The economic valuation of urban green spaces as a voice in the debate over their role in sustainable cities

Piotr CZEMBROWSKI

Published: 2020-12-14

Vol. 16 No. 3(39) (2016)

The economic valuation of urban green spaces as a voice in the debate over their role in sustainable cities

Piotr CZEMBROWSKI

Abstract

Recognizing social preferences seems to be crucial for successful spatial planning of urban green spaces. Economic valuation is one way to recognize these preferences. In this paper I analyze and draw common conclusions from three hedonic pricing researches conducted recently in Łódź which reveal the economic potential of green spaces and highlight the multidimensionality of their value. These comparable studies analyze the impact of green spaces on apartment sale prices. Each of them emphasizes different attributes or features of green spaces, such as their area, social perception and biocultural value. Together they draw a complex picture of people’s preferences towards urban green spaces and constitute the platform for further discussion on the role of green spaces in sustainable cities of the future

Keywords:

economic valuation, integrated valuation, hedonic pricing, urban green infrastructure, sustainable development

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

CZEMBROWSKI, P. (2020). The economic valuation of urban green spaces as a voice in the debate over their role in sustainable cities. Economic and Environmental Studies, 16(3(39), 365–375. Retrieved from https://czasopisma.uni.opole.pl/index.php/ees/article/view/3029

Cited by / Share

References

Bayer, P.; Keohane, N.; Timmins, C. (2009). Migration and hedonic valuation: the case of air quality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58(1): 1–14.

Bazyl, M. (2009). Hedonic Price Model for Warsaw Housing Market. Warsaw: Department of Applied Econometrics, Warsaw School of Economics. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/wse/wpaper/42.html. Accessed 27 April 2016.

Bergier, T.; Kronenberg, J.; Lisicki, P. (2013). Zrównoważony Rozwój — Zastosowania; Przyroda W Mieście — Rozwiązania. Fundacja Sendzimira.

Borkowska, M.; Rozwadowska, M.; Śleszyński, J.; Żylicz, T. (2001). Environmental amenities on the housing market in Warsaw: hedonic price method research. Ekonomia 3: 70–82.

Chattopadhyay, S. (1999). Estimating the demand for air quality: new evidence based on the Chicago housing market. Land Economics 75(1): 22–38.

Czembrowski, P.; Kronenberg, J. (2016). Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 146: 11–19.

Czembrowski, P.; Kronenberg, J.; Czepkiewicz, M. (2016a). Integrating non-monetary and monetary valuation methods – SoftGIS and hedonic pricing. Ecological Economics 130: 166–175.

Czembrowski, P.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Kronenberg, J. (2016b). Bioculturally valuable but not necessarily worth the price:Integrating different dimensions of value of urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 20: 89–96.

Elands, B.H.M.; Wiersum, K.F.; Buijs, A.E.; Vierikko, K. (2015). Policy interpretations and manifestation of biocultural diversity in urbanized Europe: conservation of lived biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(13): 3347–3366.

Gómez-Baggethun, E. et al. (2014). State-of-the-Art Report on Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Barcelona: EU FP7 OpenNESS Project. Available at: http://www.opennessproject.eu/sites/default/files/Deliverable%204%201_Integrated-Valuation-Of-Ecosystem-Services.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2015.

Goodman, A.C. (1998). Andrew Court and the invention of hedonic price analysis. Journal of Urban Economics 44(2): 291–298.

Haas, G.C. (1922). Sale Prices as a Basis for Farmland Appraisal. St. Paul: University Farm. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.hne59k. Accessed 8 May 2015.

Kim, K.S.; Park, S.J.; Kweon, Y.-J. (2007). Highway traffic noise effects on land price in an urban area. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12(4): 275–280.

Larson, E.K.; Perrings, C. (2013). The value of water-related amenities in an arid city: The case of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Landscape and Urban Planning 109(1): 45–55.

Łowicki, D. (2010). Wartość krajobrazu w świetle cen terenów pod zabudowę w latach 1995–2000. Ekonomia i Środowisko 37: 147–156.
Łowicki, D. (2012). Land prices as an indicator of the recreational services of ecosystems. Ekonomia i Środowisko 42: 167–175.

Łowicki, D.; Piotrowska, S. (2015). Monetary valuation of road noise. Residential property prices as an indicator of the acoustic climate quality. Ecological Indicators 52: 472–479.

Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 48(3–4): 161–167.

Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Montes, C. (2014). Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators 37: 220–228.

Melichar, J.; Kaprová, K. (2013). Revealing preferences of Pragues homebuyers towards greenery amenities: the empirical evidence of distance-size effect. Landscape and Urban Planning 109(1): 56–66.

Murzyn-Kupisz, M. (2010). Sustainable approaches to natural environment and cultural heritage. Two sides of the same coin. Economic and Environmental Studies 10(4): 379–397.

Nicholls, S.; Crompton, J.L. (2005). The impact of greenways on property values: Evidence from Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research 37(3): 321–341.

Smith, V.K.; Huang, J.-C. (1995). Can markets value air quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property value models. Journal of Political Economy 103(1): 209–227.

Tyrväinen, L. (1997). The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban Planning 37(3–4): 211–222.

Tyrväinen, L.; Miettinen, A. (2000). Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(2): 205–223.

Zygmunt, R.; Gluszak, M. (2015). Forest proximity impact on undeveloped land values: A spatial hedonic study. Forest Policy and Economics 50: 82–89. Google Scholar