Urban Green infrastructures: How much did they affect property prices in Singapore?

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 68, Issue , 2022, Pages

  Dell'Anna, Federico ^a   Bravi, Marina ^a   Bottero, Marta ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI TORINO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Geographically weighted regression (GWR); Hedonic pricing method (HPM); Spatial auto regressive model (SAR); Spatial auto regressive with auto regressive disturbance (SARAR); Spatial error model (SEM); Urban ecosystem services (UESs); Urban Green infrastructures (UGIs)

Indexed keywords

AMENITY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GIS; INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT; PRICE DYNAMICS; PROPERTY MARKET; PUBLIC SPACE; STRATEGIC APPROACH; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL; UNITED NATIONS; URBAN AREA;

SINGAPORE [SOUTHEAST ASIA];

EID: 85123110337     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127475     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Addae-Dapaah, K., Chieh, S.J., Green Mark Certification: Does the Market Understand?. Int. J. Sustain. Real Estate Constr. Econ. 3 (2011), 162–191.
2. Anselin, L., A test for spatial autocorrelation in seemingly unrelated regressions. Econ. Lett. 28 (1988), 335–341, 10.1016/0165-1765(88)90009-2.
3. Anselin, L., Gallo, J..Le, Jayet, H., Spatial Panel Econometrics, in: The Econometrics of Panel Data. Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics., 2008, 625–660, 10.1007/978-3-540-75892-1_19.
4. Assumma, V., Datola, G., Mondini, G., New Cohesion Policy 2021–2027: The Role of Indicators in the Assessment of the SDGs Targets Performance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2021, 614–625 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87007-2_44.
5. Barrio, M., Loureiro, M.L., A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1023–1030, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.016.
6. Belcher, R.N., Chisholm, R.A., Tropical vegetation and residential property value: a hedonic pricing analysis in Singapore. Ecol. Econ. 149 (2018), 149–159, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.012.
7. Belcher, R.N., Suen, E., Menz, S., Schroepfer, T., Shared landscapes increase condominium unit selling price in a high-density city. Landsc. Urban Plan., 192, 2019, 103644, 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2019.103644.
8. Blečić, I., Saiu, V., Assessing Urban Green Spaces Availability: A Comparison Between Planning Standards and a High-Fidelity Accessibility Evaluation. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 146 (2021), 339–347 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68824-0_37.
9. Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29 (1999), 293–301, 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
10. Borgoni, R., Michelangeli, A., Pontarollo, N., The value of culture to urban housing markets. Reg. Stud. 52 (2018), 1672–1683, 10.1080/00343404.2018.1444271.
11. Bronnmann, J., Liebelt, V., Marder, F., Meya, J., Quaas, M.F., The value of naturalness of urban green spaces: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Ssrn Electron. J., 2021, 10.2139/ssrn.3721942.
12. Cao, Y., Swallow, B., Qiu, F., Identifying the effects of a land-use policy on willingness to pay for open space using an endogenous switching regression model. Land Use Policy, 102, 2021, 105183, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105183.
13. 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.
14. Caprioli, C., Bottero, M., Mondini, G., Urban ecosystem services: a review of definitions and classifications for the identification of future research perspectives, in: lecture notes in computer science (Including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). Cagliari, 2020, 332–344, 10.1007/978-3-030-58814-4_23.
15. Caprioli, C., Bottero, M., Zanetta, E., Mondini, G., Ecosystem services in land-use planning: an application for assessing transformation scenarios at the local scale. Bevilacqua, C., Al, E., (eds.) Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies., 2021, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 1332–1341.
16. Caprioli, C., Oppio, A., Baldassarre, R., Grassi, R., Dell'Ovo, M., A Multidimensional Assessment of Ecosystem Services: From Grey to Green Infrastructure. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2021, 569–581 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87007-2_41.
17. Chan, L., Hillel, O., Elmqvist, T., Werner, P., Holman, N., Mader, A., Calcaterra, E., User's Manual on the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (also Known As the City Biodiversity Index). Singapore, 2014.
18. Chen, X., Shao, Y., Trade policies for a small open economy: the case of Singapore. World Econ. 40 (2017), 2500–2511, 10.1111/twec.12555.
