Monday, June 13, 2016

Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices

•  Applying a choice experiment, we assess the preferences for living close to urban parks and forests.
•  This study applies a pivot-based experimental design that frames respondents’ choices in terms of their current residence.
•  The preference heterogeneity in the population can be partially explained by differences in household characteristics.
•  The results indicate substitution between having access to a private garden and to urban green spaces.
This paper assesses the value of urban green spaces, specifically peri-urban forests and their potential substitutes, for the local population on the basis of their residential choice. We applied a choice experiment that focuses on the trade-offs between private housing characteristics and the environmental aspects of neighborhoods. Individual willingness-to-pay is estimated from a latent class model and a mixed logit model along with a Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) space approach. Our results show that green spaces provide both direct use value (recreation) and indirect use value (scenic view). The respondent's value of distance to peri-urban forests depends on recreational use. The ownership of a private garden reduces the WTP for living closer to an urban park.
We calculated the changes in willingness-to-pay (MWTP) of marginal changes in distance to forest and parks using the estimates of DISF and NBVF*DISF. The MWTP to avoid living farther away from a forest or a park is presented in Table 7 where we have measured the MWTP (in €) of housing price per square meter for homeowners and rents per month per square meter for tenants. For example, according to the base-line information of the housing market, an average-size home is 123 m2 for house owners and 64  for renters. The average price for a house of 123 m2 is €158,250. The average rent for a house of 64 m2 is €544. The MWTP of living close to forests for a house owner is equal to “[0.018 * Number of visits to forest * housing price]/size”. People who visit forests less than once a month are not willing to pay more for living close to a forest. If people visit forests more than once a month, the MWTP of homeowners and tenants is €33.56/m2 and €0.23/month/m2, respectively. If their visit frequency is at least once a week, the MWTP of homeowners and tenants is €56.27/m2 and €0.37/month/m2, respectively.
The parameter of SURF is significantly different from zero at the 1% level and has a positive sign. In general, the WTP for one additional square meter of living space for an average-size home is €815.24 for homeowners and €2.80/month for tenants. The non-significant standard deviation parameter shows that the preference concerning living space is homogeneous.
We estimated the MWTP for living 100 meters closer to a park for middle-income homeowners and middle-income tenants in our sample. For homeowners who do not have a private garden, their MWTP is 2.7% of their current house's price (€34.84/m2) on average. However, for homeowners who have a private garden, their MWTP is reduced to 1.2% of their current house's price (€16.42/m2) on average. Tenants do not behave the same way. For tenants who do not have a private garden, their WTP is 1.4% of their actual rent (€0.12/month/m2) on average. If tenants have their own private garden, their MWTP for the “distance to park” attribute is not significant. Therefore, our results show that homeowners’ preferences in relation to parks are different from those of tenants, and private garden owners’ preferences in relation to parks are different from those of people who do not have private gardens.
File:F Foire-de-Nancy Cours-Léopold.JPG

Our results indicate that living near parks is preferred by people in general. This result is consistent with previous hedonic pricing studies. After a review of 30 studies, Crompton (2001) found that the appraised values of homes close to parks and open spaces were generally 10–20% higher than comparable properties without such amenities. Morancho (2003) found that every 100 meters farther away from a green area leads to a drop of approximately €1800 in the total housing price in Castellon, Spain. Dehring and Dunse (2006) reported that being one meter closer to a city park leads to a 0.02% increase of real estate prices in Aberdeen, Scotland.
Tyrvainen and Miettinen (2000) found that dwellings with a forest view were on average 4.9% more expensive than dwellings with otherwise similar characteristics in Salo, Finland. Cavailhès et al. (2010) found that the housing price will be increased by 1.5–2% for a view of trees and fields in Dijon, France.
by Gengyang Tu 1 and 2, Jens Abildtrup 1, Serge Garcia 1
Volume 148, April 2016, Pages 120–131
1. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, AgroParisTech, INRA, 54000, Nancy, France
2. Université de Lorraine, 34 cours Léopold CS 25233, 54052 Nancy Cedex, France
Keywords: Choice experiment; Residential location; Urban green spaces; Recreation; Mixed logit; Willingness to pay space

No comments:

Post a Comment