Valuing individual characteristics and the multifunctionality of urban green spaces: The integration of sociotope mapping and hedonic pricing

PLoS ONE

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2019, Pages

  Czembrowski, Piotr ^a   Łaszkiewicz, Edyta ^a   Kronenberg, Jakub ^a   Engström, Gustav ^b   Andersson, Erik ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LODZ   (Poland)

^b ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ESTHETICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; REAL ESTATE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; CITY PLANNING; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COST; ECONOMICS; HOUSING;

COMMERCE; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HOUSING; HUMANS; URBAN RENEWAL;

EID: 85062597927     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212277     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bolund P, Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ. 1999; 29(2):293–301.
2. Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, van der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Blignaut JN, et al. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015; 14:101–8.
3. Kabisch N, Qureshi S, Haase D. Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces—A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2015; 50:25–34.
4. Connop S, Vandergert P, Eisenberg B, Collier MJ, Nash C, Clough J, et al. Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure. Environ Sci Policy. 2016; 62:99–111.
5. Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, Naumann S, Davis M, Artmann M, et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol Soc. 2016; 21(2):39.
6. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Czepkiewicz M, Kronenberg J. Eliciting non-monetary values of formal and informal urban green spaces using public participation GIS. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017; 160:85–95.
7. Giergiczny M, Czajkowski M, Żylicz T, Angelstam P. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol Econ. 2015; 119:8–23.
8. Tagliafierro C, Longo A, Van Eetvelde V, Antrop M, Hutchinson WG. Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics. Environ Sci Policy. 2013; 32:26–36.
9. Czembrowski P, Kronenberg J, Czepkiewicz M. Integrating non-monetary and monetary valuation methods–SoftGIS and hedonic pricing. Ecol Econ. 2016; 130:166–75.
10. Daams MN, Sijtsma FJ, Vlist AJ van der. The effect of natural space on nearby property prices: Accounting for perceived attractiveness. Land Econ. 2016; 92(3):389–410.
11. 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. 2016; 146:11–9.
12. Ståhle A. Sociotope mapping: Exploring public open space and its multiple use values in urban and landscape planning practice. Nord J Archit Res. 2006; 19(4):59–71.
13. Colding J. Local assessment of Stockholm: Revisiting the Stockholm Urban Assessment. In: Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, McDonald RI, et al. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. p. 313–35.
14. Andersson E, Barthel S, Borgström S, Colding J, Elmqvist T, Folke C, et al. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. AMBIO. 2014; 43 (4):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0506-y PMID: 24740616
15. Ståhle A. Sociotope mapping–exploring public open space and its multiple use values in urban and landscape planning practice. Nord J Archit Res. 2006; 19(4):59–71.
16. Stadsbyggnadskontoret. Sociotophandboken: Stadsplanering med Stockholmarna, rapport SBK 2003:2 [in Swedish]. Stockholm, Sweden.; 2003.
17. Kaczorowska A, Kain J-H, Kronenberg J, Haase D. Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: Integration challenges in complex urban settings—Case of Stockholm. Ecosyst Serv. 2016; 22:204–212.
18. Khoshkar S, Balfors B, Wärnbäck A. Planning for green qualities in the densification of suburban Stockholm–opportunities and challenges. J Environ Plan Manag. 2018; in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1406342
19. Isenhour C, Feng K. Decoupling and displaced emissions: on Swedish consumers, Chinese producers and policy to address the climate impact of consumption. J Clean Prod. 2016; 134:320–9.
20. Ceccato V, Wilhelmsson M. The Impact of Crime on Apartment Prices: Evidence from Stockholm, Sweden. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr. 2011; 93(1):81–103.
21. Iqbal A, Ceccato V. Does crime in parks affect apartment prices? J Scand Stud Criminol Crime Prev. 2015; 16(1):97–121.
22. Nilsson P. Natural amenities in urban space–A geographically weighted regression approach. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014; 121:45–54.
