0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

1 Aufrufe11 SeitenMar 26, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

1 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- statistik tugas
- Graham&Perin2007_metaanalysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students
- Holger Bösch, Fiona Steinkamp and Emil Boller- In the eye of the beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin, Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006)
- A Comparative Test of Work-family Conflict Models
- exercise chapter 8 (5.12.2013).doc
- DavidStea.crossculturalres
- Antioxidants_Review of Evidence on All-cause Mortality (Chocrane, 2012)
- Actividad F%C3%ADsica y cognici%C3%B3n en edad escolar_ META_ANALISIS
- Applications of Statistics On Banking and Pharmaceutical Companies
- Desingn Of Experiments ch14
- Proj 1 Report Revised Draft
- Stat Symbols
- Data Mining Tutorial Complete
- Zhang 2013
- Thiazolidinedione Use and Atrial Fibrillation in Diabetic Patients
- Further Regression Topics
- The Effect ofCoaching
- Antosianin3
- Clinical Practice Guideline Methodology Summit Report (2012)
- Jurnal Evidanbased

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

and hedonic pricing results

Luke M. Brander a, *, Mark J. Koetse b

a

Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands

b

Department of Spatial Economics, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Urban open space provides a number of valuable services to urban populations, including recreational

Received 10 May 2010 opportunities, aesthetic enjoyment, environmental functions, and may also be associated with existence

Received in revised form values. In separate meta-analyses of the contingent valuation (CV) and hedonic pricing (HP) literature we

6 May 2011

examine which physical, socio-economic, and study characteristics determine the value of open space.

Accepted 8 June 2011

Available online 16 July 2011

The dependent variable in the CV meta-regression is deﬁned as the value of open space per hectare per

year in 2003 US$, and in the HP model as the percentage change in house price for a 10 m decrease in

distance to open space. Using a multi-level modelling approach we ﬁnd in both the CV and HP analyses

Keywords:

Urban open space

that there is a positive and signiﬁcant relationship between the value of urban open space and pop-

Meta-analysis ulation density, indicating that scarcity and crowdedness matter, and that the value of open space does

Contingent valuation not vary signiﬁcantly with income. Further, urban parks are more highly valued than other types of urban

Hedonic pricing open space (forests, agricultural and undeveloped land) and methodological differences in study design

have a large inﬂuence on estimated values from both CV and HP. We also ﬁnd important regional

differences in preferences for urban open space, which suggests that the potential for transferring

estimated values between regions is likely to be limited.

Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

et al., 2002). The demand for public preservation efforts is evident

The term ‘urban open space’ encompasses a range of land uses from the number of referenda that deal with open space conserva-

including urban parks, forests, green spaces (e.g., golf courses and tion held at the state, county, and district level in the United States. In

sports ﬁelds), undeveloped land, and agricultural land at the urban the ﬁve-year period 2001e2005 there were 880 ballots on open

fringe.1 Open space provides a number of valuable services to urban space conservation measures, and around three quarters of these

populations, such as recreational opportunities, aesthetic enjoy- were passed (TPL, 2006). In other countries there is also clear public

ment, environmental and agricultural functions (e.g., micro-climate concern over urban development and the preservation of urban

stabilisation, water retention, and water puriﬁcation). In addition, green areas (ODPM, 2002; Tyrvainen and Vaananen, 1998). Public

urban populations may hold values related to the preservation of decision-making requires information on the value of services

open spaces for use by future generations. The services provided by provided by open spaces in order to make informed trade-offs

urban open space are, however, recognised to have public good against the (opportunity) costs of preservation. The services asso-

characteristics and, as a result, tend to be under-provided in the ciated with open space, however, are generally not traded directly in

markets and their values are therefore unknown.

In response to this lack of information, a considerable number of

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: lukebrander@gmail.com (L.M. Brander). economic valuation studies have been conducted that attempt to

1

The concept of urban open space can also include urban wetlands. We decided estimate values of urban open space. We have collected over 90

to exclude urban wetlands from the present analysis because they potentially studies dealing with open space valuation that have been published

provide a much wider set of ecosystem services than other forms of open space, over the past 30 years. Such a ﬂood of numbers becomes difﬁcult to

and therefore introduce a greater degree of heterogeneity into the data; and

interpret and necessitates the use of research synthesis techniques,

because the values of wetlands have already been thoroughly examined in previous

meta-analyses (see Brouwer et al., 1999; Woodward and Wui, 2001; Brander et al., and in particular statistical meta-analysis (Stanley, 2001; Smith

2006). and Pattanayak, 2002; Bateman and Jones, 2003). In addition to

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019

2764 L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773

identifying consensus in results across studies, meta-analysis is also of Moreover, HP estimates deal with one-time percentage changes in

interest as a tool for transferring values from studied sites to new property values, while CV studies generally produce annual WTP

policy sites. Useful descriptive overviews of the open space valuation values. We therefore deal with value estimates from these methods in

literature have been written by Fausold and Lilieholm (1999) and separate meta-analyses.

McConnell and Walls (2005), but to our knowledge this is the ﬁrst The organisation of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides an

meta-analysis of open space valuation results. overview of the open space valuation data taken from CV studies and

The aim of this paper is to provide new insights into consumer presents the meta-analysis results related to this data. Section 3 does

preferences for urban and peri-urban open space,2 and additionally to the same for the HP data. Section 4 makes a comparison of the results

examine the inﬂuence of methodological differences on valuation from these two meta-analyses, and Section 5 provides conclusions.

results. The economic literature on the provision of open space,

including several studies that examine the outcomes of public refer- 2. Meta-analysis of contingent valuation results

enda on open space conservation, provides a number of hypotheses to

be tested using the meta-analyses presented below. A ﬁrst hypothesis In this section we present the results of the meta-regression

is that open space is a normal good, i.e., has a positive income elasticity analysis of contingent valuation estimates of the value of open

of demand. There is mixed evidence on the relationship between space. In section 2.1 we describe the data used in the analysis,

income and demand for publicly provided open space. Some studies including the standardisation of the dependent variable and

have observed a positive relationship (e.g., Bates and Santerre, 2001; a description of the explanatory variables. Section 2.2 describes the

Brefﬂe et al.,1998; Kotchen and Powers, 2006), whereas others ﬁnd no speciﬁcation of the meta-regression and the results.

signiﬁcant association (e.g., Deacon and Shapiro, 1975; Kline and

Wichelns, 1994; Romero and Liserio, 2002). Using U.S. county level

2.1. CV data description

data, Kline (2006) ﬁnds that per capita income has a positive but

diminishing inﬂuence on the prevalence of open space referenda.

We collected 38 contingent valuation studies on urban and peri-

Research by Kahn and Matsusaka (1997) on state-wide referenda in

urban open space. The literature search attempted to be as

California shows a positive relationship between per capita income

comprehensive as possible by accessing online reference inventories

and the collective provision of open space (i.e., that open space is

(e.g., Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory, EVRI, www.evri.

a normal good), except where incomes are very high, in which case the

ca; and Environmental Valuation Database ENVALUE, www.

relationship becomes negative. A possible explanation of this ﬁnding

environment.nsw.gov.au/envalueapp), library catalogues, and rele-

is that beyond a certain income level people prefer to purchase open

vant reference lists and bibliographies. We recognise that it is

space privately in the form of large gardens or holiday homes.

unlikely that we would manage to retrieve all available open space

A second hypothesis is that the value of open space increases

CV studies but attempted to obtain a large sample that covers the

with population density. Population density reﬂects two important

range of open space land uses and services. The selection criteria for

determinants of the value of open space. Firstly it represents the

the inclusion of a study are that it provides one or more monetary

demand for open space in terms of the number of people in the

value estimate for the provision of urban or peri-urban open space

vicinity that beneﬁt from it, and secondly this variable may also

that can be standardised in the selected units (see below); and that it

indicate the availability of open space, i.e., that more densely

provides information on all of the selected variables to be included in

populated areas have less open space. In both cases we would

the meta-regression analysis. Studies were not excluded on the basis

expect a positive relationship between the value of open space and

of study year or publication type. Of the studies collected, 20

population density. Using data on referenda in the United States

provided sufﬁcient information to be included in a statistical meta-

between 1998 and 2003, Kotchen and Powers (2006) examine the

analysis. A list of these 20 studies is provided in Table 1. From

factors that inﬂuence voter decisions related to open space. They

these studies we were able to code 73 separate value observations in

ﬁnd a positive but insigniﬁcant relationship between population

a numerical database. Multiple value observations from single

density and the probability of a referendum passing. Kline (2006)

studies were included in the data if they represent values for

ﬁnds a positive but diminishing inﬂuence of population density

different study sites or are obtained using different elicitation

on the prevalence of county open space referenda. They also ﬁnd

formats that we can explicitly control for in the meta-regression. The

that the percentage change in population density between 1990

highest number of observations from a single study is provided by

and 2000 has a positive inﬂuence on the number of open space

Scarpa et al. (2000), who estimate the value of 24 forests used for

referenda held, suggesting that the rate of change in urbanisation

recreation in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.5 Value

also affects public perceptions and preferences for open space.

