Changes in urban green spaces’ value perception: A meta-analytic benefit transfer function for European cities

Land Use Policy

Volumn 101, Issue , 2021, Pages

  Diluiso, Francesca ^a,b   Guastella, Gianni ^a,c   Pareglio, Stefano ^a,c  

^a FONDAZIONE ENI ENRICO MATTEI   (Italy)

^b MERCATOR RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON GLOBAL COMMONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Benefit transfer; Contingent valuation; Geospatial variables; Meta regression; Urban green spaces.

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; GREENSPACE; META-ANALYSIS; PERCEPTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; URBAN AREA; URBAN DEVELOPMENT;

EUROPE;

EID: 85094610136     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105116     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ahlfeldt, G., Pietrostefani, E., The Effects of Compact Urban Form: A Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence Review. 2017, The Coalition for Urban Transitions, Washington DC, USA, and London, UK.
2. Andrews, B., Ferrini, S., Bateman, I., Good parks-bad parks: The influence of perceptions of location on WTP and preference motives for urban parks?. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 6:2 (2017), 204–224.
3. Bateman, I.J., Jones, A.P., Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values?. Land Econ. 79:2 (2003), 235–258.
4. Bernath, K., Roschewitz, A., Recreational benefits of urban forests: explaining visitors’ willingness to pay in the context of the theory of planned behavior?. J. Environ. Manag. 89:3 (2008), 155–166.
5. Bishop, K., Assessing the benefits of community forests: an evaluation of the recreational use benefits of two urban fringe woodlands?. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 35:1 (1992), 63–76.
6. Boyle, K.J., Parmeter, C.F., Boehlert, B.B., Paterson, R.W., Due diligence in meta-analyses to support benefit transfers?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 55:3 (2013), 357–386.
7. Brander, L.M., Beukering, P.V., Cesar, H.S., The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 63:1 (2007), 209–218.
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. Brouwer, R., Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., Turner, R.K., A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies?. Reg. Environ. Change 1:1 (1999), 47–57.
10. Chen, W.Y., Aertsens, J., Liekens, I., Broekx, S., De Nocker, L., Impact of perceived importance of ecosystem services and stated financial constraints on willingness to pay for riparian meadow restoration in Flanders (Belgium)?. Environ. Manag. 54:2 (2014), 346–359.
11. Cook, D., Eiríksdóttir, K., Davíðsdóttir, B., Kristófersson, D.M., The contingent valuation study of Heiðmörk, Iceland-Willingness to pay for its preservation. J. Environ. Manag. 209 (2018), 126–138.
12. Damigos, D., Kaliampakos, D., Assessing the benefits of reclaiming urban quarries: a cvm analysis?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 64:4 (2003), 249–258.
13. De Salvo, M., Signorello, G., Non-market valuation of recreational services in Italy: a meta-analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 47–62.
14. del Saz-Salazar, S., Ménendez, L.G., Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: does proximity matter?. Land Use Policy 24:1 (2007), 296–305.
15. del Saz-Salazar, S., Rausell-Köster, P., A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: dealing with zero responses?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 84:3–4 (2008), 241–251.
16. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Bhave, A., Mittal, N., Feliu, E., Faehnle, M., Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 146 (2014), 107–115.
17. Derkzen, M.L., van Teeffelen, A.J., Verburg, P.H., Green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation: how do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157 (2017), 106–130.
18. EEA-FOEN, Urban Sprawl in Europe: Joint EEA-FOEN Report., 2016, Publications Office, Luxembourg OCLC: 960401657.
19. Fitzpatrick, L., Parmeter, C.F., Agar, J., Threshold effects in meta-analyses with application to benefit transfer for coral reef valuation. Ecol. Econ. 133 (2017), 74–85.
20. GA, U., Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015.
21. Garrod, G., Pickering, A., Willis, K., The economic value of botanic gardens: a recreational perspective?. Geoforum 24:2 (1993), 215–224.
22. Geneletti, D., Zardo, L., Cortinovis, C., Promoting nature-based solutions for climate adaptation in cities through impact assessment. Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment, 2016, 428–452.
23. Grilli, G., Paletto, A., De Meo, I., Economic valuation of forest recreation in an Alpine valley?. Balt. For. 20:1 (2014), 167–175.
24. Haase, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Elmqvist, T., Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: practical applications and governance implications?. Ambio 43:4 (2014), 407–412.
25. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:4 (2014), 413–433.
26. Hanley, N., Knight, J., Valuing the environment: recent UK experience and an application to green belt land?. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 35:2 (1992), 145–160.