19. Chen, Y., Yue, W., La Rosa, D., Which communities have better accessibility to green space? An investigation into environmental inequality using big data. Landsc. Urban Plan., 204, 2020, 103919, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103919.
20. Costanza, R., D'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (1997), 253–260, 10.1038/387253a0.
21. Croci, E., Lucchitta, B., Penati, T., Valuing ecosystem services at the urban level: a critical review. Sustainability 13 (2021), 1–16.
22. 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. 20 (2016), 89–96, 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.010.
23. Daams, M.N., Sijtsma, F.J., Veneri, P., Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: a case study using Amsterdam house prices. Ecol. Econ., 166, 2019, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106430.
24. D'Alpaos, C., D'Alpaos, A., The valuation of ecosystem services in the venice lagoon: A multicriteria approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179485.
25. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41 (2002), 393–408, 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
26. De Guimarães, J.C.F., Severo, E.A., Felix Júnior, L.A., Da Costa, W.P.L.B., Salmoria, F.T., Governance and quality of life in smart cities: towards sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod., 253, 2020, 119926, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119926.
27. del Saz Salazar, S., García Menéndez, L., Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter?. Land Use Policy 24 (2007), 296–305, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011.
28. Dell'Anna, F., Bottero, M., Green premium in buildings: evidence from the real estate market of Singapore. J. Clean. Prod., 286, 2021, 125327, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125327.
29. Deng, Y., Wu, J., Economic returns to residential green building investment: The developers’ perspective. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 47 (2014), 35–44, 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.09.015.
30. Dell'Anna, F., Bottero, M., Bravi, M., Geographically Weighted Regression Models to Investigate Urban Infrastructures Impacts, in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2021, Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 599–613 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87007-2_43.
31. Deng, Y., Li, Z., Quigley, J.M., Economic returns to energy-efficient investments in the housing market: evidence from Singapore. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 42 (2012), 506–515, 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.04.004.
32. Diluiso, F., Guastella, G., Pareglio, S., Changes in urban green spaces’ value perception: a meta-analytic benefit transfer function for European cities. Land Use Policy, 101, 2021, 105116, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105116.
33. Edwards, P., Zuzana, D., Richards, D.R., Fung, T.K., Song, X.P., Leong, R.A.T., Gaw, L.Y.F., Yee, A.T.K., Quazi, S.A., Ghosh, S., Chua, K.W.J., Ecosystem Services in Urban Landscapes. 2020, Singapore-ETH Centre, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore.
34. European Commission, Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 - Concrete Actions. [WWW Document]. URL https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_it (accessed 5.14.21), 2020.
35. Franco, S.F., Macdonald, J.L., Measurement and valuation of urban greenness: Remote sensing and hedonic applications to Lisbon. Portugal. Regional Science and Urban Economics 72 (2018), 156–180, 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2017.03.002.
36. Friess, D.A., Singapore as a long-term case study for tropical urban ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst. 20 (2017), 277–291, 10.1007/s11252-016-0592-7.
37. Garrod, G., Willis, K.G., Economic Valuation of the Environment : Methods and Case Studies. 1999, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
38. Gaw, L.Y.F., Yee, A.T.K., Richards, D.R., A high-resolution map of Singapore's terrestrial ecosystems. Data, 4, 2019, 10.3390/data4030116.
39. Gómez-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.
40. Gratani, L., Varone, L., Bonito, A., Carbon sequestration of four urban parks in Rome. Urban For. Urban Green. 19 (2016), 184–193, 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.007.
41. Harris, P., Fotheringham, A.S., Crespo, R., Charlton, M., The use of geographically weighted regression for spatial prediction: an evaluation of models using simulated data sets. Math. Geosci. 2010:42 (2010), 657–680, 10.1007/S11004-010-9284-7 6 42.
42. Henderson, J.C., Urban parks and green spaces in Singapore. Manag. Leis. 18 (2013), 213–225, 10.1080/13606719.2013.796181.
43. Hu, T., Chang, J., Syrbe, R.-U., Green Infrastructure Planning in Germany and China: a comparative approach to green space policy and planning structure. Research in Urbanism Series 6 (2020), 99–126, 10.7480/rius.6.96.
