Valuing the benefits of the urban forest: a spatial hedonic approach

Payton, Seth; Lindsey, Greg; Wilson, Jeffrey S.; Ottensmann, John R.; Man, Joyce Y.

doi:10.1080/09640560802423509

Cited by 65 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, HPM is more suitable for estimating the value inherent in a preference [28,29]. In fact, many studies have used HPM to estimate the value of the ecosystem services, including parks, inherent in housing prices [7,25,26,[32][33][34][35][36] HPM is the study of the relationship between the price of a commodity or house and its characteristics [28,29,37]. For example, people buy real estate, such as an apartment or house, because they expect to gain utility and enjoyment from the house.…”

Section: Hedonic Price Methods (Hpm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Escobedo et al [33] used two categories of variables, house characteristics and urban forest attributes, to estimate the effect of forest structures on property value. Roebeling et al [7] and Payton et al [34] also used three qualities of urban parks to value the benefits provided by city parks. Ko et al [25] and Kim et al [35] estimated the value of green space with three variable categories, which include attributes such as property area, age, size of apartment complex, school district, and accessibility to public transport and parks.…”

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Park Accessibility Impacts Housing Prices in Seoul

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Housing prices are determined by a variety of factors, including the features of the building and the neighborhood environment, and a potential buyer decides to buy a house after reviewing these factors and concluding that it is worth the price. We used Hedonic Price Methods to find the relationship between monetary value of house and access conditions to urban parks. Two meaningful results were discovered in this study: first, as the distance from the park increases, the value of the park inherent in the housing price decreases; second, the greater walking accessibility, to the park, the higher the park value inherent in housing prices. Despite presenting shorter distances to walk and more entrances, poorly accessible zones were deemed as such due to the necessity of crossing an arterial road. This indicates that the results can define accessibility not as the Euclidian distance but as the shortest walking distance while considering crossroads and park entrances. The results of this study have significant implications for urban park economic impact analyses in Seoul. Also, the increase in housing prices closer to parks supports the idea that access is dependent on the residents' socioeconomic status. Lastly, the results of this study can improve walking accessibility to the park.

show abstract

Section: Hedonic Price Methods (Hpm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Park Accessibility Impacts Housing Prices in Seoul

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To capture a measurable variable for such landscape features, remotely sensed land use characteristics data were used. For example, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI 2 ) data was used to differentiate effects of different types of green spaces around homes on their values (Bark et al 2011;Payton et al 2008). Most studies that included miscellaneous landscape patterns surrounding homes used distance to, view of, and percentage visible areas of such landscapes around homes in estimating the amenity effect.…”

Section: View Of Non-discrete Amenitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Visual Accessibility of Scenic Landscapes in a Single Family Housing Market: A Spatial Hedonic Approach

Mittal¹,

Thériault²,

Voisin³

et al. 2017

24th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This article uses a hedonic modelling approach to assess the effect of visual accessibility of scenic lands on housing price. It estimates households' implicit willingness to pay for the visual accessibility of privately owned voluntarily protected scenic lands in a single family housing market. These lands are protected in perpetuity for natural, historic, and scenic characteristics.The premium price effect was captured using the visual accessibility variable, a combined weighted measure of visibility and proximity. This is named as Gravity Inspired Visibility Index (GIVI). A comprehensive review of eight environmental amenity from multidisciplinary sources provides basis on significance of 'proximity' and 'view.' A detailed methodology on developing spatial interaction variable using 3D GIS and viewshed 1 technology is provided. This variable was used to estimate the capitalized premium from the preserved lands. Both global (adjusted price premium on mean home value from the GWR model. The article offers a useful framework for evaluating effects of land protection for planning and real estate scholars. It also offers useful insight to conservation agencies, local governments, professional planners, and real estate professionals for prioritizing land sites with scenic views and for property development. IntroductionThe study was conducted in Worcester, Massachusetts --the second largest city in the state. A cluster of 26 privately owned Conservation Easement (CE) properties with historically important1 The viewshed identifies cells in an input raster that are visible from one or more observation points. Binary values are added to the output raster with 1 meaning visible and 0means not visible. Please do not cite this paper3 sites and land parcels with scenic amenities were the focus of this article. This study estimates the externality effect of these voluntarily protected lands, on prices of surrounding 1,243 single family detached homes. The protected lands serve as public amenities, offer several indirect and direct environmental, and health benefits to the local community. In past, several parks, trails, waterways, and wildlife areas have been protected this way using CE in the United States. CE involve legal agreements between private landowners and a non-profit or a government agency in the United States to perpetually restrict any future development rights on preservation worthy lands. Under the agreement, the private landowners are allowed to retain their land titles, continue to retain their right to own and use lands. They also have the option to donate or sell the restricted development rights, and claim equivalent federal tax credits (Mittal 2014;Wright, 1994;Gustanski and Squires, 2000). Billions of dollars' worth of public money is involved as tax credits to incentivize private landowners; therefore, to motivate conservation organizations and local governments to promote land preservation activities, this article estimates direct monetary benefits to the local property tax base due to val...

show abstract

“…Home buyers or renters' willingness to pay for a particular level of environmental quality is revealed when other house, property and neighbourhood features are held constant (Anthon, et al, 2005;Baranzini, 2008;Conway, et al, 2010;Donovan and Butry, 2010;Escobedo, et al, 2015;Garrod and Willis, 1992b;Glaesener and Caruso, 2015;Kong, et al, 2007;Mansfield, et al, 2005;Melichar, et al, 2009;Pandit, et al, 2014;Pandit, et al, 2013;Panduro and Veie, 2013;Payton, et al, 2008;Sander, et al, 2010;Saphores and Li, 2012;Tyrväinen, 1997).…”

Section: Methods Of Valuing Esmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Plant¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trees in cities grow closest to where people live, work and travel, and offer a wide range of ecosystem services (ES). Emerging urban forest research has focused on helping communities and urban tree managers build awareness of the connections between urban forest structure, ES and the quality of human life in rapidly growing cities. Yet translation of the proliferation of urban ES scholarship to urban forest policy, planning and investment has been inconsistent. This study focuses on the robustness and relevance of measures and values of urban ES being presented to decision makers. Opportunities were identified to improve contemporary techniques for gathering and applying evidence to strengthen the case for strategic planning and investment in street trees. For example, a new approach to pre-stratification in sample survey design to account for unevenness in the density and distribution of street trees across 115 residential suburbs, in the case study city of Brisbane, Australia, was used to confirm that their goal of increasing residential footpath tree shade cover from 35 per cent in 2010 to 50 per cent by 2031 was achievable. A strong case for continuing to invest was also justified by analysing additional data about 2,299 houses that sold between 2008 and 2010, gathered from within the same 80 sample sites as the street tree sample survey.Hedonic price modelling revealed that home-buyers were willing to pay a premium for houses with 35 per cent street tree cover nearby. These premiums translated to annual property value benefits that exceeded annual costs of street tree planting and maintenance in Brisbane in 2009-10 by a ratio of between 2.06 and 2.20:1. Returns of almost AU$1 million per year to the local government and an additional AU$1-1.2 million per year to the state government in property tax revenues were also identified. This approach advances the broader use of ES valuation as both a business case development and policy revision tool.

show abstract

Valuing the benefits of the urban forest: a spatial hedonic approach

Cited by 65 publications

References 36 publications

Park Accessibility Impacts Housing Prices in Seoul

Park Accessibility Impacts Housing Prices in Seoul

Valuing Visual Accessibility of Scenic Landscapes in a Single Family Housing Market: A Spatial Hedonic Approach

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About