estimates have been standardised to US$ per hectare per annum in

The most commonly applied valuation methods in the open space

2003 prices using GDP deﬂators and PPP exchange rates from the

literature are hedonic pricing (HP) and contingent valuation (CV).3 We

World Bank World Development Indicators 2006.6 The mean value is

conduct separate meta-analyses on the results from these two valu-

ation methods. It should be noted that value estimates from these two

methods are generally not directly comparable. Aside from differ- 5

Almost one third of our sample is taken form a single study, which presents

ences in the welfare measures that they estimate,4 HP has been used a potential problem for our analysis. Unexplained similarities in value estimates

to estimate the impact of distance to open space on property values, produced by the same author (i.e., authorship effects) may invalidate the

whereas CV studies have tended to value open space in terms of units assumption of independent observations. We test for the presence of authorship

of area (e.g., WTP for the preservation of a particular plot of land). effects in the data using the multi-level modelling approach described in Section

2.2 and ﬁnd no signiﬁcant effect.

6

Value estimates are reported in the literature using a wide range of units that

describe beneﬁciaries (e.g., person, household, total economic constituency),

2

The term ‘peri-urban’ is used to describe areas that are immediately adjoining temporal periods (e.g., day, month, year, present value over a speciﬁed time

an urban area. The equivalent term ‘exurban’ is also used in the literature. horizon), and units of area (e.g., hectare, acre, total area, percentage of total). We

3

There are a few studies that apply the travel cost method (Dwyer et al., 1983; standardised value estimates to our chosen speciﬁcation of dependent variable

Lindsey et al., 2004; Lockwood and Tracy, 1995) and choice experiments (Duke using information contained in the primary studies on numbers of beneﬁciaries,

et al., 2002; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2006) to value urban open spaces. temporal periods, and the area of each study site. If the required information was

4

CV estimates compensating or equivalent surplus, whereas HP estimates Mar- missing from a primary study, it was not possible to include value estimates from

shallian consumer surplus (see Section 4 for more detail). the study.

L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773 2765

Table 1

List of contingent valuation studies included in the meta-analysis.

Publication Journal/Working paper Study site Type of area Sample size No. of obs.

Bergstrom et al. (1985) SJAE Greenville county, South Carolina, US Agricultural land 250 4

Bishop (1992) JEPM Derwent and Watford, UK Forest 100 2

Bowker and Diychuck (1994) ARER Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada Agricultural land 92 4

Brefﬂe et al. (1998) Urban Studies Boulder, Colorado, US Undeveloped land 72 1

Chen (2005) Working paper Taiwan Agricultural land 236 3

Fleischer and Tsur (2000) Conf. Proceedings Hula and Jezreel valleys, Israel Agricultural land 161 2

Fleischer and Tsur (2004) ERAE Northern Israel Agricultural land 350 1

Hanley and Wright (1992) JEPM Chester, UK Agricultural land 119 1

Jim and Chen (2006) LUP Guangzhou, China Urban green space 340 1

Krieger (1999) Working paper Chicago collar counties, US Agricultural land 1681 3

Kwak et al. (2003) Urban Studies Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea Forest 600 1

Lindsey and Knaap (1999) JPRA Marion County, Indiana, US Urban green space 354 1

Lockwood and Tracy (1995) JLR Centennial Park, Sydney, Australia Urban park 105 1

Maxwell (1994) JEM Marston Vale, Bedfordshire, UK Forest 100 4

Rosenberger and Walsch (1997) JARE Routt County, Colorado, US Agricultural land 171 4

Ready et al. (1997) Growth and Change Kentucky, US Agricultural land 110 1

Scarpa et al. (2000) FPE 24 forests in N. and Rep. Ireland Forest 300 24

Tyrvainen and Vaananen (1998) LUP Joensuu, Finland Forest 71e205 8

Tyrvainen (2001) JEM Salo, Finland Forest 67e235 6

Willis and Whitby (1985) JRS Tyne county, UK Agricultural land 103 1

Journal acronyms: ARER: Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, JLR: Journal of Leisure Research, ERAE: European Review of Agricultural Economics, JPRA: Journal of Park

and Recreation Administration, FPE: Forest Policy and Economics, JRS: Journal of Rural Studies, JARE: Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, LUP: Landscape and Urban

Planning, JEM: Journal of Environmental Management, SJAE: Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, JEPM: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

US$ 13,210 per hectare per annum, and the median value is US$ gives the impression that each hectare in an open space is equally

1,124, reﬂecting a rather skewed distribution. productive, i.e., exhibits constant returns to scale or equivalently

The selection of the units in which to standardise value esti- that the marginal value is equal to the average value. Without being

mates required careful assessment of the underlying data. The able to convert marginal values to average values or vice versa, we

valuation questions used in most of the studies included in our assume exactly this. This assumption is examined later on in the

sample are formulated to elicit WTP for the creation or mainte- discussion on whether open space exhibits increasing or decreasing

nance of a speciﬁed area of open space rather than WTP per visit (as returns to scale.

is often the case in CV studies of national parks or marine protected In terms of site characteristics, we coded information on loca-

areas). We therefore chose to standardise values on a per hectare tion, type of land use, services provided, and area of the site. The

rather than per visit basis. Values that are reported per household studies included in our database cover 15 countries and US states

or per visitor were aggregated using information on the number of (listed in Table 1). We anticipate that preferences for open space

households or visitors that form the economic constituency or will vary across countries and regions depending on different

market for each open space. This information was taken from the cultural inﬂuences and perceptions of natural and open spaces. The

underlying primary valuation studies. In assessing consumer categories of open space that we use are: forest, park, green space,

valuation of changes in area of open space, both the change in area undeveloped land, and agricultural land. Due to the low number of

and the initial area of open space may matter. We use the former to observations for parks, green space, and undeveloped land, we

standardise estimated values to a per hectare basis whereas the combine parks and green space in one category and combine

latter is included in the meta-regression as an explanatory variable. undeveloped land with agricultural land in the meta-regression

It is important to recognise the distinction between these two analysis. The categories of open space services are: recreation,

measures of area and speciﬁcally that we avoid the inclusion of the preservation, aesthetic, and environmental/agricultural. Open

same measure of area on both sides of the meta-regression func- space may be used for a number of recreational activities such as

tion. A further consideration in deﬁning the units in which to sports, picnicking, dog walking, bird watching etc., but in the

standardise value estimates is that for the purposes of using the interest of maintaining a manageable number of explanatory

estimated meta-regression function for value transfer, it is prefer- variables we group all recreational activities together. Environ-

able to deﬁne the dependent variable in per hectare rather than per mental and agricultural services include micro-climate stabilisa-

person terms. This avoids the potentially difﬁcult step in a value tion, water retention, and water puriﬁcation. Again due to the low

transfer exercise of identifying the population that hold values for number of observations, these services were combined as one

the policy site open space.7 Instead, the population size effect on category. There is inevitably some degree of correlation between

the value of open space is controlled for by including a population type of open space and the services provides, notably environ-

variable in the meta-regression. mental/agricultural services are mainly provided by agricultural

In standardising open space values we faced the problem of land. The provision of other open space services from agricultural

distinguishing between average and marginal values, both of which land has, however, also been valued.

can be expressed as a monetary value per hectare. The majority of In terms of study characteristics we coded information on the

open space valuation studies have estimated total or average values payment vehicle used, the elicitation format, and the sample size.

but there are also a large number of estimates of marginal open The categories of payment vehicle are: entry charge, tax, donation

space values. Expressing open space values in per hectare terms to a fund, and other payment vehicles. Other payment vehicles

include increases in accommodation costs and increases in the

price of rice. The categories of elicitation format are: dichotomous

7

The difﬁcult step of aggregating mean household or visitor values across the

choice, open-ended, and payment card. The sample sizes used in

relevant economic constituency is not avoided but conducted in the standardisation the underlying studies vary greatly, ranging from 67 to over 1600.

process using information on each study site from the primary valuation study. To some extent sample size may indicate study quality and the

