Valuation of metropolitan open space - presenting the research framework
AbstractThe metropolitan landscape consists of green, open areas adjacent to and enclosed by the urban environment. Changes in this landscape are a delicate matter, because they affect sustainability, the environment and the scenic quality, as we see in processes like urban sprawl, intensive outdoor recreation, city expansion and additional investments in infrastructure. More precisely, changes in the supply of open space, both in absolute terms (acreage) and its accessibility are a major concern around metropolitan areas. The lack of a clear monetary value makes green, open areas vulnerable to construction activities and infrastructure. Such use of open space entails the imposition of externalities of certain actors on others, but since the market value of open space does not fully reflect the societal value of open space, these externalities are market failures that call for corrective measures by the public sector in the form of land use interventions or pricing measures. However, as it turns out, failure of the governmental correction impedes effective market co-ordination. Unfortunately, attempts to value open space are virtually non-existent to date. Partly because the valuation of severance and visual intrusion is hampered by many complications, especially difficulties in objective quantification, uncertainties on the impacts on human and ecological communities, and collinearity with other pressures on the metropolitan open space (for example noise disturbance from infrastructure). The development of a research method for the valuation of open space will therefore be an important objective of the project. Incorporation of the public interest in open space in metropolitan planning requires quantitative valuation of this asset. The difficulty with such a valuation is of course that environmental and general societal values are normally not traded on real world markets, and hence no market prices can be observed that would reflect or approximate marginal costs or benefits. An environmental-economic framework will be used to quantify the ecological, economic and societal values of open space in a coherent way. Two complementary methods will be used: revealed preference and stated preference valuation. As it will not be possible to estimate economic values for all different dimensions of open space, the program focuses on those aspects that can be related to the appreciation of individual residents of the metropolitan landscape. These are the so-called ‘use values’ that humans attach to open space on the basis of their own, direct interest. This focus means that for instance so-called ‘intrinsic’ environmental values (referring for example to habitat fragmentation and indirectly biodiversity) will be postponed to future research. The program will more specifically concentrate on the added value of the availability of open space on residential property and the valuation of cultural and recreational characteristics of open space by potential visitors.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by European Regional Science Association in its series ERSA conference papers with number ersa05p599.
Date of creation: Aug 2005
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Web page: http://www.ersa.org
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2006-02-05 (All new papers)
- NEP-GEO-2006-02-05 (Economic Geography)
- NEP-TUR-2006-02-05 (Tourism Economics)
- NEP-URE-2006-02-05 (Urban & Real Estate Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Richard C. Ready & Charles W. Abdalla, 2005. "The Amenity and Disamenity Impacts of Agriculture: Estimates from a Hedonic Pricing Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 314-326.
- Arianne de Blaeij & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Piet Rietveld & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. "The Value of Statistical Life in Road Safety: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-089/3, Tinbergen Institute.
- Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
- Tyrvainen, Liisa & Miettinen, Antti, 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 205-223, March.
- Bastian, Chris T. & McLeod, Donald M. & Germino, Matthew J. & Reiners, William A. & Blasko, Benedict J., 2002. "Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 337-349, March.
- Geoghegan, Jacqueline & Wainger, Lisa A. & Bockstael, Nancy E., 1997. "Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 251-264, December.
- Eric Koomen & Tom Kuhlman & Jan Groen & Arno Bouwman, 2005. "Simulating The Future Of Agricultural Land Use In The Netherlands," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 96(2), pages 218-224, 04.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.