44. Hwang, Y.H., Yue, Z.E.J., Ling, S.K., Tan, H.H.V., It's ok to be wilder: preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban For. Urban Green. 38 (2019), 165–176, 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.005.
45. Ibrahim, M.F., Improvements and integration of a public transport system: the case of Singapore. Cities 20 (2003), 205–216, 10.1016/S0264-2751(03)00014-3.
46. Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development, A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Growth. Singapore, 2009.
47. Jasmani, Z., Ravn, H.P., van den Bosch, C.C.K., The influence of small urban parks characteristics on bird diversity: a case study of Petaling Jaya, malaysia. Urban Ecosyst. 20 (2017), 227–243, 10.1007/s11252-016-0584-7.
48. Jaung, W., Carrasco, L.R., Travel cost analysis of an urban protected area and parks in Singapore: a mobile phone data application. J. Environ. Manage., 261, 2020, 110238, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110238.
49. Jensen, C.U., Panduro, T.E., Lundhede, T.H., von Graevenitz, K., Thorsen, B.J., Who demands peri-urban nature? A second stage hedonic house price estimation of household's preference for peri-urban nature. Landsc. Urban Plan., 207, 2021, 104016, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.104016.
50. 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.
51. Khan, I., Hou, F., Le, H.P., The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: fresh evidence from the United States of America. Sci. Total Environ., 754, 2021, 142222, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142222.
52. 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.
53. Konijnendijk, C.C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, Anders Busse, Copenhagen, A., Maruthaveeran, S., Nielsen, Anders B., Benefits of Urban Parks a Systematic Review a Report for IFPRA., 2013.
54. Larondelle, N., Haase, D., Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecol. Indic., 2013, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.022.
55. LeSage, J.P., An introduction to spatial econometrics. Revue d’économie industrielle, 2008, 19–44, 10.4000/rei.3887.
56. LeSage, J., Pace, R.K., Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. 2009, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 10.1201/9781420064254.
57. Liberalesso, T., Oliveira Cruz, C., Matos Silva, C., Manso, M., Green infrastructure and public policies: an international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy, 96, 2020, 104693, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104693.
58. Liebelt, V., Bartke, S., Schwarz, N., Urban green spaces and housing prices: an alternative perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11, 2019, 10.3390/su11133707.
59. Lourdes, K.T., Gibbins, C.N., Hamel, P., Sanusi, R., Azhar, B., Lechner, A.M., A review of urban ecosystem services research in Southeast Asia. Land, 2021(10), 2021, 10.3390/LAND10010040 Page 40 10, 40.
60. Lovell, S.T., Taylor, J.R., Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 28 (2013), 1447–1463, 10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y.
61. Manganelli, B., Pontrandolfi, P., Azzato, A., Murgante, B., Using geographically weighted regression for housing market segmentation. Int. J. Bus. Intell. Data Min. 9 (2014), 161–177, 10.1504/IJBIDM.2014.065100.
62. Mäntymaa, E., Jokinen, M., Juutinen, A., Lankia, T., Louhi, P., Providing ecological, cultural and commercial services in an urban park: a travel cost–contingent behavior application in Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan., 209, 2021, 104042, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104042.
63. Marisha, S., Sunarya, S., Yustiana, Y., Economic valuation on carbon sequestration and carbon stocks at green open space based on cost of illness. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 528, 2020, 012035, 10.1088/1755-1315/528/1/012035.
64. Massimo, D.E., Del Giudice, V., De Paola, P., Forte, F., Musolino, M., Malerba, A., Geographically weighted regression for the post carbon city and real estate market analysis: A case study. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 100 (2019), 142–149 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92099-3_17.
65. MEA, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. 2005, Island Press, 10.1007/BF02987493.
66. Mei, Y., Zhao, X., Lin, L., Gao, L., Capitalization of urban green vegetation in a housing market with poor environmental quality: evidence from Beijing. J. Urban Plan. Dev., 144, 2018, 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000458.
67. Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Príncipe, A., Anjos, A., Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Santos-Reis, M., Correia, O., Branquinho, C., Pinho, P., Ecosystem services: urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environ. Res. 160 (2018), 469–478, 10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023.
68. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, The Singapore Green Plan 2012. 2006.
69. Murty, M.N., Gulati, S.C., A Generalized Method of Hedonic prices : Measuring Benefits from Reduced Urban Air Pollution * Contact Address of authors : Institute of Economic Growth. Geography, 2004, 1–22.
70. National Parks Board, Nature Park Network - Gardens, Parks & Nature - National Parks Board (NParks). [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/nature-park-network (accessed 3.31.21), 2020.
71. Nghiem, L.T.P., Zhang, Y., Oh, R.R.Y., Chang, Cchen, Tan, C.L.Y., Shannahan, D.F., Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., Fuller, R.A., Carrasco, L.R., Equity in green and blue spaces availability in Singapore. Landsc. Urban Plan., 210, 2021, 104083, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104083.
72. Nur, N.S., Abdul-Rahim, A.S., Mohd Yusof, M.J., Tanaka, K., Assessing the economic value of urban green spaces in Kuala Lumpur. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. - Int. 27 (2020), 10367–10390, 10.1007/s11356-019-07593-7.
73. Oshan, T., Li, Z., Kang, W., Wolf, L., Fotheringham, A., Mgwr: a Python implementation of multiscale geographically weighted regression for investigating process spatial heterogeneity and scale. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf., 8, 2019, 269, 10.3390/ijgi8060269.
74. Paelinck, J.H.P., Klaasen, L.H., Spatial Econometrics. 1979, Saxon House, Farnborough.
75. Parthum, B., Pindilli, E., Hogan, D., Benefits of the fire mitigation ecosystem service in the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia. USA. Journal of Environmental Management 203 (2017), 375–382, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.018.
76. Phang, S.-Y., House prices and aggregate consumption: do they move together? Evidence from Singapore. J. Hous. Econ. 13 (2004), 101–119, 10.1016/j.jhe.2004.04.003.
77. Phang, S.Y., Wong, W.K., Government policies and private housing prices in Singapore. Urban Stud. 34 (1997), 1819–1829, 10.1080/0042098975268.
78. Richards, D.R., Belcher, R.N., Global changes in urban vegetation cover. Remote Sens., 12, 2020, 23, 10.3390/RS12010023.
79. Richards, D.R., Law, A., Tan, C.S.Y., Shaikh, S.F.E.A., Carrasco, L.R., Jaung, W., Oh, R.R.Y., Rapid urbanisation in Singapore causes a shift from local provisioning and regulating to cultural ecosystem services use. Ecosyst. Serv., 46, 2020, 101193, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101193.
80. Richardson, L., Loomis, J., Kroeger, T., Casey, F., The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 51–58, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.018.
81. Rolfe, J., Johnston, R.J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R., Introduction: Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. 2015, 3–17, 10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_1.
82. Rosen, S., Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ. 82 (1974), 34–55, 10.1086/260169.
83. Rossitti, M., Oppio, A., Torrieri, F., The Financial Sustainability of Cultural Heritage Reuse Projects: An Integrated Approach for the Historical Rural Landscape. Sustainability, 13, 2021, 13130 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313130.
84. Saavedra, L.A., Tests for spatial lag dependence based on method of moments estimation. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 33 (2003), 27–58, 10.1016/S0166-0462(01)00106-5.
85. Sabyrbekov, R., Dallimer, M., Navrud, S., Nature affinity and willingness to pay for urban green spaces in a developing country. Landsc. Urban Plan., 194, 2020, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103700.
86. Sadahisa, K., Green infrastructure for Asian cities: the spatial concepts and planning strategies. Journal of the 2011 International Symposium on City Planning 2011, 2011, 161–170.
87. 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.
88. Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, A.M., Sutton-Grier, A., Lubchenco, J., Nature as capital: advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 (2015), 7383–7389, 10.1073/pnas.1420500112.
89. Shen, Z., Fitriaty, P., Overview: Green City Planning and Practices in Asian Cities. 2018, Springer, Cham, 1–16, 10.1007/978-3-319-70025-0_1.