2766 L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773

precision of value estimates, and we use this information to weight estimation, for which unreliable region speciﬁc implicit prices are

value observations in the meta-regression (this issue is discussed in differentially shrunk towards the overall estimate. The estimated

more detail below). model is:

Information on average incomes for the samples included in the

c a s

underlying CV studies was generally unavailable. We therefore yij ¼ a þ b X cij þ b X aij þ b X sij þ mj þ 3ij ;

added data on GDP per capita at the state level for US states from

the National Bureau for Economic Research (www.nber.org) and where the subscript i takes values from 1 to the number of obser-

the national level for all other countries from Globalis (http:// vations and subscript j takes values from 1 to the number of

globalis.gvu.unu.edu) for the relevant year for each underlying regions, a is the constant term, mj is an error term at the second

study. We also added data on population densities at the state, (region) level, 3ij is an error term at the ﬁrst (observation) level, and

province, or county level, and for the area within a 4 km, 8 km, and the vectors bc, ba and bs contain coefﬁcients to be estimated by the

12 km radius of each study site using a GIS.8 model on explanatory variables in Xc, Xa and Xs, respectively. We

assume that mj and 3ij follow a normal distribution with means

equal to zero and that they are uncorrelated, so that it is sufﬁcient

2.2. CV meta-regression speciﬁcation and results to estimate their variances, s2m and s23 respectively. This type of

model is also known as a variance components model, given that

The dependent variable in our regression equation is a vector of the error variance is partitioned into components corresponding to

values in US$ per hectare per year in 2003 prices, labelled y. The each level in the hierarchy. In our model, the level 2 error term

explanatory variables are grouped in three different matrices that represents each region’s departure from the population mean,

include the site characteristics in xc (i.e., type of open space, open represented by the constant term.

space service, and area of site), the study characteristics in xa (i.e., In order to control for differences in the precision of the

payment vehicle and elicitation format), and the socio-economic underlying value estimates, we weight the observed values by the

characteristics of the population in xs (i.e., GDP per capita and square root of the sample size in the underlying study, as proposed

population density). The model ﬁt was considerably improved by by Hunter and Schmidt (1990). This weighting procedure has been

using the natural logarithm of the dependent variable, the area of shown to be less efﬁcient but also less biased than using weights

the site, GDP per capita, and population density. In addition we based on the standard errors of the effect sizes (Sanchez-Meca and

centred the area, income, and population density variables (i.e., Marin-Martinez, 1998). Standard errors for the value estimates in

subtracted the mean of each variable from each observation’s value our sample are, however, generally not reported and so this alter-

for that variable) so that the intercept term can be interpreted as native weighting option was not possible. The effect of weighting

the predicted value for a site that has average values for each the observed values does not have a substantial effect on the esti-

continuous explanatory variable. Following Bateman and Jones mated coefﬁcients but does reduce the standard errors. The results

(2003) we use a multi-level modelling (MLM) approach to esti- of the meta-regression are presented in Table 2.

mate the meta-regression.9 The two-level MLM is similar to the The estimated coefﬁcients on the explanatory variables that

one-way error components random effects model but allows for are expressed as logarithms can be interpreted as elasticities, i.e.,

more complex modelling of the variance components observed at the percentage change in the dependent variable given a

each level of a speciﬁed hierarchy. MLM allows a relaxation of the percentage point change in the explanatory variable. The coefﬁ-

common assumption of independent observations, and allows us to cients on the dummy variables included in the model measure the

examine hierarchies within the data, such as similarity of estimates constant proportional change or relative change in the dependent

in the same region. There are of course multiple possible sources of variable for a given absolute change in the value of the explanatory

dependence in meta-analysis data (see Rosenberger and Loomis, variable.

2000). In our case the choice for dependence within regions

seems plausible since preferences for open space likely differ across

regions. Explanations for these regional differences are, for

Table 2

example, differences in total supply and quality of open space, but

CV meta-regression results.

also culturally determined differences in preferences. These factors

we cannot explicitly control for in our meta-analysis, so they are Variable category Variable Coefﬁcient Standard

error

accounted for by the regional variance component. We also

Constant 7.35*** 1.13

examine dependence within studies, which to some extent coin-

Land use Parks and green space 2.25** 0.85

cides with the same clustering of value observations in regions, but Agricultural and 1.75 1.07

do not ﬁnd a statistically signiﬁcant effect. undeveloped land

The use of MLM provides an indication of where the assumption Services Recreation 1.44* 0.81

of independence may be invalid, and also improves the estimation Preservation 0.82 0.76

Aesthetic 0.90 0.60

of standard errors on parameter coefﬁcients. The practical advan-

Area Area (ln) 0.80*** 0.06

tage of using MLM over simply including regional dummy variables Payment vehicle Entry charge 0.76 0.81

is that it uses data from all the observations in the sample to esti- Tax 1.52*** 0.56

mate the model. This pooling of information results in ‘borrowing Donation 2.02* 0.83

Elicitation format Dichotomous choice 1.42** 0.56

of strength’; region speciﬁc relations, that would be poorly esti-

Payment card 0.83** 0.44

mated if modelled on their own, beneﬁt from information from Socio-economic GDP per capita (ln) 0.30 0.60

other regions (Orford, 2000). This results in precision-weighted Population density (ln) 0.49*** 0.11

Level 1 (estimate) variance 0.49*** 0.10

Level 2 (regional) variance 1.53*** 0.43

8 N 73

Population and population density information was derived from Center for

2 loglikelihood 191.9

International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) data. The process by

Pseudo R2 0.44

which this data was converted to represent each study site in our data set is

described in Wagtendonk and Omtzigt (2003). Dependent variable: 2003 US$ per hectare per year (ln).

9

The software used is MLwiN version 2.0 (see Rasbash et al., 2003). ***, **, * ¼ statistically signiﬁcant at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.

L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773 2767

indicates that the value of open space with ‘average’ characteristics

is approximately 1550 US$/ha/year. Average characteristics corre-

spond to the average area (9918 ha), GDP per capita (20,542 US$),

and population density (218/km2) in the meta-data; and the

omitted categories of the dummy variables included in the meta-

regression, namely forests, environmental/agricultural services,

other payment vehicle, and open-ended elicitation format.

Regarding land use type, the coefﬁcient on the parks and green

space dummy variable is positive and signiﬁcant, indicating that

this type of open space is more highly valued than forest (the

omitted categorical variable). The coefﬁcient on the agricultural

and undeveloped land dummy variable is positive but not signiﬁ-

cant. This result contrasts with that of Kline and Wichelns (1998)

and Kotchen and Powers (2006), who ﬁnd evidence of stronger

Fig. 1. Regional effects with 95% conﬁdence intervals for contingent valuation meta-

preferences for agricultural land over other types of open space. In analysis.

terms of the services provided by open space, recreation appears to

be the most valuable. If an open space provides recreational

opportunities instead of environmental/agricultural services, the whether the conﬁdence intervals overlap zero we can determine

value per hectare per year is 322% higher (holding all other char- whether the value of open space in a region differs signiﬁcantly

acteristics constant). The coefﬁcients on the preservation and from the overall average at the 5% level (remembering that level 2

aesthetic variables are also positive but not statistically signiﬁcant. residuals represent regional departures from the overall average

The negative and highly signiﬁcant coefﬁcient on the area variable predicted by the constant term). There are three regions (England,

indicates that larger open spaces have lower per hectare values, i.e., Northern Ireland, and Republic of Ireland) for which the regional

there is diminishing marginal value of the size of open space. For average value is statistically signiﬁcantly lower than the overall

example, an open space that is 10% larger than the average would mean, and three regions (Canada, South Korea, and Finland) for

have a value of 1432 USD/ha/year, i.e., 8% lower per hectare. This which the regional average value is statistically signiﬁcantly higher

result also suggests that respondents in the underlying studies are than the overall mean.

sensitive to scope, i.e., are willing to pay more for larger areas of Regarding the practical application of these results for informing

open space. This result is in accordance with the ﬁnding of Smith policy making, the above meta-analytic function can be used to

and Osborne’s (1996) meta-analysis of scope effects for visibility estimate the value of changes in the area of open space. By

in national parks. substituting information on the parameter values for a speciﬁc site

