Urban Parks Open Space and Residential Property Values
Urban Parks Open Space and Residential Property Values
Urban Parks Open Space and Residential Property Values
Research www.rics.org
Urban parks, open space and residential property values
“
to calculate because it is a classic public good, where there is no market
price. Its lack of value in monetary terms prevents urban open space from
being properly evaluated in cost-benefit analyses.
…there is a need for further
Nonetheless, questions concerning the economic value of open spaces have
research to be undertaken in been addressed by economists through the use of two broad methodological
a UK context… approaches: stated and revealed preference, and through the use of hedonic
pricing models.
Literature review
Since the first application of the hedonic pricing approach to the valuation of
environmental goods and services, there have been a number of studies in
the USA on the effects of open space on property values. However, only a And what about the US studies?
limited number of studies have been undertaken in the UK. Let’s take a quick
look at what they found.
2 Condition
3 Development potential
1 ”
Bolitzer and Netusil, 2000, The Impact of Open Space on Property Values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management 59, pp 185-193.
Lutzenhiser and Netusil, 2001, The Effect of Open Space on a Home’s Sale Price. Contemporary Economic Policy 19(3), pp 291-298.
Espey and Owusu-Edusei, 2001, Neighbourhood Parks and Residential Property Values in Greenville, South Carolina. Journal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, 33(3) pp 487-492.
Geoghegan, 2002, The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy, 19, pp91-98.
Irwin, 2002, The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics, 78(4), pp 465-480.
Cheshire and Sheppard, 1998, Estimating the demand for housing, land and neighbourhood characteristics. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
60, 3, pp 357-382.
Urban parks, open space and residential property values
“
In 2001 Lutzenhiser and Netusil found that all forms of recreational open
space had a statistically significant influence. Of greatest significance were
natural area parks – homes within 450 metres of this type of space were
…open space is an amenity estimated to sell for 16.1% more than homes outside the 450 metre buffer.
and, as such, has a positive Other types of open space having a statistically significant influence were:
influence on property values… golf courses (13.3%), speciality parks/facilities (8.5%) and urban parks
(1.8%).
” It seems that properties over 450 metres from an open space do not attract
the same premiums as properties within this 450 metres buffer. Is there a
“
prime location in terms of distance the open space? The results suggest
there are relative disadvantages to being located directly next to open spaces,
since the largest premiums were in the 61-120, 121-180 and 121-180
…all forms of recreational
metre distance bands, respectively.
open space had a statistically
Being in close proximity to open spaces does have positive impact on
significant influence… property values, but this is largely dependent on the type of open space and
”
distance from the space. But what about the condition of the open space –
does this have an impact at all?
Figure 2 Price Effect and Proximity to Different Classifications of Open Space, Lutzenhiser & Netusil (2001)
Distance from Park (m) Urban Park Natural Park Speciality Park
Distance <= 60 2.9 16.9 11.1
Distance 61 - 120 3.1 15.4 8.6
Distance 121 - 180 1.8 19.1 15.4
Distance 181 - 240 ns 16.9 8.5
Distance 241 - 300 ns 13.5 7.4
Distance 301 - 365 2.5 12.2 6.9
Distance 366 - 450 ns 15 5.8
ns – not statistically significant 10% levels
Urban parks, open space and residential property values
“
…demand for open space
rises with income…
”
The case of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Also included within this dataset were: property address, postal code, property
geo-code, sale price, date of sale, and various structural attributes. Using GIS,
the researchers also added distance and location variables to the dataset.
These included:
1 distance from the boundary of each park
and perimeter of open space.
2 proximity to major road networks.
3 proximity to school catchment areas.
” Conclusions
What can be learnt from this study?
The aim of this study was to improve our
understanding of the economic benefits of urban
open spaces, as revealed through local house
So this is how they went about the prices. Using Aberdeen as a case study, it appears
analysis, but what exactly was the that its residents attach a marginal value to open
outcome? green spaces – this is reflected in the premium
they are prepared to pay to secure a dwelling that
has this advantage.
Neil Dunse reports that ‘relative to a property
Key findings located 450 metres away from a park, a property
located on the edge of a park could potentially
• City and local parks are valued most highly by occupiers of detached attract a premium of between 0.44% and 19%.’
properties, whereas proximity to amenity green space is valued most highly This research has also demonstrated that types of
by occupiers of non-detached properties. open space are valued differently, with larger parks
that have an array of facilities and amenities being
• When it comes to proximity to the park edge, while there is clearly a more highly valued than areas of amenity
premium attached to flats in close vicinity to the park, a negative premium green space.
is attached to this attribute for houses, which may be due to the potential Looking at the situation in more detail, it seems
negative externalities that may surround parks, particularly in the evenings. that different household types value accessibility
differently – occupiers of flats attach a positive
• By combining two variables, properties located 450 metres from park edge premium to being located on the park edge,
and properties located next to a park, the researchers discovered that the whereas occupiers of houses tend to value this
overall premium for a property next to a park, relative to a similar property more negatively.
450 metres away, is positive across all house types. The price premium Overall, this study demonstrates that there are
ranges between 0.44% and 19.97% depending upon house and park type. likely to be opportunities to extract higher profits
These findings are lower than the premiums found in the CabeSPACE if the inclusion of open space creates an
study, but are in line with a number of US studies. environment that is attractive to purchasers.2
• Although city parks are on average more highly valued, local parks are
About the study
more consistently valued across all house types.
This study was supported by a grant from the
• The findings suggest that rectangular or oblong (long/narrow) parks are RICS Education Trust: www.rics.org/educationtrust
preferable to square or circular (short/wide) parks. A rectangular park, for The full report can be downloaded from
example, would potentially offer greater opportunities for access – www.rics.org/research
suggesting that accessibility as well as proximity is important to households. FiBRE written by Amy Roberts, RICS.
2
It should be noted that this report is indicative but not comprehensive in its valuation of green space – green spaces have a number of attributes, each requiring
a different methodology to measure it; this report only considered open space from the perspective of households; and it does not include sections of the
population who do not own their own homes.
www.rics.org
Research