Tropical Vegetation and Residential Property Value: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis in Singapore

Ecological Economics

Volumn 149, Issue , 2018, Pages 149-159

  Belcher, Richard N ^a,b   Chisholm, Ryan A ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b FUTURE CITIES LABORATORY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Ecosystem service valuation; Hedonic pricing; Public housing; Tropical city state; Tropical vegetation; Urban planning

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION STATUS; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ECONOMIC CONDITIONS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; PRICE DETERMINATION; SOCIAL HOUSING; STRATEGIC APPROACH; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING; VEGETATION TYPE;

SINGAPORE [SOUTHEAST ASIA];

EID: 85044479334     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.012     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Akbari, H., Pomerantz, M., Taha, H., Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Sol. Energy, Urban Environ. 70 (2001), 295–310, 10.1016/S0038-092X(00)00089-X.
2. Andersson, D.E., Hypothesis testing in hedonic price estimation – on the selection of independent variables. Ann. Reg. Sci. 34 (2000), 293–304, 10.1007/s001689900010.
3. Appleton, J., Values in Sustainable Development. 2013, Routledge.
4. Ashcroft, M.B., Major, R.E., Importance of matrix permeability and quantity of core habitat for persistence of a threatened saltmarsh bird. Austral Ecol. 38 (2013), 326–337, 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02407.x.
5. Bark, R.H., Osgood, D.E., Colby, B.G., Katz, G., Stromberg, J., Habitat preservation and restoration: do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat?. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 1465–1475, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.005.
6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R.H.B., Singmann, H., Dai, B., lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. 2014.
7. Benker, S.C., Langford, R.P., Pavlis, T.L., Positional accuracy of the Google Earth terrain model derived from stratigraphic unconformities in the Big Bend region, Texas, USA. Geocarto Int. 26 (2011), 291–303, 10.1080/10106049.2011.568125.
8. 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.
9. Breckle, S.-W., Walter's Vegetation of the Earth: The Ecological Systems of the Geo-Biosphere. 2002 (Fourth Edition).
10. Caryl, F.M., Thomson, K., van der Ree, R., Permeability of the urban matrix to arboreal gliding mammals: sugar gliders in Melbourne, Australia. Austral Ecol. 38 (2013), 609–616, 10.1111/aec.12006.
11. Chan, E.H.-W., So, H.-M., Tang, B.-S., Wong, W.-S., Private space, shared space and private housing prices in Hong Kong: an exploratory study. Habitat Int. 32 (2008), 336–348, 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.11.004.
12. Chen, W.Y., Jim, C.Y., Amenities and disamenities: a hedonic analysis of the heterogeneous urban landscape in Shenzhen (China). Geogr. J. 176 (2010), 227–240, 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00358.x.
13. Cho, S.-H., Bowker, J.M., Park, W.M., Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values; an application and comparison of spatially weighted hedonic models. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 31 (2006), 485–507.
14. Cho, S.-H., Poudyal, N.C., Roberts, R.K., Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol. Econ. 66 (2008), 403–416, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.012.
15. Cho, S.-H., Clark, C.D., Park, W.M., Kim, S.G., Spatial and temporal variation in the housing market values of lot size and open space. Land Econ. 85 (2009), 51–73.
16. Cho, S.-H., Kim, S.G., Roberts, R.K., Jung, S., Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 2646–2657, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.017.
17. Cohen, D.A., Ashwood, J.S., Scott, M.M., Overton, A., Evenson, K.R., Staten, L.K., Porter, D., McKenzie, T.L., Catellier, D., Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics 118 (2006), e1381–1389, 10.1542/peds.2006-1226.
18. Corlett, R.T., The ecological transformation of Singapore, 1819–1990. J. Biogeogr., 1992, 411–420.
19. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009), 21–28, 10.1890/080025.
20. Department of Statistics Singapore, Statistics Singapore - Latest Data. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#22, 2016 (accessed 9.26.17).