Regarding the payment vehicle used in the study, the results and context, the value function can provide an estimate of the

show that taxes and donations both produce signiﬁcantly lower annual value per hectare of open space. This estimated value per

values than other payment vehicles. This result corroborates Kotchen hectare can be multiplied by the proposed change in area of open

and Powers (2006) ﬁnding that the proposed funding mechanism for space under a policy scenario to provide the total annual value

the conservation measure under consideration has a signiﬁcant associated with the change. Such information can be used to inform

impact on the outcome of referenda, with voters being less likely to decision-making regarding the provision of additional area of open

approve tax increases. We also ﬁnd evidence that the elicitation space or the conservation of existing areas. It allows the direct

format used in the questionnaire has a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the comparison of the beneﬁts of preserving an area of open space

values obtained. Dichotomous choice and payment card formats versus the costs, i.e., the value of alternative land uses or devel-

tend to produce signiﬁcantly lower value estimates than the open- opment forgone. The use of the meta-analytic function for value

ended format. This is in contrast to the general ﬁnding in other transfer should, however, be conducted with caution since the

studies that mean WTP from dichotomous choice formats exceed precision of estimated values is likely to be low, particularly given

mean WTP from open-ended questions (Bateman et al., 1995). the observed but unexplained variation in values across the regions

We ﬁnd a positive and signiﬁcant relationship between the in the sample.

value of open space and population density (measured at the state,

county, or provincial level). A 10% increase in population density 3. Meta-analysis of hedonic pricing results

results in a 5% increase in the value of open space. The coefﬁcient on

GDP per capita is positive but insigniﬁcant, suggesting that income In this section we present the results of a meta-regression

is not an important determinant of open space value. While analysis of hedonic pricing studies on the impact of open space

controlling for GDP per capita, we do still ﬁnd signiﬁcant regional on house prices. In Section 3.1 we discuss the selection of a stand-

differences in value estimates of open space as indicated by the ardised metric necessary to compare results from HP studies and

level 2 variance. The variance partition coefﬁcient indicates that describe the characteristics of the studies included in the analysis.

76% of the total unexplained variance in the value of open space Section 3.2 describes the explanatory variables included in the

may be attributed to differences between regions. This suggests meta-regression, while Section 3.3 presents the estimation results.

that there are important regional differences in preferences for

open space. The regional effects (level 2 residuals) are presented 3.1. Effect size and study characteristics

in Fig. 1 together with 95% conﬁdence intervals.10 By observing

There are numerous studies that apply a hedonic pricing technique

to analyse the effect of open space on house prices (e.g., Correll et al.,

10

1978; Powe et al., 1995; Din et al., 2001; Tyrvainen and Miettinen,

The level 2 residuals are estimated in the multi-level model using a shrinkage

factor that reﬂects the quantity of information about each regional effect (number

2000; Geoghegan et al., 1997; Lutzenhiser and Netusil, 2001;

and variance of value observations for each region) as described in Rasbash et al. Geoghegan, 2002; Irwin, 2002; Irwin and Bockstael, 2002; Kong

(2003). et al., 2007). We collected and reviewed 52 hedonic pricing studies

2768 L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773

that address the valuation of open space.11 As is the case for most open space appears to provide positive externalities. In our meta-

hedonic pricing research areas, the studies display wide variation in analysis model we include several variables that might explain

their characteristics, for instance, with respect to model speciﬁcation, the variation in effect sizes; these are discussed below.

sample size, study area, and time period. Although most of these The type of open space most often valued in the HP literature is

issues can be controlled for in a meta-analysis, the differences in the urban park. Although other types of open space have been

model speciﬁcation, and more speciﬁcally the differences in the valued, such as greenbelts and agricultural land, there are not

measurement and speciﬁcation of open space as an explanatory sufﬁcient observations to warrant a separate open space category.

variable, reduce the possibilities to transform the outcomes of studies In our model we therefore distinguish between urban parks and

to a common metric. A ﬁrst problem is that studies use different open other types of open space.

space measures to analyse the impact of open space on house prices, Several studies show that the impact of distance on house prices

such as distance to open space, size of open space area, or percentage is lower when houses are located further away from open space. In

of open space within a certain area. Obviously, a coefﬁcient on size of order to control for this potential source of effect size variation, we

open space cannot be transformed into the same metric as a coefﬁ- include the distance at which the effect size is evaluated in our

cient on distance to open space, and vice versa. We therefore have to model (evaluation point). A potential problem is that the functional

make a choice between the various open space measures. Although form and model speciﬁcation used in a primary study largely

conducting a meta-analysis on the effect of size of open space on determine the shape of the relationship (see Brander and Koetse,

house prices would allow for an easier comparison with the results 2007). We therefore have to interpret the coefﬁcient on the eval-

from the CV meta-analysis, this would also give us very few studies to uation point with caution. In general, however, we expect a nega-

work with. We therefore decided to use the distance to open space as tive coefﬁcient, which would imply that a decrease in distance to

our effect size measure. Speciﬁcally, we deﬁned the metric of our open space has a smaller effect at, for example, 200 m than at

dependent variable as the percent change in house price due to a 10 m 100 m. We use the centred natural logarithm of the evaluation

decrease in distance to open space. The process by which primary study point, i.e., we take natural logarithms and for each observation

results were standardised to the chosen deﬁnition of effect size is subtract the mean of the sample. This implies that the constant in

described in Brander and Koetse (2007). our meta-regression model represents the effect size for the

We collected more than 52 hedonic pricing studies on open average log evaluation point in the sample (180 m).

space, of which only a small number was suitable for inclusion in In addition to the distance at which the effect size is evaluated,

our database. The main reason for excluding a study was that it was we also include the distance over which the effect size was

not possible to derive the desired effect size. A smaller number of measured (distance). If decreasing marginal returns to distance

studies were excluded because crucial information on other char- hold in reality, effect sizes should decrease when measured over

acteristics was missing. For example, some studies did not provide longer distances (i.e., a negative coefﬁcient). As with the evaluation

information on the average house price in the sample.12 Ultimately, point, we include the centred natural logarithm in our model. This

the database contains 12 studies that provide a total of 158 effect means that the constant term represents the effect size for the

sizes. It should be noted, however, that for some studies the average log distance in the sample (200 m).

number of effect sizes was increased for reasons set out above. In Income differentials could be important in explaining effect size

Table 3 we present some of the main characteristics of the 12 variation. Since for most studies GDP per capita was not available,

studies included in the meta-analysis. Most studies are fairly we use the average house price in the primary study sample as

recent, with 8 out of 12 studies from 2000 or later. It is striking that a proxy for income.13 Average house prices are converted to 2003

11 out of the 12 studies are from the United States, with 3 studies US$ using a GDP deﬂator and PPP transformation where necessary.

from Oregon and 3 from North Carolina. In addition, most studies We again use the centred natural logarithm of average house price,

test for the impact of urban parks on house prices. Other categories which implies that the constant in our meta-regression model

of open space include forests, greenbelts, natural areas, and agri- represents the effect size for the mean of log average house prices

cultural land, but none of these categories are abundant in the in the sample (106,000 US$ in 2003 prices). Note that in con-

database. Finally, there is large variation in the sample sizes used structing the dependent variable we already include an income

for estimation, implying substantial differences in the precision of effect, i.e., a 1% increase in house price is a larger amount of money

effect size estimation between studies. in absolute terms for a more expensive house than for a less

expensive house. However, we may still be able to discern an

3.2. Explanatory variables income effect (in terms of percentages) if there is sufﬁcient varia-

tion in income levels between studies and regions.

The dependent variable in our regression equation is deﬁned as In order to control for the degree of urbanisation, which in turn

the percentage change in house prices due to a 10 m decrease in can be regarded as a measure of scarcity of open space, we include

distance to open space. The unweighted average effect is 0.137%, i.e., the population density (number of people per square kilometre) of

house prices increase when located closer to open space. As such, the region under investigation (for details see Brander and Koetse,

2007). We use the centred natural logarithm of population density,

implying that the constant in our meta-regression model repre-

11

We used Google Scholar for an initial search for studies, using various search sents the effect size for the log average population density in the

terms, both in isolation and in combination (e.g., open space, hedonic pricing, sample (1720 people per km2). Since population density may be

property values, green, urban green). This gave a substantial number of studies. We regarded as a measure of scarcity of open space and a measure of

then went through the reference lists of the obtained studies to search for other

crowdedness of an area, we expect a positive sign (i.e., open space

potentially interesting studies. The a priori selection criteria were that a study

should be a hedonic pricing study, should use house prices as the dependent has a higher value in crowded areas and when supply of open space

variable, and should have some characteristic of open space among the explanatory is relatively limited).

variables (e.g., distance to open space, size of nearest open space). The list of

hedonic pricing studies is obtainable from the authors on request.

