IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v6y2021i4p54-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Assessment of South African Urban Green Spaces Using the Proximity Principle: Municipal Valuation vs. Market Value

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Lategan

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • Juaneé Cilliers

    (School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Australia)

  • Zinea Huston

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • Nadia Blaauw

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • Sarel Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

Abstract

Urban green spaces (UGSs) deliver ecosystem services and potential economic benefits like increases in proximate residential property prices. The proximity principle (PP) premises that property prices increase as distance to UGS decreases. The PP has generally been confirmed by studies using municipal valuations and market values internationally. Conversely, South African studies have mostly employed municipal valuations and results have rejected the PP. There is an accepted interrelationship, but also often discrepancies, between municipal valuations and market values, presenting scope for this article to explore whether negative results are confirmed when market values replace municipal valuations in PP studies in the South African context. Accordingly, a statistical analysis of market values is completed in the Potchefstroom case study, where five test sites are replicated from studies that employed municipal valuations for longitudinal comparison. Results verify generally higher market values than municipal valuations and confirm the PP in two, but reject the PP in three, of five test sites. Previous studies employing municipal valuations in the case study confirmed the PP in one instance, thus presenting certain, but limited, inconsistencies between findings based on municipal valuation vs. market value. Results suggest that the market’s willingness to pay for UGS proximity is sensitive to the ecosystem services and disservices rendered by specific UGS, but not significantly more than reflected in municipal valuations. Overall, findings underscore the need to protect and curate features that encourage willingness to pay for UGS proximity to increase municipal valuations and property taxes to help finance urban greening.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Lategan & Juaneé Cilliers & Zinea Huston & Nadia Blaauw & Sarel Cilliers, 2021. "Economic Assessment of South African Urban Green Spaces Using the Proximity Principle: Municipal Valuation vs. Market Value," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 54-66.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:6:y:2021:i:4:p:54-66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4407
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Cypher & J. Andrew Hansz, 2003. "Does assessed value influence market value judgments?," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 305-318, December.
    2. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Stephen Gibbons & Susana Mourato & Guilherme Resende, 2014. "The Amenity Value of English Nature: A Hedonic Price Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 175-196, February.
    4. Carolyn Dehring & Neil Dunse, 2006. "Housing Density and the Effect of Proximity to Public Open Space in Aberdeen, Scotland," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 34(4), pages 553-566, December.
    5. Delores Conway & Christina Li & Jennifer Wolch & Christopher Kahle & Michael Jerrett, 2010. "A Spatial Autocorrelation Approach for Examining the Effects of Urban Greenspace on Residential Property Values," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 150-169, August.
    6. Piotr Czembrowski & Edyta Łaszkiewicz & Jakub Kronenberg & Gustav Engström & Erik Andersson, 2019. "Valuing individual characteristics and the multifunctionality of urban green spaces: The integration of sociotope mapping and hedonic pricing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    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. Louis Gerhardus Lategan & Zene Steynberg & Elizelle Juanee Cilliers & Sarel Stephanus Cilliers, 2022. "Economic Valuation of Urban Green Spaces across a Socioeconomic Gradient: A South African Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.

    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. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    2. Marta Sylla & Tadeusz Lasota & Szymon Szewrański, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities in Peri-Urban Areas: Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Fernandez, Mario Andres & Bucaram, Santiago, 2019. "The changing face of environmental amenities: Heterogeneity across housing submarkets and time," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 449-460.
    4. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Louis Gerhardus Lategan & Zene Steynberg & Elizelle Juanee Cilliers & Sarel Stephanus Cilliers, 2022. "Economic Valuation of Urban Green Spaces across a Socioeconomic Gradient: A South African Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.
    6. Dani Broitman, 2020. "The Game of Developers and Planners: Ecosystem Services as a (Hidden) Regulation through Planning Delay Times," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Dani Broitman & Vladimir Griskin & Daniel Czamanski, 2019. "Unbundling negative and positive externalities of nature in cities: The influence of wild animals on housing prices," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(13), pages 2820-2836, October.
    8. Hearne, David & Yerushalmi, Erez, 2023. "Do Bicycle Networks Have Economic Value? A Hedonic Application to Greater Manchester," CAFE Working Papers 24, Centre for Accountancy, Finance and Economics (CAFE), Birmingham City Business School, Birmingham City University.
    9. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, , 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    10. Å aszkiewicz, Edyta & Heyman, Axel & Chen, Xianwen & Cimburova, Zofie & Nowell, Megan & Barton, David N, 2022. "Valuing access to urban greenspace using non-linear distance decay in hedonic property pricing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Bade, David & Castillo, Jose Gabriel & Fernandez, Mario Andres & Aguilar-Bohorquez, Joseph, 2020. "The price premium of heritage in the housing market: evidence from Auckland, New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Du, Xuejun & Huang, Zhonghua, 2018. "Spatial and temporal effects of urban wetlands on housing prices: Evidence from Hangzhou, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 290-298.
    13. Erez Buda & Dani Broitman & Daniel Czamanski, 2021. "Urban Structure in Troubled Times: The Evolution of Principal and Secondary Core/Periphery Gaps through the Prism of Residential Land Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, May.
    14. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    15. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    16. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    17. Liu, Li & Liu, Qigui & Tian, Gary & Wang, Peipei, 2018. "Government connections and the persistence of profitability: Evidence from Chinese listed firms," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 110-129.
    18. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    19. Carlos Pestana Barros & Zhongfei Chen & Luis A. Gil-Alana, 2012. "Housing sales in urban Beijing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(34), pages 4495-4504, December.
    20. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).

    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:cog:urbpla:v:6:y:2021:i:4:p:54-66. 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: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    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.