ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF URBAN GREEN SPACE: A HEDONIC PRICING ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSING MARKET IN COLOGNE, GERMANY

• Authors: Jens Kolbe , Henry Wüstemann

Title variants

SZACOWANIE WARTOŚCI MIEJSKICH PRZESTRZENI ZIELONYCH: ANALIZA HEDONICZNA CEN NA RYNKU MIESZKANIOWYM W KOLONII, NIEMCY

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Urban Green Spaces (UGS), such as parks and forests, provide a wide range of environmental and recreational benefits. One objective in the conservation efforts of UGS is to analyse the benefits associated with UGS in order to make them more visible and to provide support for landscape planning. This paper examines the effects of UGS on house prices applying a Hedonic Pricing Method (HPM). The data set contains over 85046 geo-coded apartment transactions for the years 1995-2012 and contains information on three intrinsic variables of the real estate (e.g. transaction price, floor area and age). In order to examine the capitalisation of UGS in real estate prices, we further incorporated cross-section geo-coded data for the different types of UGS: forests, parks, farmland and fallow land drawn from the European Urban Atlas (EUA) of the European Environment Agency for the year 2006. In order to control for additional open space categories, we further incorporated geo-coded data on water bodies and fallow land. Using a Geographical Information System (GIS), we calculated the coverage of UGS in pre-defined buffers around households as well as the distance in a continuous fashion (Euclidian distance) between UGS and the households. Our results show a capitalisation of UGS in real estate prices, but the effect of the structural variables is higher. We found a positive price effect of parks, forests and water and an inverse relation between the price variable and the presence of fallow land and farmland.

PL

Miejskie Przestrzenie Zielone (UGS), takie jak parki i lasy, zapewniają szeroki zakres korzyści środowiskowych i rekreacyjnych. Jednym z celów w działaniach ochronnych UGS jest analiza korzyści związanych z nimi, aby stały się one bardziej widoczne i zapewniać im wsparcie w zakresie planowania krajobrazu. Artykuł analizuje wpływ UGS na ceny domów, z wykorzystaniem metody ceny hedonicznej (HPM). Zestaw danych zawiera ponad 85 046 transakcji dla mieszkań, geograficznie kodowanych, w latach 1995-2012 i zawiera informacje dotyczące trzech istotnych zmiennych nieruchomości (np. ceny transakcyjnej, powierzchni użytkowej i wieku). W celu zbadania kapitalizacji UGS w cenach nieruchomości, włączone zostały geokodowane dane przekrojowe dla różnych typów UGS: lasy, parki, pola uprawne i ugorów, pochodzące z Europejskiego Atlasu Miejskiego (EUA), Europejskiej Agencji Ochrony Środowiska z roku 2006. W celach sterowania, dla dodatkowych kategorii otwartych przestrzeni, włączono dane geokodowane dla zbiorników wodnych i ugorów. Korzystanie z Systemu Informacji Geograficznej (GIS), możliwe było obliczenie zasięgu UGS w predefiniowanych buforach wokół gospodarstw domowych, jak również odległości, wyrażonej w sposób ciągły (odległość Euklidesowa) pomiędzy UGS i gospodarstwami domowymi. Wyniki wskazują na kapitalizację UGS w cenach nieruchomości, ale efekt zmiennych strukturalnych jest wyższy. Wykazano pozytywny wpływ cen parków, lasów i wody oraz odwrotną zależność między zmienną cen, a obecności ugorów i gruntów rolnych.

Keywords

EN

Urban Green Space (UGS); open space; Hedonic Pricing Method (HPM); GIS-Analysis.

PL

Miejskie przestrzenie zielone (UGS); przestrzenie otwarte; metoda hedonicznej wyceny; GIS.; Miejskie przestrzenie zielone (UGS); przestrzenie otwarte; metoda hedonicznej wyceny; GIS.