27. Henderson, D.J., Kumbhakar, S.C., Parmeter, C.F., A simple method to visualize results in nonlinear regression models. Econ. Lett. 117:3 (2012), 578–581.
28. Hölzinger, O., van der Horst, D., Sadler, J., et al. City-wide ecosystem assessments-lessons from Birmingham. Ecosyst. Serv. 9 (2014), 98–105.
29. Johnson, M.P., Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda?. Environ. Plan. A: Econ. Space 33:4 (2001), 717–735.
30. Johnston, R.J., Besedin, E.Y., Stapler, R., Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 68:2 (2017), 343–375.
31. Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R., Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values, vol. 14, 2015, Springer.
32. Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Zawojska, E., et al. Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: progress, prospects and challenges. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 12:2–3 (2018), 177–266.
33. Latinopoulos, D., Mallios, Z., Latinopoulos, P., Valuing the benefits of an urban park project: a contingent valuation study in Thessaloniki, Greece. Land Use Policy 55 (2016), 130–141.
34. Lindhjem, H., 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis?. J. Forest Econ. 12:4 (2007), 251–277.
35. Londoño, L.M., Johnston, R.J., Enhancing the reliability of benefit transfer over heterogeneous sites: a meta-analysis of international coral reef values. Ecol. Econ. 78 (2012), 80–89.
36. López-Mosquera, N., Sánchez, M., Cognitive and affective determinants of satisfaction, willingness to pay, and loyalty in suburban parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 13:2 (2014), 375–384.
37. Luederitz, C., Brink, E., Gralla, F., Hermelingmeier, V., Meyer, M., Niven, L., Panzer, L., Partelow, S., Rau, A.-L., Sasaki, R., et al. A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosyst. Serv. 14 (2015), 98–112.
38. Luke, D.A., Multilevel Modeling, vol. 143, 2019, SAGE Publications Incorporated.
39. Maes, J., Zulian, G., Thijssen, M., Castell, C., Bar, F., Ferreira, A.M., Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services: Urban Ecosystems. 4th Report. Directorate-General for the Environment., 2016, Publications Office, Luxembourg.
40. Maxwell, S., Valuation of rural environmental improvements using contingent valuation methodology: a case study of the Marston vale community forest project?. J. Environ. Manag. 41:4 (1994), 385–399.
41. Perino, G., Andrews, B., Kontoleon, A., Bateman, I., The value of urban green space in Britain: a methodological framework for spatially referenced benefit transfer?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 57:2 (2014), 251–272.
42. Quintas-Soriano, C., Martín-López, B., Santos-Martín, F., Loureiro, M., Montes, C., Benayas, J., García-Llorente, M., Ecosystem services values in Spain: a meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 55 (2016), 186–195.
43. Rall, L., Niemela, J., Pauleit, S., Pintar, M., Lafortezza, R., Santos, A., Strohbach, M., Vierikko, K., Železnikar, Š., A Typology of Urban Green Spaces, Eco-System Services Provisioning Services and Demands., 2015 Report D3, 1.
44. Rupérez-Moreno, C., Pérez-Sánchez, J., Senent-Aparicio, J., del Pilar Flores-Asenjo, M., The economic value of conjoint local management in water resources: results from a contingent valuation in the Boquerón aquifer (Albacete, SE Spain). Sci. Tot. Environ. 532 (2015), 255–264.
45. Sarvilinna, A., Lehtoranta, V., Hjerppe, T., Are urban stream restoration plans worth implementing?. Environ. Manag. 59:1 (2017), 10–20.
46. Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W.G., Chilton, S.M., Buongiorno, J., Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation study of Irish forests?. Forest Policy Econ. 1:3–4 (2000), 315–329.
47. Sirina, N., Hua, A., Gobert, J., What factors influence the value of an urban park within a medium-sized French conurbation?. Urban For. Urban Green. 24 (2017), 45–54.
48. Tyrväinen, L., Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland?. J. Environ. Manag. 62:1 (2001), 75–92.
49. Tyrväinen, L., Väänänen, H., The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 43:1–3 (1998), 105–118.
50. Verbič, M., Slabe-Erker, R., Klun, M., Contingent valuation of urban public space: a case study of Ljubljanica riverbanks. Land Use Policy 56 (2016), 58–67.
51. Verlicchi, P., Al Aukidy, M., Galletti, A., Zambello, E., Zanni, G., Masotti, L., A project of reuse of reclaimed wastewater in the Po Valley, Italy: polishing sequence and cost benefit analysis. J. Hydrol. 432 (2012), 127–136.
52. Wilker, J., Gruehn, D., The potential of contingent valuation for planning practice? The example of Dortmund Westpark. Raumforsch. Raumordn. – Spat. Res. Plan. 75:2 (2017), 171–185.
53. Willis, K., Pricing public parks?. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 46:1 (2003), 3–17.
54. Willis, K.G., Whitby, M.C., The value of green belt land?. J. Rural Stud. 1:2 (1985), 147–162.
55. Zandersen, M., Tol, R.S., A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe?. J. Forest Econ. 15:1–2 (2009), 109–130.