IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/45670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Recreational Amenities in an Urban Setting: Location, Congestion, and Substitution Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Homans, Frances R.
  • Marshall, Elizabeth P.

Abstract

In this article, we introduce a recreational amenity—a greenbelt park—into a simple urban economic model. For multiple possible park placements, we solve for the associated equilibrium urban structure, including the equilibrium rent gradient, city boundary, total number of park visits, the overall utility level, and total vehicle miles traveled. We examine how these change with alternative park placement sites. We then show how two modifications of the basic model—allowing congestion at the site to affect site quality, and introducing the possibility of a substitute site at the city’s periphery—affect our conclusions about how greenbelt location influences urban structure.

Suggested Citation

  • Homans, Frances R. & Marshall, Elizabeth P., 2008. "Modeling Recreational Amenities in an Urban Setting: Location, Congestion, and Substitution Effects," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:45670
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.45670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/45670/files/homans%20-%20current.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.45670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    2. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    3. K. E. McConnell, 1990. "Double Counting in Hedonic and Travel Cost Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 121-127.
    4. Kent F. Kovacs & Douglas M. Larson, 2007. "The Influence of Recreation and Amenity Benefits of Open Space on Residential Development Patterns," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 475-496.
    5. Colwell, Peter F. & Dehring, Carolyn A. & Turnbull, Geoffrey K., 2002. "Recreation Demand and Residential Location," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 418-428, May.
    6. Kanemoto, Yoshitsugu, 1980. "Theories of urban externalities," MPRA Paper 24614, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Heimlich, Ralph E. & Anderson, William D., 2001. "Development At The Urban Fringe And Beyond: Impacts On Agriculture And Rural Land," Agricultural Economic Reports 33943, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ioulia Ossokina, 2010. "Geographical range of amenity benefits: Hedonic price analysis for railway stations," CPB Discussion Paper 146, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2009. "Using a Bundled Amenity Model to Estimate the Value of Cropland Open Space and Determine an Optimal Buffer Zone," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(01), pages 1-23, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua Duke & Lori Lynch, 2007. "Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(2), pages 123-155, June.
    2. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    3. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economic Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    5. Dietrich Earnhart, 2006. "Using Contingent-Pricing Analysis to Value Open Space and Its Duration at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 17-35.
    6. Cropper, Eric D. & McLeod, Donald M. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & Hoag, Dana L. & Cross, Jennifer E., 2012. "Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16.
    7. Lynch, Lori & Duke, Joshua M., 2007. "Economic Benefits of Farmland Preservation: Evidence from the United States," Working Papers 7342, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    9. Nelson, Erik & Uwasu, Michinori & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 580-593, May.
    10. Duke, Joshua M. & Bernard, John C. & Vitz, Gregory, 2021. "A new food label to aid farmland preservation programs: Evidence from a field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Joshua M. Duke & Lori Lynch, 2006. "Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 189-213.
    12. Batie, Sandra S., 2003. "The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(01), pages 1-8, April.
    13. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    14. Pascal Mossay & Pierre Picard, 2019. "Spatial segregation and urban structure," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 480-507, June.
    15. Tajibaeva, Liaila & Haight, Robert G. & Polasky, Stephen, 2008. "A discrete-space urban model with environmental amenities," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 170-196, May.
    16. Charlotte Ham & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2015. "Relative Economic Values of Open Space Provided by National Forest and Military Lands to Surrounding Communities," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 81-96, March.
    17. Giuseppe Di Liddo, 2015. "Urban sprawl and regional growth: empirical evidence from Italian Regions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2141-2160.
    18. Schilling, Brian J. & Attavanich, Witsanu & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Marxen, Lucas J., 2014. "Measuring the effect of farmland preservation on farm profitability," MPRA Paper 100122, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2014.
    19. Hiroshi Aiura & Yasuhiro Sato, 2014. "A model of urban demography," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 981-1009, August.
    20. Bauer, Dana Marie & Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Conserving metapopulations in human-altered landscapes at the urban–rural fringe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 159-170.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:45670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.