21. Dimoudi, A., Nikolopoulou, M., Vegetation in the urban environment: microclimatic analysis and benefits. Energy Build. 35 (2003), 69–76, 10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00081-6.
22. Donovan, G.H., Butry, D.T., Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 94 (2010), 77–83, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.019.
23. Doss, C., Taff, S., The influence of wetland type and wetland proximity on residential property values. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 21 (1996), 120–129.
24. Edelman, A., Gelding, A., Konovalov, E., McComiskie, R., Penny, A., Roberts, N., Templeman, S., Trewin, D., Ziembicki, M., Trewin, B. et al., State of the Tropics 2014 Report. 2014, James Cook University, Cairns.
25. ESRI, ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. 2010, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
26. Fik, T.J., Ling, D.C., Mulligan, G.F., Modeling spatial variation in housing prices: a variable interaction approach. Real Estate Econ. 31 (2003), 623–646, 10.1046/j.1080-8620.2003.00079.x.
27. HDB InfoWEB, HDB InfoWEB: Welcome to Punggol: Punggol Eco-Town. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10333p.nsf/w/EcoTownHome?OpenDocument, 2014 (accessed 8.20.14).
28. Health Promotion Board, Report of the National Nutrition Survey. 2004.
29. Heinzle, S.L., Yip, A.B.Y., Xing, M.L.Y., The influence of green building certification schemes on real estate investor behaviour: evidence from Singapore. Urban Stud. 50 (2013), 1970–1987, 10.1177/0042098013477693.
30. Henderson, J.C., Cooked food hawking and its management: the case of Singapore. Tour. Rev. Int. 14 (2010), 201–213, 10.3727/154427211X13092645880025.
31. Henderson, J.C., Urban parks and green spaces in Singapore. Manag. Leis. 18 (2013), 213–225, 10.1080/13606719.2013.796181.
32. Horsch, E.J., Lewis, D.J., The effects of aquatic invasive species on property values: evidence from a quasi-experiment. Land Econ. 85 (2009), 391–409.
33. Housing & Development Board, HDB InfoWEB e-Service: Resale Flat Prices Enquiry. [WWW Document]. URL http://services2.hdb.gov.sg/webapp/BB33RTIS/BB33PReslTrans.jsp, 2014 (accessed 5.8.14).
34. Housing Development Board, Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile. 2008, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences.
35. Irwin, E., The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ. 78 (2002), 465–480, 10.2307/3146847.
36. Jago, R., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J.C., Observed, GIS, and self-reported environmental features and adolescent physical activity. Am. J. Health Promot. 20 (2006), 422–428.
37. 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.
38. Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., Value of scenic views: hedonic assessment of private housing in Hong Kong. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91 (2009), 226–234, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.009.
39. Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., External effects of neighbourhood parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Use Policy 27 (2010), 662–670, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.027.
40. Kaufman, D., Cloutier, N., The impact of small brownfields and greenspaces on residential property values. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 33 (2006), 19–30, 10.1007/s11146-006-8272-7.
41. Khew, J.Y.T., Yokohari, M., Tanaka, T., Public perceptions of nature and landscape preference in Singapore. Hum. Ecol. 42 (2014), 979–988, 10.1007/s10745-014-9709-x.
42. 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.
43. Kuminoff, N.V., Parmeter, C.F., Pope, J.C., Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 60 (2010), 145–160, 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.06.001.
44. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P.B., Christensen, R.H.B., Package ‘lmerTest.’ R Package Version 2. 2015.
45. Singapore Bus Service, SBS Transit bus Interchanges and Terminals [WWW Document]. 2013 https://www.sbstransit.com.sg/transport/trpt_bus_inter.aspx. (Accessed 21 March 2018)
46. Leonard, T., Zhang, L., Hoehner, C., Variations in park facility valuations across neighborhoods. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 8 (2015), 45–67, 10.1007/s12061-014-9120-4.