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Oeconomica
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 307

Dates

published

2015-06-23

Contributors

author

Jens Kolbe

• Berlin Institute of Technology – Technische Universität Berlin, Econometrics and Business Statistics, Berlin, Germany.

author

Henry Wüstemann

• Berlin Institute of Technology – Technische Universität Berlin, Environmental and Land Economics, Berlin, Germany.

References

• Abkar M., Kamal M., Mariapan M., Maulan S., Sheybanic M. (2010), The Role of Urban Green Spaces in Mood Change, “Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences”, 4 (10).
• Acharya G., Bennett L. L. (2001), Valuing open space and land-use patterns in urban watersheds, “The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics”, 22 (2-3), pp. 221–237.
• Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. (1998), Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation, “American Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 80 (1), pp. 64–75.
• Alpizar F., Carlsson F., Martinsson P. et al. (2003), Using choice experiments for non-market valuation, “Economic Issues-Stoke On Trent”, 8 (1), pp. 83–110.
• Alriksson S., Öberg T. (2008), Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 15 (3), pp. 244–257.
• Appelbaum E. (1979), On the choice of functional form, “Internat. Econ. Rev.”, 20, pp. 449–458.
• Bateman I. (1993), Evaluation of the environment: A survey of revealed preference techniques, Tech. rept. GEC Working Paper 93-06, CSERGE, University of East Anglia, Norwich, and University College, London.
• Bennett J., Blamey R. (2001), The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Benson E. D., Hansen J. L., Schwartz Jr A. L., Smersh G. T. (1998), Pricing residential amenities: the value of a view, “The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics”, 16 (1), pp. 55–73.
• Bolitzer B., Netusil N. R. (2000), The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon, “Journal of environmental management”, 59 (3), pp. 185–193.
• Cavailhès J., Brossard T., Foltête J. C., Hilal M., Joly D., Tourneux F. P., Tritz C., Wavresky P. (2009), GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape, “Environmental and resource economics”, 44 (4), pp. 571–590.
• Choumert J. (2010), An empirical investigation of public choices for green spaces, “Land Use Policy”, 27 (4), pp. 1123–1131.
• Cornelis J., Hermy M. (2004), Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders, “Landscape and Urban Planning”, 69 (4), pp. 385–401.
• Elsasser P. (1999), Recreational benefits of forests in Germany, The Living Forest: the Non-market Benefits of Forestry, London: The Stationery Office, pp, 175–188.
• Irwin E. G. (2002), The effects of open space on residential property values, “Land Economics”, 78 (4), pp. 465–480.
• Kitchen J. W., Hendon W. S. (1967), Land values adjacent to an urban neighborhood park, “Land Economics”, pp. 357–360.
• Kolbe J., Schulz R., Wersing M., Werwatz A. (2012), Location, location, location: Extracting location value from house prices, Tech. rept. SFB 649 Discussion Paper.
• Kong F., Yin H., Nakagoshi N. (2007), Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modelling of the amenity value of urban green space: A case study in Jinan City, China, “Landscape and Urban Planning”, 79 (3), pp. 240–252.
• Kuhn I., Brandl R., Klotz S. (2004), The flora of German cities is naturally species rich, “Evolutionary Ecology Research”, 6 (5), pp. 749–764.
• Kuo F. E., Sullivan W. C. (2001a), Aggression and violence in the inner city effects of environment via mental fatigue, “Environment and Behaviour”, 33 (4), pp. 543–571.
• Kuo F. E., Sullivan W. C. (2001b), Environment and crime in the inner city does vegetation reduce crime? “Environment and Behavior”, 33 (3), pp. 343–367.
• Lansford N. H., Jones L. L. (1995), Recreational and Aesthetic Value of Water Using Hedonic Price Analysis, “Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics”, 20 (2), pp. 341-355.
• 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), pp. 161–167.
