Valuing individual characteristics and the multifunctionality of urban green spaces: The integration of sociotope mapping and hedonic pricing

Abstract

We categorize Stockholm’s urban green spaces according to the use values and social meanings they support, based on a sociotope mapping, and estimate their impact on property prices with a hedonic pricing model. The approach allows us to identify the most and least desired green space characteristics (attributes) and to assess the willingness to pay for the multifunctionality of green spaces. To do this, we test the following hypotheses, each with a separate hedonic pricing model: the proximity of all green space characteristics increases the property prices, but the specific monetary value of these characteristics differs; the multifunctionality of green spaces is well recognized and highly valued by real estate buyers. We find partial support for the first hypothesis: the green space attributes of “aesthetics”, “social activity” and “nature” seem to be desired by real estate buyers, whereas “physical activity” and “play” seem not to be desired. We also find support for the second hypothesis: the higher the number of characteristics an urban green space has, the stronger its impact on property prices. This study furthers the discussion on the economic value of urban green spaces by assigning monetary value to their perceived character and use values. In doing so, it highlights the need to understand green spaces both as ecological features and social constructs.

Willingness to Pay for Green Infrastructure in Residential Development—A Consumer Perspective

“…In some cases, the size of a facility was found to be negatively correlated with WTP [11]. This clearly indicates the cost-benefit relationship of urban green spaces; the size of green facilities might be related to health and wellness benefits but may come with costs in the form of increased animals fouling, disturbance [43], or increased traffic or usage [14].…”

“…The size of, and distance from, GI amenities have significant effects on individual appraisal, utility, and weighting in cost-benefit analysis. A number of studies found that people were willing to pay a premium to increase the coverage of green areas [8,44,47,60,61] and to decrease the distance between household and green urban spaces [8,[11][12][13]43,44,60]. Additionally, a significant relationship was Atmosphere 2020, 11, 152 8 of 20 found between mental health and distance to GI; increasing distance to green urban areas was found to significantly decrease life satisfaction [60,62].…”

“…Czembrowski et al [43] categorized Stockholm's urban green areas and estimated that multifunctional green spaces generate the greatest economic impact, impacting the property price by 10%. Researchers estimated that properties at a distance of 0.25 km from attractive green spaces sold at 7.1% higher prices than houses in a reference group, but these were located farther than 1.25 km away from attractive green space [44].…”

“…There are additional factors that may be included in the evaluation of amenity qualities; for example, the frequency of use [6], facility size [8], landscape quality [6,45], perceived green factor/saturation [6,45], street attractiveness [51], aesthetics [12,43], shading, and resting possibilities [6].…”

Enabling Green and Blue Infrastructure to Improve Contributions to Human Well-Being and Equity in Urban Systems

“…Opportunities to realize different ideas and needs are not equally open to everyone (Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018, Czembrowski et al 2019). A first sharp divider is the difference between private and public, and ownership history is a key determinant of present-day property rights, as well as the expectations of responsibility and access.…”