Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices

Ecological Economics

Volumn 166, Issue , 2019, Pages

  Daams, Michiel N ^a   Sijtsma, Frans J ^a   Veneri, Paolo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b OECD   (France)

Author keywords

DBSCAN Clustering; Functional Urban Areas; Hedonic Model; House Prices; Online Value Mapping; Urban Green Space

Indexed keywords

AGGLOMERATION; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CURRENCY DEVALUATION; GREENSPACE; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; HOUSING MARKET; INTEGRATED APPROACH; SURVEY METHOD; URBAN AREA; URBAN ECONOMY;

AMSTERDAM [NORTH HOLLAND]; NETHERLANDS; NORTH HOLLAND;

EID: 85071326608     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106430     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abbott, J.K., Klaiber, H.A., An embarrassment of riches: confronting omitted variable bias and multi-scale capitalization in hedonic price models. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93:4 (2011), 1331–1342.
2. Admiraal, J.F., Wossink, A., de Groot, W.T., De Snoo, G.R., More than total economic value: how to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience. Ecol. Econ. 89 (2013), 115–122.
3. Anderson, S.T., West, S.E., Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 36:6 (2006), 773–789.
4. Anderson, T.K., Kernel density estimation and K-means clustering to profile road accident hotspots. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41:3 (2009), 359–364.
5. Anselin, L., Le Gallo, J., Interpolation of air quality measures in hedonic house price models: spatial aspects. Spat. Econ. Anal. 1:1 (2006), 31–52.
6. Bijker, R.A., Sijtsma, F.J., A portfolio of natural places: using a participatory GIS tool to compare the appreciation and use of green spaces inside and outside urban areas by urban residents. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158 (2017), 155–165.
7. Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29:2 (1999), 293–301.
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. 92:10 (2011), 2763–2773.
9. Brown, G., Fagerholm, N., Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 13 (2015), 119–133.
10. Brown, G., Kyttä, M., Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. Appl. Geogr. 46 (2014), 122–136.
11. Conway, D., Li, C.Q., Wolch, J., Kahle, C., Jerrett, M., A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 41:2 (2010), 150–169.
12. Czembrowski, P., Kronenberg, J., Czepkiewicz, M., Integrating non-monetary and monetary valuation methods–SoftGIS and hedonic pricing. Ecol. Econ. 130 (2016), 166–175.
13. Czembrowski, P., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kronenberg, J., Engström, G., Andersson, E., Valuing individual characteristics and the multifunctionality of urban green spaces: the integration of sociotope mapping and hedonic pricing. PLoS One, 14(3), 2019.
14. Daams, M.N., Sijtsma, F.J., How green do we want to live in 2100? Lessons learned from the homes of the present-day rich. Buildings, 7(4), 2017, 97.
15. Daams, M.N., Veneri, P., Living near to attractive nature? A well-being indicator for ranking Dutch, Danish, and German functional urban areas. Soc. Indic. Res. 133:2 (2017), 501–526.
16. Daams, M.N., Sijtsma, F.J., Van der Vlist, A.J., The effect of natural space on nearby property prices: accounting for perceived attractiveness. Land Econ. 92:3 (2016), 389–410.
17. Daniel, T.C., Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54:1 (2001), 267–281.
18. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M., Grêt-Regamey, A., Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109:23 (2012), 8812–8819.
19. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41:3 (2002), 393–408.
20. De Roo, G., Environmental conflicts in compact cities: complexity, decision making, and policy approaches. Environ. Plann. B. Plann. Des. 27:1 (2000), 151–162.
21. De Vries, S., Buijs, A.E., Langers, F., Farjon, H., van Hinsberg, A., Sijtsma, F.J., Measuring the attractiveness of Dutch landscapes: identifying national hotspots of highly valued places using Google maps. Appl. Geogr. 45 (2013), 220–229.
22. Earnhart, D., Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Econ. 77:1 (2001), 12–29.
23. Ester, M., Kriegel, H.P., Sander, J., Xu, X., A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Kdd 96:34 (1996), 226–231.
24. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv. 141:5 (2008), 1167–1169.
25. Gibbons, S., Overman, H.G., Mostly pointless spatial econometrics?. J. Reg. Sci. 52:2 (2012), 172–191.
26. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 235–245.
27. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Pérez, M., Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35:5 (2011), 613–628.
28. Graves, P.E., Migration with a composite amenity: the role of rents. J. Reg. Sci. 23 (1983), 541–546.
29. Guo, X., Zheng, S., Geltner, D., Liu, H., A new approach for constructing home price indices: the pseudo repeat sales model and its application in China. J. Hous. Econ. 25 (2014), 20–38.
30. Halvorsen, R., Palmquist, R., The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Am. Econ. Rev. 70:3 (1980), 474–475.
31. Heckert, M., Mennis, J., The economic impact of greening urban vacant land: a spatial difference-in-differences analysis. Environ. Plan. A 44:12 (2012), 3010–3027.
32. Heintzelman, M.D., Tuttle, C.M., Values in the wind: a hedonic analysis of wind power facilities. Land Econ. 88:3 (2012), 571–588.
33. Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). J. Environ. Manag. 88:4 (2008), 665–676.
