IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i8p2818-d347647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing Access to Urban Green Spaces: A Participatory Benefit-Cost Analysis in Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Silvestre García de Jalón

    (Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain)

  • Aline Chiabai

    (Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain)

  • Alyvia Mc Tague

    (Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain)

  • Naiara Artaza

    (Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain
    Department of Applied Economics I, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48940 Leioa, Spain)

  • Amaia de Ayala

    (Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain
    Department of Applied Economics I, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48940 Leioa, Spain)

  • Sonia Quiroga

    (Department of Economics, Universidad de Alcalá, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain)

  • Hanneke Kruize

    (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Cristina Suárez

    (Department of Economics, Universidad de Alcalá, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain)

  • Ruth Bell

    (Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK)

  • Timothy Taylor

    (European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro Campus, RCH Treliske, Truro TR1 3HD, UK)

Abstract

The opening up of green spaces could provide significant benefits to society. This study develops a framework to assess the economic benefits and costs of public interventions providing citizen access to urban green spaces. The Thinking Fadura project in Getxo (Spain) was used as a case study. A method for participatory benefit-cost analysis is developed, where a stakeholder-participatory evaluation is combined with a standard cost-benefit analysis. The participatory evaluation followed a bottom-up approach in a sequential evaluation including three main focal points: key stakeholders and experts, visitors and the general public. The assessment demonstrates that the Thinking Fadura project’s benefits outweigh the costs. The results suggest that projects designed with the purpose of improving green space accessibility to the general public can be beneficial from a societal perspective. The highest economic benefits were an increase in the amenity and recreational value and an increase in people’s physical activity. The participatory evaluation indicates that giving access to people of lower socio-economic status and vulnerable groups and improving recreational use were perceived as the most beneficial. An increase in noise, dirt, and risk of criminal activities as well as potential conflicts between green space users were perceived as the most negative impacts of opening a previously restricted area to the general public. The economic assessment of Thinking Fadura project could serve as a model in the decision-making process in locations where the use of greenspaces is restricted.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvestre García de Jalón & Aline Chiabai & Alyvia Mc Tague & Naiara Artaza & Amaia de Ayala & Sonia Quiroga & Hanneke Kruize & Cristina Suárez & Ruth Bell & Timothy Taylor, 2020. "Providing Access to Urban Green Spaces: A Participatory Benefit-Cost Analysis in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-20, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2818-:d:347647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2818/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2818/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    2. Hanneke Kruize & Nina van der Vliet & Brigit Staatsen & Ruth Bell & Aline Chiabai & Gabriel Muiños & Sahran Higgins & Sonia Quiroga & Pablo Martinez-Juarez & Monica Aberg Yngwe & Fotis Tsichlas & Pani, 2019. "Urban Green Space: Creating a Triple Win for Environmental Sustainability, Health, and Health Equity through Behavior Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    4. Frank A. Ward & Diana Beal, 2000. "Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1768.
    5. Jan Rouwendal & Willemijn Weijschede- v.d. Straaten, 2008. "The costs and benefits of providing open space in cities," CPB Discussion Paper 98, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Roy Brouwer & David Pearce (ed.), 2005. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Water Resources Management," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3057.
    7. Isabel Mendes & Isabel Proença, 2005. "Estimating the Recreation Value of Ecosystems by Using a Travel Cost Method Approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2005/08, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    8. Ruth Bell & Matluba Khan & Maria Romeo-Velilla & Ingrid Stegeman & Alba Godfrey & Timothy Taylor & George Morris & Brigit Staatsen & Nina van der Vliet & Hanneke Kruize & Kirsti Sarheim Anthun & Monic, 2019. "Ten Lessons for Good Practice for the INHERIT Triple Win: Health, Equity, and Environmental Sustainability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-16, November.
    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. Juntti, Meri & Ozsezer-Kurnuc, Sevda, 2023. "Factors influencing the realisation of the social impact of urban nature in inner-city environments: A systematic review of complex evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    2. Dagmara Stangierska & Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Paweł Szumigała & Katarzyna Widera & Barbara Żarska & Karolina Szumigała, 2023. "Green Physical Activity Indicator: Health, Physical Activity and Spending Time Outdoors Related to Residents Preference for Greenery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Bram Oosterbroek & Joop de Kraker & Sandra Akkermans & Paola Esser & Pim Martens, 2024. "Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces to Improve Residents’ Health," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Sabina Kordana-Obuch & Mariusz Starzec, 2020. "Statistical Approach to the Problem of Selecting the Most Appropriate Model for Managing Stormwater in Newly Designed Multi-Family Housing Estates," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Ingrid Stegeman & Alba Godfrey & Maria Romeo-Velilla & Ruth Bell & Brigit Staatsen & Nina van der Vliet & Hanneke Kruize & George Morris & Timothy Taylor & Rosa Strube & Kirsti Anthun & Monica Lillefj, 2020. "Encouraging and Enabling Lifestyles and Behaviours to Simultaneously Promote Environmental Sustainability, Health and Equity: Key Policy Messages from INHERIT," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-22, September.

    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. Deborah E. Lee & Mario du Preez & Stephen G. Hosking, 2011. "The recreational value of beaches in the Nelson Mandela Bay area, South Africa," Working Papers 239, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    2. Nishita Dsouza & Anitha Devadason & Araliya M. Senerat & Patrin Watanatada & David Rojas-Rueda & Giselle Sebag, 2023. "Sustainability and Equity in Urban Development (S&EUD): A Content Analysis of “Bright Spots” from the Accelerating City Equity (ACE) Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    5. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Brown, Julia, 2020. "From farm to fork: Is food tourism a sustainable form of economic development?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 325-334.
    6. Prabha Prayaga & John Rolfe & Jack Sinden, 2006. "A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Special Events: Gemfest in Central Queensland," Tourism Economics, , vol. 12(3), pages 403-420, September.
    7. Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Muhammad Rafiq & Shafiqullah, 2007. "Demand Analysis of Recreation Visits to Chitral Valley: A Natural Resource Management Perspective," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 971-984.
    9. Ingrid Stegeman & Alba Godfrey & Maria Romeo-Velilla & Ruth Bell & Brigit Staatsen & Nina van der Vliet & Hanneke Kruize & George Morris & Timothy Taylor & Rosa Strube & Kirsti Anthun & Monica Lillefj, 2020. "Encouraging and Enabling Lifestyles and Behaviours to Simultaneously Promote Environmental Sustainability, Health and Equity: Key Policy Messages from INHERIT," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Alexy Danchev, 2002. "Economic Benefits of Biodiversity Conservation (Case Study of the Bulgarian Danube Islands)," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 7, pages 129-151.
    11. Ward, Clement E. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Dutton, Jennifer M., 2008. "Implicit Value of Retail Beef Product Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-18.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    14. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "Consumer preferences and demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 210-224, December.
    15. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Jitender Singh, 2016. "Quality of Public Goods, Public Policy and Human Development: A State-wise Analysis," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 10(2), pages 215-235, August.
    17. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Trojanek, Radoslaw & Huderek-Glapska, Sonia, 2018. "Measuring the noise cost of aviation – The association between the Limited Use Area around Warsaw Chopin Airport and property values," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 103-114.
    19. Diane Coyle & Jen‐Chung Mei, 2023. "Diagnosing the UK productivity slowdown: which sectors matter and why?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(359), pages 813-850, July.
    20. Shimizu, Chihiro, 2014. "How Are Property Investment Returns Determined? : Estimating the Micro-Structure of Asset Prices, Property Income, and Discount Rates," HIT-REFINED Working Paper Series 12, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2818-:d:347647. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.