12

In the case that relevant information was not included in the study, we sent an

email to the authors requesting the desired information. This exercise was

13

successful for many studies, but for some studies the desired information was no Average house price is likely a more exact measure of income than the GDP

longer available or we did not receive a reply to our request. ﬁgures at the state level used for the CV analysis.

L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773 2769

Table 3

List of hedonic pricing studies included in the meta-analysis.a

Publication Study site Type of area Functional form Sample size No. of obs.

Correll et al. (1978) Colorado, USA Greenbelt Linear 85 4

Vaughan (1981) Illinois, USA Urban park Semi-log 100 48

Palmquist (1992) Washington, USA Urban park Semi-log 4785 3

Bolitzer and Netusil (2000) Oregon, USA Urban park Linear, Semi-log 16,402 10

Lutzenhiser and Netusil (2001) Oregon, USA Urban park, Natural area park Box-Cox 16,747 12

Kim and Johnson (2002) Oregon, USA Forest Linear, Box-Cox 752 11

Smith et al. (2002) North Carolina, USA Forest; Agricultural land; Public Semi-log 9409; 6325; 21

open space 2866; 1037

Tajima (2003) Massachusetts, USA Urban park Double-log 16,044 24

Bengochea-Morancho (2003) Castellon, Spain Urban park Linear 593 3

Mansﬁeld et al. (2005) North Carolina, USA Forest Linear 11,206 7

Palmquist and Fulcher (2006) North Carolina, USA Urban park Semi-log 96,585 3

Anderson and West (2006) Minnesota, USA Urban park Double-log 24,862 12

a

Out of the 12 studies, 11 were published in a journal and 1 in a peer reviewed book.

The models used in the primary studies have different func- open space, at an average distance over which the effect size was

tional forms, i.e., linear, semi-log, double-log and Box-Cox model measured, at an average house price, and for an average population

speciﬁcations are all present. In estimating the meta-model we ﬁrst density (see Section 3.2), house prices increase by approximately

controlled for every different functional form. The results showed 0.1% when they are located 10 m closer to open space. The impact of

that the distinction between linear and non-linear studies is the urban parks on house prices appears similar to the impact of other

most relevant distinction. In the ﬁnal model speciﬁcation we types of open space. The coefﬁcient on the evaluation point is

therefore include a dummy variable that is equal to one for linear negative and indicates that when a house is located at 190 m from

studies, i.e., non-linear studies are the reference category.14 open space rather than 180 m (the average evaluation distance in

Finally, hedonic pricing studies vary widely with respect to the sample), the increase in house price due to a 10 m decrease in

model speciﬁcation. Many of these we cannot control for in our distance is reduced by 0.038 percentage points to 0.059%. Similarly,

meta-analysis because in most primary studies important charac- when a house is located 170 m from open space rather than 180 m,

teristics of open space are not reported. For example, looking at the the effect increases by 0.038% points to 0.135%. An even stronger

CVM meta-regression results, an important characteristic is size of result is obtained for the distance over which the effect size was

the open space area. In the HP meta-analysis we cannot control for measured. The coefﬁcient is also negative but is larger and statis-

size. Although not controlling for these issues may reduce the tically signiﬁcant at 5%. These ﬁndings reveal that the further

overall explanatory power of our meta-analysis model, our meta- a house is located from open space, the smaller the price effect of

coefﬁcients are still unbiased as long as the omitted variables are moving closer to open space.

not correlated with the included variables. With respect to the socio-economic variables, the sign of the

coefﬁcient on average house price, included as a measure of

income, shows that a higher income increases the impact of

3.3. Model speciﬁcation and results distance from open space on house prices. The coefﬁcient, however,

is not statistically signiﬁcant. Population density also appears to

Similar to the CV meta-regression, we use a multi-level model increase the impact of distance. Population density possibly

with the region from which each value estimate is observed spec- represents several things. Most importantly it may be regarded as

iﬁed as the second level. The estimated meta-regression model is: a measure of scarcity of open space and a measure of crowdedness

of an area. In that light, the result makes sense, in that the value of

yij ¼ a þ bX ij þ mj þ 3ij ; open space increases with crowdedness and scarcity of open space.

where y is a vector of effect sizes, a is a constant, and b is a vector of The results furthermore reveal a rather substantial impact of

parameters on explanatory variables X. The subscript i indexes the

effect sizes and subscript j indexes the regions in the sample (US

states in all cases but one, see Table 3). The error term consists of

two parts, i.e., mj is an error term at the second (regional) level, and Table 4

Hedonic pricing meta-regression results.

3ij is an error term at the ﬁrst (effect size) level. Similar to the CV

meta-analysis, we weight the data with the square root of sample Variable category Variable Coefﬁcient Standard

size in order to control for differences in effect size precision error

between studies. The results of the meta-regression are presented Constant 0.097** 0.041

Land use Urban Park (dummy) 0.004 0.009

in Table 4.

Distance Evaluation point (ln) 0.038* 0.020

The constant is positive and statistically signiﬁcant at 5%. It Distance (ln) 0.134** 0.058

reveals that for non-linear studies, at an average distance from Socio-economic Average house price (ln) 0.058 0.059

Population density (ln) 0.067** 0.030

Functional form Linear (dummy) 0.180** 0.039

14 Level 1 (estimate) variance 0.031* 0.016

Initially we also included a time trend in the model. For each observation we

Level 2 (regional) variance 0.010** 0.004

determined the time period of the data used and take the middle year to represent

N 158

that period. We transformed this variable such that 1971 (the oldest middle year in

2 loglikelihood 103

the meta-analysis sample) equals one, 1972 equals 2, etc., and included the

Pseudo R2 0.13

resulting variable as a time trend in our model. The coefﬁcient on the time trend

was small and statistically insigniﬁcant, and had a very small inﬂuence on other Dependent variable: % change in house prices due to a 10 m decrease in distance to

model coefﬁcients. We therefore decided to exclude this variable from our ﬁnal open space.

model. **, * ¼ statistically signiﬁcant at 5% and 10%, respectively.

2770 L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773

functional form on the outcome of a study. Estimates obtained from subject to hypothetical bias, i.e., bias that may occur because CV

linear models are considerably higher than those obtained from respondents do not actually bear the consequences of their stated

non-linear models, i.e., linear studies produce a substantially larger behaviour (see Murphy et al., 2005). Second, in addition to the fact

impact of open space on house prices than non-linear studies. Since that HP studies generally measure one-time percentage changes in

there is no clear theory that tells us which functional form is property values, while CV studies measure annual WTP values, CV

optimal for this type of hedonic pricing analysis, our results only and HP do not estimate identical welfare measures. By directly

reveal the consequences of differences in functional form, and not asking respondents to state their WTP or WTA for (hypothetical)

which one is preferable. changes in environmental quality or quantity, CV provides estimates

Finally, similar to the CV analysis we ﬁnd that there are of the technically precise welfare measures of compensating and

unspeciﬁed regional differences in value estimates of open space, as equivalent surplus. HP estimates Marshallian consumer surplus,

indicated by the level 2 variance. This suggests that there are which approximates, and is bounded by, the compensating variation

important regional differences in preferences for open space. Fig. 2 and equivalent variation welfare measures. For relatively small price

presents the regional effects and 95% conﬁdence intervals. Two changes, the error of this approximation is small (Willig, 1976), but

regions (Minnesota and Oregon) have average values that are for large price changes (e.g., when considering a price change large

statistically signiﬁcantly below the overall average, whereas enough to drive the quantity demanded to zero) the error can be

Massachusetts has an average value of open space that is signiﬁ- substantial (Freeman, 2003). In response to this potential error there

cantly higher than the overall average. Using a similar model are now several hedonic pricing studies that attempt to estimate

speciﬁcation we examined study effects in place of regional effects. Hicksian measures of consumer surplus (see, for example, Driscoll

In this case we do ﬁnd a signiﬁcant study effect but since there is et al., 1994). Third, HP and CV methods may differ in terms of the

a large correspondence in the clustering of valuation observations component(s) of total economic value that they estimate (Johnston

by region and by study it is not possible to identify the underlying et al., 2001). The HP method is generally applied to capture the

causes of the observed dependence. value of services that are in some way dependent on housing loca-