34. Kadaster, Kwartaalbericht agrarische grondmarkt. Retrieved from https://www.kadaster.nl/kwartaalbericht-2018-3/, 2018.
35. Kulczyk, S., Woźniak, E., Derek, M., Landscape, facilities and visitors: an integrated model of recreational ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 31 (2018), 491–501.
36. 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. 60:3 (2010), 145–160.
37. Lancaster, K.J., A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74:2 (1966), 132–157.
38. Lazrak, F., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., Rouwendal, J., The market value of cultural heritage in urban areas: an application of spatial hedonic pricing. J. Geogr. Syst. 16:1 (2014), 89–114.
39. Liebelt, V., Bartke, S., Schwarz, N., Revealing preferences for urban green spaces: a scale-sensitive hedonic pricing analysis for the city of Leipzig. Ecol. Econ. 146 (2018), 536–548.
40. Livy, M.R., Klaiber, H.A., Maintaining public goods: the capitalized value of local park renovations. Land Econ. 92:1 (2016), 96–116.
41. Mace, G.M., Norris, K., Fitter, A.H., Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:1 (2012), 19–26.
42. McConnell, V., Walls, M.A., The Value of Open Space: Evidence From Studies of Nonmarket Benefits. 2005, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
43. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being. 2005, World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
44. Mummolo, J., Peterson, E., Improving the interpretation of fixed effects regression results. Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 6:4 (2018), 1–7.
45. Netusil, N.R., Chattopadhyay, S., Kovacs, K.F., Estimating the demand for tree canopy: a second-stage hedonic price analysis in Portland, Oregon. Land Econ. 86:2 (2010), 281–293.
46. Norgaard, R.B., Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69:6 (2010), 1219–1227.
47. OECD, Redefining ‘Urban’: A New Way to Measure Metropolitan Areas. 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris.
48. OECD, The Governance of Land Use in OECD Countries: Policy Analysis and Recommendations. 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris.
49. Palmquist, Raymond B., Property value models. Göran-Mähler, Karl, Vincent, Jeffrey R., (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Economics, vol. 2, 2005, North Holland, Amsterdam, 763–819.
50. Panduro, T.E., Veie, K.L., Classification and valuation of urban green spaces: a hedonic house price valuation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 120 (2013), 119–128.
51. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Maris, V., Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26 (2017), 7–16.
52. Pendleton, L.H., Shonkwiler, J.S., Valuing bundled attributes: a latent characteristics approach. Land Econ. 77:1 (2001), 118–129.
53. Roebeling, P., Saraiva, M., Palla, A., Gnecco, I., Teotónio, C., Fidelis, T., Rocha, J., Assessing the socio-economic impacts of green/blue space, urban residential and road infrastructure projects in the Confluence (Lyon): A hedonic pricing simulation approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 60:3 (2016), 482–499.
54. Rosen, S., Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ. 82:1 (1974), 34–55.
55. Rousseeuw, P.J., Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20 (1987), 53–65.
56. Schläpfer, F., Waltert, F., Segura, L., Kienast, F., Valuation of landscape amenities: a hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 141 (2015), 24–40.
57. Scholte, S.S., Van Teeffelen, A.J., Verburg, P.H., Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 114 (2015), 67–78.
58. Scholte, S.S., Daams, M., Farjon, H., Sijtsma, F.J., van Teeffelen, A.J., Verburg, P.H., Mapping recreation as an ecosystem service: considering scale, interregional differences and the influence of physical attributes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 175 (2018), 149–160.
59. Schwartz, A.E., Ellen, I.G., Voicu, I., Schill, M.H., The external effects of place-based subsidized housing. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 36:6 (2006), 679–707.
60. Sijtsma, F.J., Van der Heide, C.M., Van Hinsberg, A., Beyond monetary measurement: how to evaluate projects and policies using the ecosystem services framework. Environ. Sci. Pol. 32 (2013), 14–25.
61. Sijtsma, F.J., Mehnen, N., Angelstam, P., Muñoz-Rojas, J., Multi-scale mapping of cultural ecosystem services in a socio-ecological landscape: a case study of the international Wadden Sea region. Landsc. Ecol., 2019, 10.1007/s10980-019-00841-8.
62. Spahn, C., Herrmannsdörfer, F., Kuner, T., Heilemann, M., Temporal accumulation analysis provides simplified artifact-free analysis of membrane-protein nanoclusters. Nat. Methods 13:12 (2016), 963–964.
63. Taskesen, E., Huisman, S.M., Mahfouz, A., Krijthe, J.H., De Ridder, J., Van De Stolpe, A., Reinders, M.J., Pan-cancer subtyping in a 2D-map shows substructures that are driven by specific combinations of molecular characteristics. Nat. Sci. Rep., 6, 2016, 24949.
64. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. 2010, Earthscan, London.
65. Von Graevenitz, K., Panduro, T.E., An alternative to the standard spatial econometric approaches in hedonic house price models. Land Econ. 91:2 (2015), 386–409.
66. Waltert, F., Schläpfer, F., Landscape amenities and local development: a review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecol. Econ. 70:2 (2010), 141–152.
67. Xiao, Y., Li, Z., Webster, C., Estimating the mediating effect of privately-supplied green space on the relationship between urban public green space and property value: evidence from Shanghai, China. Land Use Policy 54 (2016), 439–447.