IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/iaal25/358248.html

Urban green infrastructure valuation: an economic method for the aesthetic appraisal of hedges

Author

Listed:
  • Dominici, Andrea
  • Sacchelli, Sandro

Abstract

The paper presents a parametric approach to quantify the economic value of hedges in urban green spaces. The model integrates indexes that allow for an aesthetic estimate of green infrastructure. Both field and desk phases are developed to depict and sample hedgerows in a case study in Italy (Cascine Park, Florence). Street view and Google Maps applications are used in the preliminary steps to spatialize hedges. An equation, incorporating nine variables including financial, dendrometric, and correction factors, is developed to appraise economic value. The results highlight the relevance of species, plant height, and the number of hedge rows for the unitary and total value of green infrastructures. Phytosanitary condition, the presence of gaps in linear traits, and the degree of tree canopy coverage also influence the economic performances of hedges. The technique facilitates application for both researchers and practition ers, potentially allowing for damage estimates and calibrated management of urban green in different locations.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominici, Andrea & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2025. "Urban green infrastructure valuation: an economic method for the aesthetic appraisal of hedges," Aestimum, Italian Association of Appraisers and Land Economists, vol. 85.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaal25:358248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/358248/files/OP09051_3-19_01-16603-Dominic.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lisa Höpfl & Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel & Michael Hensel & Ferdinand Ludwig, 2021. "Initiating Research into Adapting Rural Hedging Techniques, Hedge Types, and Hedgerow Networks as Novel Urban Green Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-24, May.
    2. Jorge H. Amorim & Magnuz Engardt & Christer Johansson & Isabel Ribeiro & Magnus Sannebro, 2021. "Regulating and Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Infrastructure in the Nordic Countries: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Haiyun Xu & Guohan Zhao, 2021. "Assessing the Value of Urban Green Infrastructure Ecosystem Services for High-Density Urban Management and Development: Case from the Capital Core Area of Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Cetin, Nuket Ipek & Bourget, Gulhan & Tezer, Azime, 2021. "Travel-cost method for assessing the monetary value of recreational services in the Ömerli Catchment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. Theodore A. Endreny, 2018. "Strategically growing the urban forest will improve our world," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-3, December.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    7. Ambrogio Zanzi & Federico Andreotti & Valentina Vaglia & Sumer Alali & Francesca Orlando & Stefano Bocchi, 2021. "Forecasting Agroforestry Ecosystem Services Provision in Urban Regeneration Projects: Experiences and Perspectives from Milan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Gianluca Grilli & Elena Barbierato & Irene Capecchi & Sandro Sacchelli, 2022. "Application of stated-preferences methods and neuroscience for the valuation of dynamicity in forest cultural ecosystem services," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 65(3), pages 398-417, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dan Yavorsky & Elisabeth Honka & Keith Chen, 2021. "Consumer search in the U.S. auto industry: The role of dealership visits," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-52, March.
    2. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    3. Sebastian Heidenreich & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Bruno Flamion & Melissa Ross & Jaein Seo & Kevin Marsh, 2021. "Benefit–Risk or Risk–Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 65-74, January.
    4. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    5. Frith, Michael J., 2019. "Modelling taste heterogeneity regarding offence location choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    6. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    7. Boneva, Teodora & Golin, Marta & Kaufmann, Katja Maria & Rauh, Christopher, 2022. "Beliefs about Maternal Labor Supply," IZA Discussion Papers 15788, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Raj Chandra & GianCarlo Moschini & Gabriel E. Lade, 2025. "Geographical indications and welfare: Evidence from US wine demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(2), pages 670-695, March.
    10. Webb, Edward J.D. & Hess, Stephane, 2021. "Joint modelling of choice and rating data: Theory and examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    12. Laura-Lucia Richter & Melvyn Weeks, 2016. "Flexible Mixed Logit with Posterior Analysis: Exploring Willingness-to-Pay for Grid Resilience," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1631, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Javid, Roxana J. & Nejat, Ali, 2017. "A comprehensive model of regional electric vehicle adoption and penetration," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 30-42.
    14. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    15. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    16. Andrea Ascani & Riccardo Crescenzi & Simona Iammarino, 2015. "Economic Institutions and the Location Strategies of European Multinationals in their Geographical Neighbourhood," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 97, European Institute, LSE.
    17. Shenhao Wang & Qingyi Wang & Jinhua Zhao, 2018. "Deep Neural Networks for Choice Analysis: Extracting Complete Economic Information for Interpretation," Papers 1812.04528, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    18. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    19. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    20. Mohammad Ghaderi, 2026. "Attention-entropy random utility: Endogenous: Attention and context effects in discrete choice," Economics Working Papers 1936, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iaal25:358248. 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://journals.fupress.net/societies/association-of-appraisers-and-land-economists/ .

    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.