Regarding the potential practical application of these results, the tion relative to the location of the resource under consideration. CV,

estimated meta-analytic value function can be used to conduct value on the other hand, can be applied to estimate use and non-use values

transfers to estimate the welfare implications of the provision of for environmental services that are not sensitive to the respective

open space. In a similar fashion to the CV value function, property locations of recipient and resource. As such, the hedonic pricing

and context speciﬁc parameter values can be substituted into the method can only be used to estimate the value of a restricted set of

value function to produce estimates of the change in house prices environmental services. Differences in value estimates for open

due to a change in the distance to open space. The HP based value space from these two methods are therefore to be expected given

function is therefore suitable for addressing questions regarding the that the services derived from open space include amenities that are

conﬁguration of residential land use and urban open space in terms spatially and non-spatially dependent (Ready et al., 1997). Johnston

of distance between the two. For example, it could be used to esti- et al. (2001) value the amenity beneﬁts of coastal farmland in

mate the difference in value associated with providing open space Suffolk County, New York, using both CV and HP. The CV results show

that is 100 m distance from a residential area versus 200 m distance. farmland to produce positive externalities whereas the HP results

In principle the value function could be used to estimate the change reveal that proximity to farmland has a negative inﬂuence on house

in house price for each property in the study site given information prices. These contrasting results are explained as reﬂecting the

on the distance of each property to open space. Such a value transfer different types of externalities being valued by each method (i.e.,

exercise is, however, highly data intensive. Again we recommend non-spatially dependent use values and non-use values vs. spatially

caution in using the meta-analytic value function for value transfer dependent use values).

given the low expected precision of transferred values. Clearly, the results from CV and HP studies may differ due to

a number of reasons, and a priori there is no good theoretical

4. Comparison of CV and HP results reason why either method would produce (systematically) higher

or lower value estimates. A number of studies have attempted to

There are several fundamental differences between HP and CV make direct comparisons between the results of CV and HP

studies. A ﬁrst difference is that HP studies analyse actual behaviour methods. Brookshire et al. (1982) set out a theoretical justiﬁcation

and preferences, while CV studies analyse stated behaviour and for differences in HP and CV results and then compare values for

preferences in hypothetical situations. The latter may therefore be clean air in Los Angeles estimated using each method. Their results

show HP to produce signiﬁcantly higher values than CV. Blomquist

(1988) and Shabman and Stephenson (1996) ﬁnd similar results. In

general, however, there is evidence to suggest that the two

methods produce broadly similar value estimates (Bateman et al.,

2004). Carson et al. (1996) review 83 valuation studies for quasi-

public goods from which 616 comparisons of CV and revealed

preference (RP) estimates are made. The sample mean CV/RP ratio

is 0.89 with a 95% conﬁdence interval of 0.81e0.96 and a median of

0.75. While the Carson at al. (1996) results show that RP methods

produce higher value estimates than CV, they also show that esti-

mates from these two methods are within the same range (see also

Ready et al., 1997). A number of meta-analyses of the environ-

mental valuation literature have also examined the inﬂuence of

valuation methods on estimated values. For example, in a meta-

analysis of the wetland valuation literature Woodward and Wui

(2001) ﬁnd that HP studies produce statistically signiﬁcantly

Fig. 2. Regional effects with 95% conﬁdence intervals for hedonic pricing meta- higher values than CV studies, whereas Ghermandi et al. (2010)

analysis. ﬁnds no signiﬁcant difference in values from these two methods.

L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773 2771

While the results from the two meta-analyses presented in this The results of the meta-analyses can also be used to address the

paper do not allow a comparison between CV and HP in terms of hypotheses set out in the introduction. The ﬁrst hypothesis that was

the magnitude of the values they generate due to differently put forward was that open space is a normal good. The income vari-

deﬁned dependent variables, it is interesting to compare the meta- ables in the two meta-regressions are both positive but insigniﬁcant,

regression models for consistency in the sign and signiﬁcance of the suggesting that the value of open space is weakly related to income

explanatory variables that they have in common. levels. This result is in accordance with the ﬁndings of Deacon and

In both models the population density variable is positive and Shapiro (1975), Kline and Wichelns (1994), and Romero and Liserio

signiﬁcant, indicating that the value of open space increases with (2002), who also ﬁnd no signiﬁcant income effect for the value of

population density. The income variables included in the two open space. While we would expect open space to be a normal good

models are only approximately comparable (we use state or for which demand increases with income, it might be the case that

national level GDP per capita in the CV meta-regression and people prefer to consume private open space (e.g., private gardens)

average house prices in the HP meta-regression), but in both cases rather than public open space as their incomes increase.

the estimated coefﬁcients reveal an insigniﬁcant positive effect. The second hypothesis is that the value of open space increases

Although we might expect open space to be a normal good, the with population density. The population density variables in both

results do at least support each other in showing no signiﬁcant models are positive and signiﬁcant. This variable may represent

effect of income on open space value. demand for open space as well as the scarcity of open space. In both

Regarding differences in values for different types of open space, cases we would expect a positive relationship with open space

both models indicate that urban parks have higher values than value, and this is conﬁrmed by our results. This ﬁnding suggests

other types of open space, although the relationship is not signiﬁ- that remaining open spaces in densely populated urban areas are

cant in the HP meta-regression. We also observe that methodo- highly valued and therefore may warrant preservation.

logical differences in the underlying studies in both meta-analyses An important ﬁnding from the meta-analyses is that the meth-

are broadly signiﬁcant e indicating that study design is an impor- odological design of the underlying valuation study has a large

tant determinant of estimated value for both CV and HP. inﬂuence on the results of both CV and HP. In the case of CV, we ﬁnd

The inclusion of regional level variance in the multi-level model that values elicited using taxes or donations as the payment vehicle

speciﬁcation is signiﬁcant for both the CV and HP data, showing tend to be signiﬁcantly lower. Similarly, the use of dichotomous

that there are important regional differences in preferences for choice or payment card elicitation formats produce signiﬁcantly

open space and that both CV and HP studies pick these up. It is lower values than when an open-ended format is used. In the case of

noteworthy that the three regions that are represented in both the HP, the choice of functional form for the hedonic price function

CV and HP data (namely North Carolina, Colorado and Illinois) greatly affects the values estimated, with linear speciﬁcations

follow the same ordering of residuals in the two meta-regression producing signiﬁcantly higher values. These results highlight the

models (see Figs. 1 and 2). Controlling for other determinants of inﬂuence of study design on estimated values and the need to

the value of open space, both CV and HP studies appear to ﬁnd that recognise and account for this when using valuation results.

the value of open space is higher in Illinois than in Colorado and Finally, we estimate a multi-level meta-regression which allows

North Carolina. us to control for dependencies in the meta-analysis data. Although

there are many possible sources of dependence, in this study we

account for dependence within regions. This choice seems plausible

5. Conclusions since preferences for open space likely differ across regions, for

example because of differences in total supply and quality of open

This paper provides an overview of the results of contingent space, the historical role of different land uses across regions, and

valuation and hedonic pricing studies on the value of urban and differences in attitudes, perceptions and cultural context. Since we

peri-urban open space and has attempted to identify the important cannot explicitly control for these factors in our meta-analysis, they

physical, socio-economic, and study characteristics that determine are accounted for by a regional variance component. The results

the value of open space. CV studies have tended to value open space show that there are indeed important regional differences in

in terms of units of area, whereas HP has largely been used to value preferences for open space, which may constrain the potential for

open space in terms of the inﬂuence of distance to open space on transferring estimated values between regions.

property prices. We therefore conducted separate meta-analyses Regarding the application of the study results for informing

on the valuation results of each method. policy decisions, the two meta-analyses lend themselves to

The dependent variable in the CV meta-regression is deﬁned as answering different policy questions. For land use planning related

the value of open space per hectare per year in 2003 US$. The to the provision of additional urban open space (or conservation of

estimate from the meta-model shows that, for mean values in the exiting areas), the CV value function can be used to estimate the

meta-analysis sample of population density, income and size of the value per unit area, and subsequently the value of total area change

area, the value of a forest is around 1500 US$. Important factors under a policy scenario. Regarding the spatial conﬁguration of

inﬂuencing this value are land use, services provided by the area, residential land use and urban open space, the HP value function

and size of the area. Especially urban parks and areas used for can be used to estimate the value associated with reduced distances

recreation purposes have higher values, while size of the area between residences and urban open space. We caution, however,

decreases the value per hectare (i.e., not total value of the area), that in light of observed regional variation in values, the precision

which points to decreasing returns to size. of transferred values is likely to be low. Value transfers should

The dependent variable in the HP analysis is deﬁned as the therefore not be undertaken in contexts where precise value esti-

change in house price for a 10 m decrease in distance to open space mates are required.

in 2003 US$. The model estimations show that, for mean values in

the meta-analysis sample of population density, income, and Acknowledgements

measurement values in the underlying primary studies, the

increase is around 0.1%. The results furthermore show that this The authors would like to thank Erik Verhoef, Jeroen van den

effect increases (decreases) rapidly when getting closer to (further Bergh, Raymond Florax, and Sebastiaan Hess for useful comments

away from) open space. and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. We also gratefully

2772 L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773

acknowledge the contribution of Bogusia Igielska in helping to Geoghegan, J., 2002. The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use

Policy 19, 91e98.

build the database. Useful comments and suggestions by three

Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L.A., Bockstael, N.E., 1997. Spatial landscape indices in

anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated and have led to a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological

considerable improvements in the paper. This research is sup- Economics 23, 251e264.

ported through the Habiforum research programme and the Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Brander, L.M., de Groot, H.L.F., Nunes, P.A.L.D,

2010. Values of natural and human-made wetlands: a meta-analysis. Water

‘Reinventing Landscape Planning in MetroLand’ programme, fun- Resources Research 46, 1e12.

ded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientiﬁc Research (NWO). Hanley, N.D., Wright, J.L., 1992. Valuing the environment: recent UK experience and

an application to Green Belt land. Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management 35, 145e160.

References Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L., 1990. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias

in Research Findings. Sage Publications, London.

Anderson, S.T., West, S.E., 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial Irwin, E.G., 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land

context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36, 773e789. Economics 78, 465e480.

Bateman, I.J., Jones, A.P., 2003. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling Irwin, E.G., Bockstael, N.E., 2002. Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the

approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in U.K. Woodland evolution of residential land use patterns. Journal of Economic Geography 2,

recreation values. Land Economics 79, 235e258. 31e54.

Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Turner, R.K., Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., 1995. Elicitation Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2006. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of

and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 12, urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 75,

161e179. 81e96.

Bateman, I.J., Lovett, A.A., Brainard, J.S., 2004. Applied Environmental Economics: Johnston, R.J., Opaluch, J.J., Grigalunas, T.A., Mazzotta, M.J., 2001. Estimating

a GIS Approach to Cost-Beneﬁt Analysis. Cambridge University Press, amenity beneﬁts of coastal farmland. Growth and Change 32, 305e325.

Cambridge. Kahn, M.E., Matsusaka, J.G., 1997. Demand for environmental goods: evidence from

Bates, L., Santerre, R., 2001. The public demand for open space: the case of con- voting patterns on California initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics 40,

necticut communities. Journal of Urban Economics 50, 97e111. 137e173.

Bengochea-Morancho, A., 2003. A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Land- Kim, Y., Johnson, R.L., 2002. The Impact of forests and forest management on

scape and Urban Planning 66, 35e41. neighboring property values. Society and Natural Resources 15, 887e901.

Bergstrom, J.C., Dillman, B.L., Stoll, J.R., 1985. Public environmental amenity beneﬁts Kline, J., Wichelns, D., 1994. Using referendum data to characterize public support

of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. Southern Journal of Agri- for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Economics 70,

cultural Economics 17, 139e149. 223e233.

Bishop, K., 1992. Assessing the beneﬁts of community forests: an evaluation of Kline, J., Wichelns, D., 1998. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving

recreational use beneﬁts of two urban fringe woodlands. Journal of Environ- farmland and open space. Ecological Economics 26 (2), 211e224.

mental Planning and Management 35, 63e76. Kline, J., 2006. Public demand for preserving local open space. Society and Natural

Blomquist, G.C., 1988. Valuing urban lakeview amenities using implicit and Resources 19, 645e659.

contingent markets. Urban Studies 25, 333e340. Kong, F., Yin, H., Nakagoshi, N., 2007. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the

Bolitzer, B., Netusil, N.R., 2000. The impact of open spaces on property values in hedonic price modelling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case

Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management 59, 185e193. study in Jinan City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 79, 240e252.

Bowker, J.M., Diychuck, D.D., 1994. Estimating the nonmarket beneﬁts of agricul- Kotchen, M.J., Powers, S.M., 2006. Explaining the appearance and success of voter

tural land retention in eastern Canada. Agricultural and Resource Economic referenda for open-space conservation. Journal of Environmental Economics

Review 23, 218e225. and Management 52, 373e390.

Brander, L.M., Florax, R.J.G.M., Vermaat, J.E., 2006. The empirics of wetland valua- Krieger, D., 1999. Saving Open Spaces: Public Support for Farmland Protection.

tion: a comprehensive summary and meta-analysis of the literature. Environ- Working Paper Series WP 99e1. Center for Agriculture in the Environment,

mental and Resource Economics 33, 223e250. Northern Illinois University, Chicago.

Brander, L.M., Koetse, M.J., 2007. The Value of Urban Open Space: Meta-Analyses of Kwak, S.J., Yoo, S.H., Han, S.Y., 2003. Estimating the public’s value for urban forest in

Contingent Valuation and Hedonic Pricing Results. IVM Working Paper 07/03. the Seoul metropolitan area of Korea: a contingent valuation study. Urban

Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam. Studies 40, 2207e2221.

Brefﬂe, W.S., Morey, E.R., Lodder, T.S., 1998. Using contingent valuation to estimate Lindsey, G., Man, J., Payton, S., Dickson, K., 2004. Property values, recreation values

a neighbourhood’s willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land. and urban greenways. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 22, 69e90.

Urban Studies 35, 715e727. Lindsey, G., Knaap, G., 1999. Willingness to pay for urban greenway projects. Journal

Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.D., D’Arge, R.C., 1982. Valuing public of the American Planning Association 65, 297e313.

goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. American Economic Lockwood, M., Tracy, K., 1995. Nonmarket economic valuation of an urban recrea-

Review 72, 165e177. tion park. Journal of Leisure Research 27, 155e167.

Brouwer, R., Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., Turner, R.K., 1999. A meta-analysis of Lutzenhiser, M., Netusil, N.R., 2001. The effect of open spaces on a home’s sale price.

wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change 1, Contemporary Economic Policy 19, 291e298.

47e57. Mallawaarachchi, T., Morrison, M.D., Blamey, R.K., 2006. Choice modelling to

Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M., Wright, J.L., 1996. Contingent valuation and determine the signiﬁcance of environmental amenity and production alterna-

revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public tives in the community value of peri-urban land: Sunshine Coast, Australia.

goods. Land Economics 72, 80e99. Land Use Policy 23, 323e332.

Chen, M., 2005. Evaluation of Environmental Services of Agriculture in Taiwan. Mansﬁeld, C., Pattanayak, S.K., McDow, W., McDonald, R., Halpin, P., 2005. Shades of

National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. Journal of

Correll, M.R., Lillydahl, J.H., Singell, L.D., 1978. The effects of greenbelts on resi- Forest Economics 11, 177e199.

dential property values: some ﬁndings on the political economy of open space. Maxwell, S., 1994. Valuation of rural environmental improvements using contingent

Land Economics 54, 207e217. valuation methodology: a case study of the Marston vale community forest

Deacon, R., Shapiro, P., 1975. Private preference for collective goods revealed project. Journal of Environmental Management 41, 385e399.

through voting on referenda. American Economic Review 65, 943e955. McConnell, V., Walls, M., 2005. The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of

Din, A., Hoesli, M., Bender, A., 2001. Environmental variables and real estate prices. Nonmarket Beneﬁts. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

Urban Studies 38, 1989e2000. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D., 2005. A Meta-analysis of

Driscoll, P., Dietz, B., Alwang, J., 1994. Welfare analysis when budget constraints are hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource

nonlinear: the case of ﬂood hazard reduction. Journal of Environmental Economics 30, 313e325.

Economics and Management 26, 181e199. ODPM, 2002. Valuing the Beneﬁts of Undeveloped Land. Ofﬁce of the Deputy Prime

Duke, J.M., Ilvento, T.W., Aull-Hyde, R., 2002. Public Support for Land Preservation: Minister, London, UK.

Measuring Relative Preferences in Delaware. Department of Food and Resource Orford, S., 2000. Modelling spatial structures in local housing market dynamics:

Economics, University of Delaware, Newark. a multi-level perspecitive. Urban Studies 37, 1643e1671.

Dwyer, J.F., Peterson, G.L., Darragh, A.J., 1983. Estimating the value of urban forests Palmquist, R.B., 1992. Valuing localized externalities. Journal of Urban Economics 31,

using the travel cost method. Journal of Arboriculture 9, 182e185. 59e68.

Fausold, C.J., Lilieholm, R.J., 1999. The economic value of open space: a review and Palmquist, R.B., Fulcher, C.M., 2006. The Economic valuation of shoreline: 30 years

synthesis. Journal Environmental Management 23, 307e320. later. In: Halvorsen, R., Layton, D.F. (Eds.), Explorations in Environmental and

Fleischer, A., Tsur, Y., 2000. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural land- Natural Resource Economics: Essays in Honor of Gardner M. Brown, Jr. Edward

scape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 27, 385e398. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 208e223.