23. Engström G, Gren A. Capturing the value of green space in urban parks in a sustainable urban planning and design context: pros and cons of hedonic pricing. Ecol Soc. 2017; 22(2):art. 21.
24. Elmqvist T, Colding J, Barthel S, Borgström S, Duit A, Lundberg J, et al. The dynamics of social-ecological systems in urban landscapes: Stockholm and the National Urban Park, Sweden. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004; 1023(1):308–22.
25. Florgård C, Forsberg O. Residents’ use of remnant natural vegetation in the residential area of Järvafäl-tet, Stockholm. Urban For Urban Green. 2006; 5(2):83–92.
26. Giusti M, Barthel S, Marcus L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool Children in Stockholm. Child Youth Environ. 2014; 24(3):16–42.
27. Anderson LM, Cordell HK. Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): A survey based on actual sales prices. Landsc Urban Plan. 1988; 15(1):153–64.
28. Brown GM, Pollakowski HO. Economic Valuation of Shoreline. Rev Econ Stat. 1977; 59(3):272–8.
29. Li MM, Brown HJ. Micro-Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices. Land Econ. 1980; 56 (2):125–41.
30. 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. 2007; 79(3–4):240–52.
31. Xu L, You H, Li D, Yu K. Urban green spaces, their spatial pattern, and ecosystem service value: The case of Beijing. Habitat Int. 2016; 56:84–95.
32. Ham C, Champ PA, Loomis JB, Reich RM. Accounting for heterogeneity of public lands in hedonic property models. Land Econ. 2012; 88(3):444–56.
33. Panduro TE, Veie KL. Classification and valuation of urban green spaces—A hedonic house price valuation. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013; 120:119–28.
34. Sander HA, Haight RG. Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. J Environ Manage. 2012; 113:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.031 PMID: 23025985
35. Tyrväinen L, Miettinen A. Property prices and urban forest amenities. J Environ Econ Manag. 2000; 39 (2):205–23.
36. Czembrowski P, Łaszkiewicz E, Kronenberg J. Bioculturally valuable but not necessarily worth the price: Integrating different dimensions of value of urban green spaces. Urban For Urban Green. 2016; 20:89–96.
37. Asabere PK, Huffman FE. The relative impacts of trails and greenbelts on home price. J Real Estate Finance Econ. 2009; 38(4):408–19.
38. Ståhle A, Marcus L, Karlström A. Place Syntax: Geographic accessibility with axial lines in GIS. In: van Nes, A. Proceedings, Fifth international space syntax symposium. Delft: Techne Press; 2005, p. 131–44.
39. Dong G, Harris R, Jones K, Yu J. Multilevel modelling with spatial interaction effects with application to an emerging land market in Beijing, China. PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(6):e0130761. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130761 PMID: 26086913
40. Anselin L. Lagrange multiplier test diagnostics for spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. Geogr Anal. 1988; 20(1):1–17.
41. LeSage J, Pace RK. Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009. 362 p.
42. Bivand R, Piras G. Comparing implementations of estimation methods for spatial econometrics. J Stat Softw. 2015; 63(18):1–36.
43. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR. A Generalized Moments Estimator for the Autoregressive Parameter in a Spatial Model. Int Econ Rev. 1999; 40(2):509–33.
44. Anderson ST, West SE. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 2006; 36(6):773–89.
45. Tse RYC, Love PED. Measuring residential property values in Hong Kong. Prop Manag. 2000; 18 (5):366–74.
46. Brander LM, Koetse MJ. The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J Environ Manage. 2011; 92(10):2763–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019 PMID: 21763064
47. Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S, Derose KP, Martinez H, Setodji C, et al. Parks and physical activity: Why are some parks used more than others? Prev Med. 2010; 50:S9–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.020 PMID: 19850067
48. Lutzenhiser M, Netusil NR. The effect of open spaces on a home’s sale price. Contemp Econ Policy. 2001; 19(3):291–8.
49. Samuelsson K, Giusti M, Peterson GD, Legeby A, Brandt SA, Barthel S. Impact of environment on people’s everyday experiences in Stockholm. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018; 171:7–17.
50. Kimpton A. A spatial analytic approach for classifying greenspace and comparing greenspace social equity. Appl Geogr. 2017; 82:129–42.
51. Hansen R, Pauleit S. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. AMBIO. 2014; 43(4):516–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2 PMID: 24740622