The Value of Naturalness of Urban Green Spaces: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

References

1. 1. Aronson, M.F.J.,
   2. Lepczyk, C.A.,
   3. Evans, K.L.,
   4. Goddard, M.A.,
   5. Lerman, S.B.,
   6. MacIvor, J.S.,
   7. Nilon, C.H.,
   8. Vargo, T.

   , 2017. Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Front Ecol Environ 15 (4), 189–196. doi:10.1002/fee.1480.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. 1. Bernath, K.,
   2. Roschewitz, A.

   , 2008. Recreational benefits of urban forests: explaining visitors’ willingness to pay in the context of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of environmental management 89 (3), 155–166. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.059.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
3. 1. Bertram, C.,
   2. Rehdanz, K.

   , 2015. Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services 12, 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.011.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. 1. Brander, L.M.,
   2. Koetse, M.J.

   , 2011. The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. Journal of environmental management 92 (10), 2763–2773. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 1. Bullock, C.H.

   , 2008. Valuing Urban Green Space: Hypothetical Alternatives and the Status Quo. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (1), 15–35. doi:10.1080/09640560701712242.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
6. 1. Cho, S.-H.,
   2. Clark, C.D.,
   3. Park, W.M.,
   4. Kim, S.G.

   , 2009. Spatial and Temporal Variation in the Housing Market Values of Lot Size and Open Space. Land Economics 85 (1), 51–73. doi:10.3368/le.85.1.51.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
7. 1. Czajkowski, M.,
   2. Budziński, W.,
   3. Campbell, D.,
   4. Giergiczny, M.,
   5. Hanley, N.

   , 2017. Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management. Environ Resource Econ 68 (3), 705–727. doi:10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
8. 1. Del Saz Salazar, S.,
   2. García Menéndez, L.

   , 2007. Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? Land Use Policy 24 (1), 296–305. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. 1. Dimoudi, A.,
   2. Nikolopoulou, M.

   , 2003. Vegetation in the urban environment: microclimatic analysis and benefits. Energy and Buildings 35 (1), 69–76. doi:10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00081-6.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. 1. Donovan, G.H.,
    2. Butry, D.T.

    , 2011. The effect of urban trees on the rental price of singlefamily homes in Portland, Oregon. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10 (3), 163–168. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.05.007.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. Eurostat, 2016. Urban Europe: Statistics on cities, towns and sububs. 2016 edition.
12. 1. Giergiczny, M.,
    2. Kronenberg, J.

    , 2014. From valuation to governance: using choice experiment to value street trees. Ambio 43 (4), 492–501. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0516-9.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 1. Greene, W.H.

    , 2012. Econometric analysis, 7th ed. Pearson Addison Wesley, Harlow, New York.
14. 1. Grunewald, K.,
    2. Richter, B.,
    3. Behnisch, M.

    , 2019. Multi-Indicator Approach for Characterising Urban Green Space Provision at City and City-District Level in Germany. International journal of environmental research and public health 16 (13). doi:10.3390/ijerph16132300.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 1. Hess, S.,
    2. Palma, D.

    , 2019. Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application. Journal of Choice Modelling 32, 100170. doi:10.1016/j.jocm.2019.100170.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 1. Hwang, Y.H.,
    2. Yue, Z.E.J.,
    3. Ling, S.K.,
    4. Tan, H.H.V.

    , 2019. It’s ok to be wilder: Preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 38, 165–176. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.005.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. IPBES, 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
18. 1. Janhäll, S.

    , 2015. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution – Deposition and dispersion. Atmospheric Environment 105, 130–137. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.052.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
19. 1. Johnston, R.J.,
    2. Boyle, K.J.,
    3. Adamowicz, W.,
    4. Bennett, J.,
    5. Brouwer, R.,
    6. Cameron, T.A.,
    7. Hanemann, W.M.,
    8. Hanley, N.,
    9. Ryan, M.,
    10. Scarpa, R.,
    11. Tourangeau, R.,
    12. Vossler, C.A.

    , 2017. Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2), 319–405. doi:10.1086/691697.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
20. 1. Kolbe, J.,
    2. Wüstemann, H.

    , 2015. Estimating the Value of Urban Green Space: A hedonic Pricing Analysis of the Housing Market in Cologne, Germany.
21. 1. Kong, F.,
    2. Yin, H.,
    3. Nakagoshi, N.

    , 2007. 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. Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (3-4), 240–252. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.013.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. 1. Lancaster, K.J.

    , 1966. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74 (2), 132–157. doi:10.1086/259131.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. 1. Łaszkiewicz, E.,
    2. Czembrowski, P.,
    3. Kronenberg, J.