47. Loomis, J., 2013WAEA keynote address: strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 39, 2014.
48. Lye, L.H., A Fine City in a garden-environmental law and governance in Singapore. Singap. J. Leg. Stud., 2008, 68–117.
49. Magezi, D.A., Linear mixed-effects models for within-participant psychology experiments: an introductory tutorial and free, graphical user interface (LMMgui). Front. Psychol., 6, 2015, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00002.
50. Mahan, B., Polasky, S., Adams, R., Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ. 76 (2000), 100–113, 10.2307/3147260.
51. Makaremi, N., Salleh, E., Jaafar, M.Z., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Thermal comfort conditions of shaded outdoor spaces in hot and humid climate of Malaysia. Build. Environ. 48 (2012), 7–14, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.024.
52. Mansfield, C., Pattanayak, S., McDow, W., McDonald, R., Halpin, P., Shades of green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. J. For. Econ. 11 (2005), 177–199, 10.1016/j.jfe.2005.08.002.
53. Militino, A.F., Ugarte, M.D., García-Reinaldos, L., Alternative models for describing spatial dependence among dwelling selling prices. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 29 (2004), 193–209, 10.1023/B:REAL.0000035310.20223.e9.
54. Ministry of Education Singapore, School Information Service (SIS) - School Directory. [WWW Document]. URL http://sis.moe.gov.sg/SchoolDirectory.aspx, 2014 (accessed 9.26.17).
55. Ministry of Education Singapore, Allocation of Places - Primary One Registration. [WWW Document]. URL https://www.moe.gov.sg/admissions/primary-one-registration/allocation, 2017 (accessed 9.26.17).
56. Moran, P.A.P., Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37 (1950), 17–23, 10.2307/2332142.
57. Morancho, A., A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66 (2003), 35–41, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00093-8.
58. Mueller, J.M., Loomis, J.B., Spatial dependence in hedonic property models: do different corrections for spatial dependence result in economically significant differences in estimated implicit prices?. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 33 (2008), 212–231.
59. National Parks Board, Park Facilities. [WWW Document]. Data.gov.sg. URL https://data.gov.sg/dataset/park-facilities, 2017 (accessed 10.18.17).
60. Neo, H., Savage, V.R., Shades of green, fields of gold: representations, discourse and the politics of golf in Singapore. Landsc. Res. 27 (2002), 397–411, 10.1080/0142639022000023952.
61. Nicholls, S., Crompton, J., The impact of greenways on property values: evidence from Austin, Texas. J. Leis. Res. 37 (2005), 321–341.
62. Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., de Vries, S., Seeland, K., Schipperijn, J., (eds.) Forests, Trees and Human Health, 2011, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
63. Norman, G.J., Nutter, S.K., Ryan, S., Sallis, J.F., Calfas, K.J., Patrick, K., Community design and access to recreational facilities as correlates of adolescent physical activity and body-mass index. J. Phys. Act. Health 3 (2006), S118–S128, 10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s118.
64. Pataki, D.E., Carreiro, M.M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N.E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., Pouyat, R.V., Whitlow, T.H., Zipperer, W.C., Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (2011), 27–36, 10.1890/090220.
65. Poudyal, N.C., Hodges, D.G., Merrett, C.D., A hedonic analysis of the demand for and benefits of urban recreation parks. Land Use Policy 26 (2009), 975–983, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.008.
66. Powe, N., Garrod, G., Brunsdon, C., Willis, K., Using a geographic information system to estimate an hedonic price model of the benefits of woodland access. Forestry 70 (1997), 139–149, 10.1093/forestry/70.2.139.
67. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2013.
68. Richards, D.R., Edwards, P.J., Quantifying street tree regulating ecosystem services using Google Street View. Ecol. Indic. 77 (2017), 31–40, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.028.