• Lutzenhiser M. T., Netusil N. R. (2001), The effect of open spaces on a home’s sale price, “Contemporary Economic Policy”, 19 (3), pp. 291–298.
• Mahan B. L., Polasky S., Adams R. M. (2000), Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach, “Land Economics”, 76 (1).
• Mansfield C., Pattanayak S.K., McDow W., McDonald R. (2002), Shades of Green: Measuring the Value of Urban Forests in the Housing Market, Working paper 02_02. Research Triangle Institute.
• Marcus C. C., Barnes M. (1999), Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations, John Wiley & Sons.
• McConnell V., Walls M. A. (2005), The value of open space: Evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits, Resources for the Future Washington, DC, USA.
• McPherson, E G. et al. (1998), Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Sacramento’s urban forest, “Journal of Arboriculture”, 24, pp. 215–223.
• Melichar J., Vojáček O., Rieger P., Jedlička K. (2009), Measuring the value of urban forest using the Hedonic price approach, “Regional Studies”, 2, pp. 13–20.
• Morancho A. B. (2003), A hedonic valuation of urban green areas, “Landscape and urban planning”, 66 (1), pp. 35–41.
• Myeong S., Nowak D. J., Duggin M. J. (2006), A temporal analysis of urban forest carbon storage using remote sensing, “Remote Sensing of Environment”, 101 (2), pp. 277–282.
• Nowak D. J. (1994), Air pollution removal by Chicago´s s urban forest, Chicago´s urban forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project, pp. 63–81.
• Nowak D. J., Crane D. E., Stevens J. C., Ibarra M. (2002), Brooklyn’s urban forest, vol. 290. Citeseer.
• Rambonilaza M., Dachary-Bernard J. (2007), Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method?, “Landscape and Urban Planning”, 83 (4), pp. 318–326.
• Ready R. C., Abdalla C. W. (2005), The Amenity and Disamenity Impacts of Agriculture: Estimates from a Hedonic Pricing Model, “American Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 87 (2), pp. 314-326.
• Rowntree R. A., Nowak, D. J. et al. (1991), Quantifying the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide, “Journal of Arboriculture”, 17 (10), pp. 269–275.
• Shultz S. D., King D. A. (2001), The use of census data for hedonic price estimates of open-space amenities and land use, “The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics”, 22 (2-3), pp. 239–252.
• Smith V. K., Poulos C., Kim H. (2002), Treating open space as an urban amenity, “Resource and Energy Economics”, 24 (1), pp. 107–129.
• Sukopp H., Wittig R., Blume H. P. (1993). Stadtökologie, G. Fischer Stuttgart.
• Tameko A. M., Donfouet P., Pythagore H., Sikod F. (2011), The Economic Valuation of Improved Urban Parks: A Case Study of Warda Park, “Journal of Sustainable Development”, 4 (1).
• Thibodeau F. R., Ostro B. D. (1981), Economic analysis of wetland protection, “Journal of Environmental Management”, 12, pp. 19–30.
• Thorsnes P. (2002), The value of a suburban forest preserve: Estimates from sales of vacant residential building lots, “Land Economics”, 78 (3), pp. 426–441.
• Ulrich R. S., Simons R. F., Losito B. D., Fiorito E., Miles M. A., Zelson M. (1991), Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments, “Journal of environmental psychology”, 11 (3), pp. 201–230.
• Vanslembrouck I., Van Huylenbreock G., Van Meensel J. (2005), Impact of Agriculture on Rural Tourism: A Hedonic Pricing Approach, “Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 56 (1), pp. 17-30.
• Vanslembrouck I., Van Huylenbroeck G. (2006), Landscape amenities: economic assessment of agricultural landscapes, vol. 2. Springer.
• Weicher J. C., Zerbst R. H. (1973), The externalities of neighborhood parks: an empirical investigation, “Land Economics”, pp. 99–105.
• Willis K. G., Garrod G. D. (1993), Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach, “Journal of environmental management”, 37 (1), pp. 1–22.
• Wu J. J., Adams R. M., Plantinga A. J. (2004), Amenities in an Urban Equilibrium Model: Residential Development in Portland, Oregon, “Land Economics”, 80 (1), pp. 19-32.