Fleischer, A., Tsur, Y., 2004. The Amenity Value of Agricultural Landscape and Rural- Powe, N.A., Garrod, G.D., Willis, K.G., 1995. Valuation of urban amenities using

Urban Land Allocation. Discussion Paper No. 5.04. The Center for Agricultural a hedonic price model. Journal of Property Research 12, 137e147.

Economic Research, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., Prosser, B., 2003. A User’s Guide to MLwiN

Freeman III, A.M., 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Version 2.0. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Institute of Education, University

Theories and Methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. of London, London, UK.

L.M. Brander, M.J. Koetse / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2763e2773 2773

Ready, R.C., Berger, M.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1997. Measuring amenity beneﬁts from Smith, V.K., Poulos, C., Kim, H., 2002. Treating open space as an urban amenity.

farmland: hedonic pricing vs. contingent valuation. Growth and Change 28 (4), Resource and Energy Economics 24, 107e129.

438e458. Stanley, T.D., 2001. Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature

Romero, F., Liserio, A., 2002. Saving open spaces: determinants of 1998 and 1999 review. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, 131e150.

antisprawl ballot measures. Social Science Quarterly 83, 341e352. Tajima, K., 2003. New estimates of the demand for urban green space: implications

Rosenberger, R.S., Walsch, R.G., 1997. Nonmarket value of western valley Ranchland for valuing the environmental beneﬁts of Boston’s big dig project. Journal of

using contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22, Urban Affairs 25, 641e655.

296e309. TPL, 27-10-2006. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) Landvote Database. www.tpl.org.

Rosenberger, R.S., Loomis, J.B., 2000. Panel stratiﬁcation in meta-analysis of Tyrvainen, L., 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest beneﬁts in Finland. Journal

economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valua- of Environmental Management 62, 75e92.

tion literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32, Tyrvainen, L., Miettinen, M., 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities.

459e470. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 205e223.

Sanchez-Meca, J., Marin-Martinez, F., 1998. Weighting by inverse variance or by Tyrvainen, L., Vaananen, H., 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an

sample size in meta-analysis: a simulation study. Educational and Psychological application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning

Measurement 58, 211e220. 43, 105e118.

Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W.G., Chilton, S.M., Buongiorno, J., 2000. Importance of Vaughan, R.J., 1981. The value of urban open space. Research in Urban Economics 1,

forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation 103e130.

study of Irish forests. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 315e329. Wagtendonk, A., Omtzigt, N., 2003. Analysis of Population Density Around Wetland

Shabman, L., Stephenson, K., 1996. Searching for the correct beneﬁt estimate: Areas in GPW (Gridded Population of the World) Files. SPINlab Document.

empirical evidence for an alternative perspective. Land Economics 72, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam.

433e449. Willig, R.D., 1976. Consumers’ surplus without an apology. American Economic

Smith, V.K., Osborne, L.L., 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “Scope” Review 66, 589e597.

test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Willis, K.G., Whitby, M.C., 1985. The value of Green Belt Land. Journal of Rural

31, 287e301. Studies 1, 147e162.

Smith, V.K., Pattanayak, S.K., 2002. Is Meta-analysis a Noah’s ark for non-market Woodward, R.T., Wui, Y.S., 2001. The economic value of wetland sevices: a meta-

valuation? Environmental and Resource Economics 22, 271e296. analysis. Ecological Economics 37, 257e270.

- statistik tugasHochgeladen vonDyana Putri
- Graham&Perin2007_metaanalysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent StudentsHochgeladen vonNashwa
- Holger Bösch, Fiona Steinkamp and Emil Boller- In the eye of the beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin, Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006)Hochgeladen vonHtemae
- A Comparative Test of Work-family Conflict ModelsHochgeladen vonGiulia Atanasiu
- exercise chapter 8 (5.12.2013).docHochgeladen vonRahimi Shahimi
- DavidStea.crossculturalresHochgeladen vonbjimdom7054
- Antioxidants_Review of Evidence on All-cause Mortality (Chocrane, 2012)Hochgeladen vonWilson
- Actividad F%C3%ADsica y cognici%C3%B3n en edad escolar_ META_ANALISISHochgeladen vonDavid Barranco
- Applications of Statistics On Banking and Pharmaceutical CompaniesHochgeladen vonMidul Khan
- Desingn Of Experiments ch14Hochgeladen vonkannappanrajendran
- Proj 1 Report Revised DraftHochgeladen vonSoumitry J Ray
- Stat SymbolsHochgeladen vonjanmalexx
- Data Mining Tutorial CompleteHochgeladen vonrookieanalytics
- Zhang 2013Hochgeladen vonIqbal Tafwid
- Thiazolidinedione Use and Atrial Fibrillation in Diabetic PatientsHochgeladen von'Irawan Bradd
- Further Regression TopicsHochgeladen vonthrphys1940
- The Effect ofCoachingHochgeladen vonSquidward Sullivan
- Antosianin3Hochgeladen vonDimas Bagus Cahyaningrat. W
- Clinical Practice Guideline Methodology Summit Report (2012)Hochgeladen vonCamilo Cortesi
- Jurnal EvidanbasedHochgeladen vonpuskesmas plosoklaten
- Multiple RegressionHochgeladen vonColleenMaimaiChimee
- TheImpactofTimeManagementontheStudents1-PB_2 (1).pdfHochgeladen vonKrisha Lalosa
- TheImpactofTimeManagementontheStudents1-PB_2.pdfHochgeladen vonSyed Asmara
- TheImpactofTimeManagementontheStudents1-PB_2.pdfHochgeladen vonAlyssa Navarro
- TheImpactofTimeManagementontheStudents1 PB 2Hochgeladen vonASHISH LOYA
- Percentile Standard DeviationHochgeladen vondrshama65
- Add math part 1Hochgeladen vonLyna Nader
- Class SizeHochgeladen vonRaghdah AL-Madany
- Cerna 522016 a Cri 27924Hochgeladen vonDr Patrick Cerna
- Linear Regression is an Important Concept in Finance and Practically All Forms of ResearchHochgeladen vonYusuf Hussein

- Springfield-Nor-Easters-Case-Analysis_Group12.docxHochgeladen vonkkayathwal
- Homework5_F11_ECON110Hochgeladen vonJames Giangrande
- Marketing Management PPtHochgeladen vonram
- Mkt624 Midterm Data and McqHochgeladen vonKaushal Pandey
- Marketing Management NotesHochgeladen vonPranavSharma
- EconomicInsight-CounteringStagflationHochgeladen vonesdee
- Adventure travel agency marketing planHochgeladen vonPalo Alto Software
- 01.07.2016 Dcpp Auction FinalHochgeladen vonnitinagrawal21021988
- Pricing: Understanding and Capturing Customer ValueHochgeladen vonAlrifai Ziad Ahmed
- 15190423 New Product Development Process of LUXHochgeladen vonusmanahmadqadri
- Brand Mnagement Subway SandwichesHochgeladen vonabhinav_das89
- New Product Development ReportHochgeladen vonFaseeh-Ur-Rehman
- Principles of Marketing RevisionHochgeladen vonGeraldwerre
- Feasibility Study SampleHochgeladen vonVina Ocho Cadorna
- Baker Company ProfileHochgeladen vondodgeragan
- MK0003- Retail MarketingHochgeladen vonlakkuMS
- Marketing SummaryHochgeladen vonStefan Ifrim
- Nestle JamHochgeladen vonMuhammad Jawad Asif
- 2010 Fast Lube Programs GuideHochgeladen vonOilLubeNews
- New DOCX Document.docxHochgeladen vonDubleau W
- Project on Airlines SECTORHochgeladen vonaayushilodha
- Distance BBA Syllabus Karnataka State Open UniversityHochgeladen vonSunil Jha
- b2c Online AuctionHochgeladen vonalaindoni
- Unit 7Hochgeladen vonAjeet Kumar
- ch11 bundling.pptHochgeladen vonRuchi Girotra
- Bus Mgt FG Revision BookletHochgeladen vonknoxacademy
- Aeren LPO PPT PresentationHochgeladen vonaerenlpo
- AIJN2016_MarketReport-1Hochgeladen vonLiliana Fuentes
- air linesHochgeladen vonRehman SixTnine
- Amara Raja Batteries LimitedHochgeladen vondrmadmax1963

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.