    , 2019. Can proximity to urban green spaces be considered a luxury? Classifying a non-tradable good with the use of hedonic pricing method. Ecological Economics 161, 237–247. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.025.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
24. 1. Lepczyk, C.A.,
    2. Aronson, M.F.J.,
    3. Evans, K.L.,
    4. Goddard, M.A.,
    5. Lerman, S.B.,
    6. MacIvor, J.S.

    , 2017. Biodiversity in the City: Fundamental Questions for Understanding the Ecology of Urban Green Spaces for Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 67 (9), 799–807. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix079.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
25. 1. Liebelt, V.,
    2. Bartke, S.,
    3. Schwarz, N.

    , 2018. Revealing Preferences for Urban Green Spaces: A Scale-sensitive Hedonic Pricing Analysis for the City of Leipzig. Ecological Economics 146, 536–548. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.006.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
26. 1. Liu, Z.,
    2. Hanley, N.,
    3. Campbell, D.

    , 2020. Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 104, 102383. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102383.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
27. 1. Loureiro, M.L.,
    2. Umberger, W.J.

    , 2007. A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy 32 (4), 496–514. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.006.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. 1. Mariel, P.,
    2. Hoyos, D.,
    3. Meyerhoff, J.,
    4. Czajkowski, M.,
    5. Dekker, T.,
    6. Glenk, K.,
    7. Bredahl jacobsen, J.,
    8. Liebe, U.,
    9. Olsen, S.,
    10. Sagebiel, J.,
    11. Thiene, M.

    (Eds.), 2021. Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments: Guidance on Design, Implementation and Data Analysis. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, 136 pp.
29. 1. Mariel, P.,
    2. Meyerhoff, J.

    , 2018. A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies. Ecological Economics 154, 419–429. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.020.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
30. 1. Martinez-Fernandez, C.,
    2. Kubo, N.,
    3. Noya, A.,
    4. Weyman, T.

    , 2012. Demographic Change and Local Development. OECD.
31. 1. McFadden, D.

    (Ed.), 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers of Econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
32. 1. Meya, J.N.

    , 2020. Environmental Inequality and Economic Valuation. Environ Resource Econ 76 (2-3), 235–270. doi:10.1007/s10640-020-00423-2.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
33. 1. Palmquist, R.B.

    , 1992. Valuing localized externalities. Journal of Urban Economics 31 (1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/0094-1190(92)90032-G.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
34. 1. Park, J.,
    2. Lee, D.,
    3. Park, C.,
    4. Kim, H.,
    5. Jung, T.,
    6. Kim, S.

    , 2017. Park Accessibility Impacts Housing Prices in Seoul. Sustainability 9 (2), 185. doi:10.3390/su9020185.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. 1. Plant, L.,
    2. Rambaldi, A.,
    3. Sipe, N.

    , 2017. Evaluating Revealed Preferences for Street Tree Cover Targets: A Business Case for Collaborative Investment in Leafier Streetscapes in Brisbane, Australia. Ecological Economics 134, 238–249. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.026.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
36. 1. Scarpa, R.,
    2. Thiene, M.,
    3. Train, K.

    , 2008. Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (4), 994–1010. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01155.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
37. 1. Schläpfer, F.,
    2. Waltert, F.,
    3. Segura, L.,
    4. Kienast, F.

    , 2015. Valuation of landscape amenities: A hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 141, 24–40. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.007.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
38. 1. Staude, I.,
    2. Segar, J.,
    3. Callaghan, C.T.,
    4. Ladouceur, E.,
    5. Meya, J.,
    6. Pereira, H.,
    7. Perino, A.

    , 2021. Urban conservation gardening in the decade of restoration.
39. 1. Stessens, P.,
    2. Canters, F.,
    3. Huysmans, M.,
    4. Khan, A.Z.

    , 2020. Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception. Land Use Policy 91, 104319. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104319.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
40. 1. Tiebout, C.M.

    , 1956. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64 (5), 416–424. doi:10.1086/257839.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
41. 1. Train, K.,
    2. Weeks, M.

    , 2005. Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space, in: Scarpa, R., Alberini, A. (Eds.), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 6. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 1–16.

    OpenUrl
42. 1. Tu, G.,
    2. Abildtrup, J.,
    3. Garcia, S.

    , 2016. Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices. Landscape and Urban Planning 148, 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.013.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
43. United Nations, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects The 2014 Revision.
44. 1. Walker, J.

    , 2002. Mixed Logit (or Logit Kernel) Model: Dispelling Misconceptions of Identification. Transportation Research Record 1805 (1), 86–98. doi:10.3141/1805-11.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
45. 1. Zhang, T.,
    2. Zeng, Y.,
    3. Zhang, Y.,
    4. Song, Y.,
    5. Li, H.

    , 2020. The Heterogenous Demand for Urban Parks between Home Buyers and Renters: Evidence from Beijing. Sustainability 12 (21), 9058. doi:10.3390/su12219058.

    OpenUrlCrossRef