90. Sieber, J., Pons, M., Assessment of urban ecosystem services using ecosystem services reviews and GIS-based tools. in: Procedia Engineering, 2015, 53–60, 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.07.354.
91. Sing, T.F., Tsai, I.C., Chen, M.C., Price dynamics in public and private housing markets in Singapore. J. Hous. Econ. 15 (2006), 305–320, 10.1016/j.jhe.2006.09.006.
92. Sini, R., Urban Green provision and constructions of nation: Western and Eastern policies. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, 2020, Springer, 9–36, 10.1007/978-981-13-6746-5_2.
93. Stata Corp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. 2019, StataCorp LLC, College Station.
94. Swarno, H.A., Mohamad, A.F., Ahmad, N.H., Ismail, S., Amat, R.C., Wahab, M.H., Rani, W.N.M.W.M., Preliminary study on the wind flow simulation over a biophilic city. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences 77 (2021), 172–179, 10.37934/ARFMTS.77.1.172179.
95. 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.
96. TEEB, Mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synsthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Environment., 2010.
97. Tempesta, T., Benefits and costs of urban parks: a review. Aestimum 67 (2015), 127–143, 10.13128/Aestimum-17943.
98. Tian, T., Sun, L., Peng, S., Sun, F., Che, Y., Understanding the process from perception to cultural ecosystem services assessment by comparing valuation methods. Urban For. Urban Green., 2021, 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126945.
99. Tran, Y..Le, Siry, J.P., Bowker, J.M., Poudyal, N.C., Atlanta households’ willingness to increase urban forests to mitigate climate change. Urban For. Urban Green. 22 (2017), 84–92, 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.003.
100. Tyrväinen, 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.
101. Tyrväinen, L., Miettinen, A., Property prices and urban forest amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 39 (2000), 205–223, 10.1006/jeem.1999.1097.
102. United Nations, Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [WWW Document]. URL https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf (accessed 11.24.20), 2015.
103. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P.D, The World's Cities in 2018—Data Booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/417). 2018, United Nations.
104. URA, Welcome to REALIS [WWW Document]. URL https://spring.ura.gov.sg/lad/ore/login/index.cfm (accessed 1.13.20), 2017.
105. 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, 10.3368/le.91.2.386.
106. Votsis, A., Planning for green infrastructure: the spatial effects of parks, forests, and fields on Helsinki's apartment prices. Ecol. Econ. 132 (2017), 279–289, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.029.
107. Wang, C.H., Chen, N., A geographically weighted regression approach to investigating local built-environment effects on home prices in the housing downturn, recovery, and subsequent increases. J. Hous. Built Environ. 35 (2020), 1283–1302, 10.1007/s10901-020-09742-8.
108. Wen, C., Albert, C., Von Haaren, C., Equality in access to urban green spaces: A case study in Hannover, Germany, with a focus on the elderly population. Urban For. Urban Green., 55, 2020, 126820, 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126820.
109. Wilhelmsson, M., Spatial models in real estate economics. Hous. Theory Soc. 19 (2002), 92–101, 10.1080/140360902760385646.
110. Won Kim, C., Phipps, T.T., Anselin, L., Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45 (2003), 24–39, 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00013-X.
111. Wright, W.C.C., Eppink, F.V., Drivers of heritage value: a meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage. Ecol. Econ. 130 (2016), 277–284, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.001.
112. Wu, F., Adding new narratives to the urban imagination: an introduction to ‘New directions of urban studies in China.’. Urban Stud. 57 (2020), 459–472, 10.1177/0042098019898137.
113. Xiao, Y., Lu, Y., Guo, Y., Yuan, Y., Estimating the willingness to pay for green space services in Shanghai: implications for social equity in urban China. Urban For. Urban Green. 26 (2017), 95–103, 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.007.
114. 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.
115. Zhang, L., Tan, P.Y., Associations between urban green spaces and health are dependent on the analytical scale and how urban green spaces are measured. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 16, 2019, 578, 10.3390/ijerph16040578.
116. Zou, Y., Air pollution and housing prices across chinese cities. J. Urban Plan. Dev., 145, 2019, 04019012, 10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000517.