkatalog 2008 (District Catalog 2008). 2008 (Leipzig).
5. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Kommunale Bürgerumfrage 2008 (Municipal Civil Survey 2008). 2008 (Leipzig).
6. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Kommunale Bürgerumfrage 2009 (Municipal Civil Survey). 2009 (Leipzig).
7. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Ortsteilkatalog 2010 (District Catalog 2010). 2010 (Leipzig).
8. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Schnellbericht zur Kommunalen Bürgerumfrage 2011 (Quick Report to Municipal Civil Survey 2011). 2011 (Leipzig).
9. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Ortsteilkatalog 2012 (District Catalog 2012). 2012 (Leipzig).
10. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Kommunale Bürgerumfrage 2012 (Municipal Civil Survey). 2012 (Leipzig).
11. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen, Ortsteilkatalog 2014 (District Catalog 2014). 2014 (Leipzig).
12. Amt für Statistik und Wahlen Leipzig, Kommunale Bürgerumfrage 2013 (Municipal Civil Survey 2013). 2014.
13. Bai, H., Stanis, S.A.W., Kaczynski, A.T., Besenyi, G.M., Perceptions of neighborhood park quality: associations with physical activity and body mass index. Ann. Behav. Med. 45 (2013), 39–48, 10.1007/s12160-012-9448-4.
14. Baltagi, B.H., Bresson, G., Etienne, J.-M., Hedonic housing prices in Paris: an unbalanced spatial lag pseudo-panel model with nested random effects. J. Appl. Econ. 30 (2015), 509–528, 10.1002/jae.2377.
15. Bartke, S., Schwarze, R., The Economic Role of Valuers in Real Property Markets (No. ISSN 1436-140X). 2015, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH - UFZ, Leipzig (UFZ Discussion Papers 13/2015).
16. Bartke, S., Martinát, S., Klusáček, P., Pizzol, L., Alexandrescu, F., Frantál, B., Critto, A., Zabeo, A., Targeted selection of brownfields from portfolios for sustainable regeneration: user experiences from five cases testing the Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool. J. Environ. Manag. 184 (2016), 94–107, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.037.
17. Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., Turner, K., Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48 (2011), 177–218, 10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x.
18. Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Watson, R.T., Abson, D.J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B.H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon, A., Lovett, A. a, Munday, P., Pascual, U., Paterson, J., Perino, G., Sen, A., Siriwardena, G., van Soest, D., Termansen, M., Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341 (2013), 45–50, 10.1126/science.1234379.
19. Bolitzer, B., Netusil, N., The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. J. Environ. Manag. 59 (2000), 185–193, 10.1006/jema.2000.0351.
20. Bourassa, S.C., Hamelink, F., Hoesli, M., MacGregor, B.D., Defining housing submarkets. J. Hous. Econ. 8 (1999), 160–183, 10.1006/jhec.1999.0246.
21. Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 23 (2002), 421–446, 10.1023/A:1021351721619.
22. Brander, L.M., Koetse, M.J., The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (2011), 2763–2773, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019.
23. Couch, C., Cocks, M., Bernt, M., Großmann, K., Haase, A., Rink, D., Shrinking cities in Europe. T. Ctry. Plan. 81 (2012), 264–270.
24. Czembrowski, P., Kronenberg, J., Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 146 (2016), 11–19, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.10.005.
25. Din, A., Hoesli, M., Bender, A., Environmental Variables and Real Estate Prices. 2001, HEC Genève, Genève (2001).
26. Donovan, G.H., Butry, D.T., The effect of urban trees on the rental price of single-family homes in Portland, Oregon. Urban For. Urban Green. 10 (2011), 163–168, 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.05.007.
27. Dormann, C.F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Marquéz, J.R.G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P.J., Münkemüller, T., Mcclean, C., Osborne, P.E., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., Skidmore, A.K., Zurell, D., Lautenbach, S., Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography (Cop.). 36 (2013), 027–046, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x.
28. Fuller, R.A., Gaston, K.J., The Scaling of Green Space Coverage in European Cities. 2009, 352–355, 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0010.
29. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 235–245, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.
30. Goodman, A.C., Thibodeau, T.G., Housing market segmentation. J. Hous. Econ. 7 (1998), 121–143, 10.1006/jhec.1998.0229.
31. Goodman, A.C., Thibodeau, T.G., Housing market segmentation and hedonic prediction accuracy. J. Hous. Econ. 12 (2003), 181–201, 10.1016/S1051-1377(03)00031-7.
32. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., Kremer, P., Langemeyer, J., Rall, E.L., McPhearson, T., Pauleit, S., Qureshi, S., Schwarz, N., Voigt, A., Wurster, D., Elmqvist, T., A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43 (2014), 413–433, 10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0.
33. Hagedorn, K., Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 35 (2008), 357–384, 10.1093/erae/jbn019.
34. Hamilton, J.M., Coastal landscape and the hedonic price of accommodation. Ecol. Econ. 62 (2007), 594–602, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.08.001.
35. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., Ecosystem services assessment: a review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol. Model. 289 (2014), 124–132, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.002.
36. Herzog, T.R., Maguire, C.P., Nebel, M.B., Assessing the restorative components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (2003), 159–170, 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5.
37. Hubacek, K., Kronenberg, J., Synthesizing different perspectives on the value of urban ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (2013), 1–6, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.010.
38. Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China). Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (2006), 422–434, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.003.
39. Kong, F., Yin, H., Nakagoshi, N., 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 79 (2007), 240–252, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.013.
40. Kovacs, K.F., Integrating property value and local recreation models to value ecosystem services from regional parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 108 (2012), 79–90, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.08.002.
41. Larson, E.K.K., Perrings, C., The value of water-related amenities in an arid city: the case of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (2013), 45–55, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.008.
42. Levine, J., Chan, K.M.A., Satter, T., From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: exorcising the ghost of Homo Economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition reserach. Ecol. Econ. 114 (2015), 22–32, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.010.
43. Liebelt, V., Bartke, S., Schwarz, N., Hedonic pricing analysis of the influence of urban green spaces onto residential prices: the case of Leipzig, Germany. Eur. Plan. Stud. 26 (2018), 133–157, 10.1080/09654313.2017.1376314.
44. Luttik, J., The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landsc. Urban Plan. 48 (2000), 161–167, 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00039-6.
45. Martín-López, B., Garcia-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Montes, C., The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social–ecological system (southwestern Spain). Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1481–1491, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.009.
46. McGarigal, K., Cushman, S., Ene, E., FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. URL http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html, 2012 (WWW Document).
47. Melichar, J., Kaprová, K., Revealing preferences of Prague's homebuyers toward greenery amenities: the empirical evidence of distance? Size effect. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (2013), 56–66, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.003.
48. Morancho, A.B., A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66 (2003), 35–41, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00093-8.
49. Nilsson, P., Are valuations of place-based amenities driven by scale?. Hous. Stud. 32 (2017), 449–469, 10.1080/02673037.2016.1219330.
50. O'Neill, R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B., DeAngelis, D.L., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G., Zygmunt, B., Christensen, S.W., Dale, V.H., Graham, R.L., Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 1 (1988), 153–162, 10.1007/BF00162741.
51. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2014, Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria URL http://www.R-project.org/.
52. Rehdanz, K., Maddison, D., Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2008), 787–797, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.016.
53. Reid, W.V., Mooney, H.A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S.R., Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Hassan, R., Kasperson, R., Leemans, R., May, R.M., McMichael, Tony (.A.J.)., Pingali, P., Samper, C., Scholes, R., Watson, R.T., Zakri, A.H., Shidong, Z., Ash, N.J., Benett, E., Kumar, P., Lee, M.J., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Simons, H., Thonell, J., Zurek, M.B., Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. 2005, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington, DC.
54. Reynolds, J.F., Wu, J., Tenhunen, J.D., P, K., Do landscape structural and functional units exist?. Integrating Hydrology, Ecosystem Dynamics, and Biogeochemistry in Complex Landscapes, 1999, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K., 273–296.
55. Rosen, S., Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ. 82 (1974), 34–55.
56. Tian, Y., Jim, C.Y., Wang, H., Assessing the landscape and ecological quality of urban green spaces in a compact city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 121 (2014), 97–108, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.10.001.
57. Tyrväinen, L., The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landsc. Urban Plan., 1997, 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80005-9.
58. Veldkamp, A., Lambin, E.F., Predicting land-use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. Ecosyst. Environ. 85 (2001), 1–6, 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00199-2.
59. von Graevenitz, K., Panduro, T.E., An alternative to the standard spatial econometric approaches in hedonic house price models. Land Econ. 91 (2015), 386–410, 10.3368/le.91.2.386.
60. Watkins, C., Microeconomic perspectives on the structure and operation of local housing markets. Hous. Stud. 23 (2008), 163–177, 10.1080/02673030801893131.