69. Rosen, S., Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ., 1974, 34–55.
70. Roth, M., Chow, W.T.L., A historical review and assessment of urban heat island research in Singapore. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 33 (2012), 381–397, 10.1111/sjtg.12003.
71. Sander, H.A., Polasky, S., The value of views and open space: estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County, Minnesota, USA. Land Use Policy 26 (2009), 837–845, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.009.
72. Sander, H., Polasky, S., Haight, R.G., The value of urban tree cover: a hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1646–1656, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.011.
73. Saw, L.E., Lim, F.K.S., Carrasco, L.R., The relationship between natural park usage and happiness does not hold in a tropical city-state. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0133781, 10.1371/journal.pone.0133781.
74. Sha, J.C.M., Gumert, M.D., Lee, B.P.-H., Jones-Engel, L., Chan, S., Fuentes, A., Macaque-human interactions and the societal perceptions of macaques in Singapore. Am. J. Primatol. 71 (2009), 825–839, 10.1002/ajp.20710.
75. Sha, J.C.M., Gumert, M.D., Lee, B.P.Y.-H., Fuentes, A., Rajathurai, S., Chan, S., Jones-Engel, L., Status of the long-tailed macaque Macaca fascicularis in Singapore and implications for management. Biodivers. Conserv. 18 (2009), 2909–2926, 10.1007/s10531-009-9616-4.
76. Singapore Government, A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore: Population White Paper. 2013.
77. Singapore Government, Statistics Singapore - National Accounts. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/national_accounts.html, 2014 (accessed 5.9.14).
78. Siriwardena, S.D., Boyle, K.J., Holmes, T.P., Wiseman, P.E., The implicit value of tree cover in the U.S.: a meta-analysis of hedonic property value studies. Ecol. Econ. 128 (2016), 68–76, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.016.
79. Song, Y., Knaap, G., Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 34 (2004), 663–680, 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.02.003.
80. Sue, E.D.W., Wong, W.-K., The political economy of housing prices: hedonic pricing with regression discontinuity. J. Hous. Econ. 19 (2010), 133–144, 10.1016/j.jhe.2010.04.004.
81. Tajima, K., New estimates of the demand for urban green space: implications for valuing the environmental benefits of Boston's big dig project. J. Urban Aff. 25 (2003), 641–655, 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2003.00006.x.
82. Tan, P.Y., Wang, J., Sia, A., Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities 32 (2013), 24–32, 10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.001.
83. The World Bank, Population density (people per sq. km of land area). | Data | Table [WWW Document]. URL http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST, 2013 (accessed 8.20.14).
84. Troy, A., Grove, J.M., Property values, parks, and crime: a hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landsc. Urban Plan. 87 (2008), 233–245, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.06.005.
85. Tyrvainen, L., The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37 (1997), 211–222, 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80005-9.
86. Tyrvainen, L., Miettinen, A., Property prices and urban forest amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 39 (2000), 205–223, 10.1006/jeem.1999.1097.
87. von Graevenitz, K., Panduro, T.E., An alternative to the standard spatial econometric approaches in hedonic house price models. Land Econ. 91 (2015), 386–409.
88. Werner, P., The ecology of urban areas and their functions for species diversity. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 7 (2011), 231–240, 10.1007/s11355-011-0153-4.
89. Yee, A.T.K., Corlett, R.T., Liew, S.C., Tan, H.T.W., The vegetation of Singapore – an updated map. Gardens’ Bull. Singapore 63 (2011), 205–212.
90. Yeo, J.-H., Neo, H., Monkey business: human–animal conflicts in urban Singapore. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 11 (2010), 681–699, 10.1080/14649365.2010.508565.
91. Yuen, B., Romancing the high-rise in Singapore. Cities 22 (2005), 3–13, 10.1016/j.cities.2004.10.002.
92. Yuen, B. et al., Use and experience of neighborhood parks in Singapore. J. Leis. Res. 28 (1996), 293–311.