Revealing preferences of Prague's homebuyers toward greenery amenities: The empirical evidence of distance–size effect

Linguistics landscape: A cross culture perspective

“…This is not surprising given that landscape features are generally perceived as appreciated assets by the public (Jim & Chen, 2009;Kaplan & Austin, 2004), which is expressed, among others, by willingness to pay higher prices for properties with scenic views either of natural landscapes or urban open space (Bengochea Morancho, 2003;Crompton, 2001;Geoghegan, 2002;Jim & Chen, 2006Luttik, 2000;Portnov, Odish, & Fleishman, 2005;Tyrväinen & Miettinen, 2000). Moreover, similar findings keep on piling (see e.g., Larson & Perrings, 2013;Melichar & Kaprová, 2013). Developers are aware of this preference and use it for promoting their projects.…”

Neighborhood green and services diversity effects on land prices: Evidence from a multilevel hedonic analysis in Luxembourg

“…Over 52 studies addressing the valuation of open-space, mainly at micro-scale, have been identified and analyzed in Brander and Koetse's (2011) meta-analysis. These studies include either distance measures to different green amenities (Cho, Poudyal, & Roberts, 2008;Des Rosiers, Thériault, Kestens, & Villeneuve, 2002;Kestens, Thériault, & Des Rosiers, 2004;Shultz & King, 2001) and/or consider landscape amenities in varying buffer zones Kadish & Netusil, 2012;Melchiar & Kaprovà, 2013;Sander, Polasky, & Haight, 2010;Youssoufi, 2011). Using the same data-set as herein, Glaesener (2014) has tested for these spatial proximity effects at aggregated scale but showed that the lack of spatial precision for this particular data-set does not allow to capture close proximity effects with sufficient robustness.…”

Making the case for planning and investment in green infrastructure: a case study of street trees and property value impacts in Brisbane, Australia

“…Firstly, this study not only excluded attached dwellings, like units/apartments, but also rental price premiums, both shown to be significant and positive in revealed preference studies elsewhere Melichar and Kaprová, 2013). Secondly, this estimate excluded other measurable environmental, commercial and social benefits (Tarran, 2009;Wolf, 2007).…”

“… made analytical advances in applying evidence to ES business cases for investment, relevant to alternative investment strategies for UF-GI; and like units/apartments, rental price premiums and the commercial benefits of leafy streetscapes in business centres, all shown to be significant and positive in revealed preference studies elsewhere Melichar and Kaprová, 2013;Wolf, 2007). The net monetary value of street trees in Brisbane, derived by individual dwelling sale prices, was therefore an underestimate of the total value of the ES of this form of GI.…”

“…As described above in section 2.7, the value of trees, growing on and nearby residential properties, revealed in interdisciplinary studies of home-buyers preferences, have varied and effects have been both positive and negative (Anderson and Cordell, 1988b;Anthon, et al, 2005;Conway, et al, 2010;Dombrow, et al, 2000;Donovan and Butry, 2010;DrakeMcLaughlin and Netusil, 2010;Kong, et al, 2007;Luttik, 2000;Melichar and Kaprová, 2013;Melichar, et al, 2009;Morales, 1980;Netusil, et al, 2014;Pandit, et al, 2014;Pandit, et al, 2013;Payton, et al, 2008;Sander, et al, 2010;Saphores and Li, 2012;Tyrväinen, 1997;Tyrvainen and Miettinen, 2000;Wachter and Bucchianeri, 2006;Wolf, 2007). Despite similarities in methods, street tree canopy cover within 20 metres of houses sold in Perth in 2009 added a 1.8 per cent premium to median sale price (Pandit, et al, 2014), yet street tree canopy within a similar proximity (30.5 metres) of houses in Portland, Oregon sold for 3 per cent more in 2006(Donovan and Butry, 2010.…”