All Issue

2021 Vol.30, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Paper

Economic Valuation of Green Open Spaces: The Effects of Homeownership and Residential Types

도시녹지의 경제가치 평가: 소유 여부와 주택유형의 영향

최성록*, 조성훈**

Andy Sungnok Choi* and Seong-Hoon Cho**

*선택행동연구소, 소장, 제1저자, 교신저자(e-mail: kecc21@hanmail.net)
**테네시 대학교, 농업자원경제학과, 교수, 공동저자(e-mail: scho9@utk.edu)
*Director, Choice Behavior Institute, First author, Corresponding author(e-mail: kecc21@hanmail.net)
**Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, Co-author (e-mail: scho9@utk.edu)
30 September 2021. pp. 395-433
PDF Citation
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the effects of homeownership and residential types on the economic values of urban green spaces. Green open spaces as public goods provide positive externalities that are comprised of pecuniary and technological externalities. Seoul, South Korea, is used as a case study using choice experiments, with split-sample online respondents of 1,000. The study results evidenced that the differentiation between the two types of externalities is imperative for equitable provisions and efficient management of various urban open spaces. There is a positively significant and substantial impact of homeownership for apartment dwellers, ceteris paribus, but not for house dwellers. For apartments, the efficiency loss can be reduced by increasing green spaces up to the critical point where the marginal cost is at equilibrium with tenants’ marginal values. For non-apartment houses, it is not homeownership but the monthly household income that has a significant impact on the amenity value. In general, public benefits from green spaces are equivalent to 16% to 33% of the current residential prices on average for a view or access. Different residential types do not cause a significant impact on the access values. Residential profiles for green spaces were developed, together with tailor-made policy suggestions.
Keywords
Urban green spaces
Homeownership
Residential types
Willingness to pay
Choice experiments
본 논문의 목적은 주택 소유 여부와 주택유형이 도시녹지공간의 경제가치에 주는 효과를 검증하는 것이다. 공공재로서 녹지공간은 양의 외부효과를 제공하는데, 화폐 외부효과와 기술 외부효과로 나누어진다. 서울을 사례연구 대상지로 하여 선택실험을 진행하였고, 1,000명으로 구성된 온라인 표본을 분석하였다. 분석 결과에 의하면 형평성과 효율성을 고려하여 다양한 유형의 도시녹지를 관리하기 위해서는 두 가지 형태의 외부효과를 차별화하는 것이 매우 중요하다. 모든 조건이 같은 경우에, 아파트 거주자들은 소유 여부가 녹지공간의 경제가치에 양의 유의함을 보여준 반면, 일반주택 거주자들은 그러한 영향이 없었다. 아파트의 경우 세입자들이 느끼는 한계가치와 한계비용이 일치하는 균형점까지 녹지공간을 확장하여 사중손실을 저감할 수 있다. 이와는 상반되게 일반주택의 경우에는 소유 여부가 아니라 가구소득이 어메니티 가치에 유의한 영향을 주었다. 녹지공간의 공적 편익(지불의사액)은 평균적으로 현재 거주지 가격의 16%에서 33% 정도까지 조망이나 접근성의 형태로 구체화되었다. 녹지 접근성의 가치에는 거주지유형의 차이가 유의한 영향을 주지 않았다. 녹지공간을 위한 거주자 프로파일과 정책제언을 제시하였다.
키워드
도시녹지공간
소유 여부
거주유형
지불의사액
선택실험
References
  1. Anderson, S. T., and S. E. West, “Open space, residential property values, and spatial context,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2006, pp. 773~789.10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.03.007
  2. Bertram, C., and K. Rehdanz, “The role of urban green space for human well-being,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 120, 2015, pp. 139~152.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.013
  3. Chen, H., A. Rufolo, and K. Dueker, “Measuring the impact of light rail systems on single-family home values: a hedonic approach with geographic information system application,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1617, 1998, pp. 38~43.10.3141/1617-05
  4. Cho, S. -H., S. G. Kim, and R. K. Roberts, “Values of environmental landscape amenities during the 2000–2006 real estate boom and subsequent 2008 recession,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2011, pp. 71~91.10.1080/09640568.2010.502760
  5. Choi, A. S., “The impact of arbitrary constraints over the payment parameter on WTP: a case of a normally distributed random parameter,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2020, pp. 125~139.10.1080/21606544.2019.1614482
  6. Choi, A. S., and Y. S. Eom, “Measuring economic values of amenity services from urban greenspaces in the Seoul metropolitan area using choice experiments,” Environmental and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2018, pp. 105~138.
  7. Choi, A. S., and K. S. Fielding, “Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: a case study involving endangered species,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 89, 2013, pp. 24~32.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.027
  8. Crompton, J. L., “The Impact of Parks on Property Values: A Review of the Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1~31.10.1080/00222216.2001.11949928
  9. del Saz Salazar, S., and L. G. Menendez, “Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter?,” Land Use Policy, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2007, pp. 296~305.10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011
  10. Eom, Y. S., A. S. Choi, S. G. Kim, and J. O. Kim, “A hedonic valuation of urban green space in Seoul, Korea,” Environmental and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2019, pp. 61~93.
  11. Eurostat, 7 in 10 people in the EU live in a dwelling they own, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20171102-1, 2017.
  12. Ferrini, S., and R. Scarpa, “Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2007, pp. 342~363.10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.007
  13. Guzman, M. d., House price slowdown in South Korea; soaring prices in Seoul, https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/South-Korea/Price-History, 2019.
  14. Hensher, D. A., J. M. Rose, and W. H. Greene, Applied Choice Analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.10.1017/CBO9780511610356
  15. Holcombe, R. G., and R. S. Sobel, “Public Policy Toward Pecuniary Externalities,” Public Finance Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2001, pp. 304~325.10.1177/109114210102900402
  16. Jenks, M., and C. Jones, Issues and concepts. in: Jenks M, Jones C (eds) Dimensions of the Sustainable City. Future City, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010.
  17. KAB, Real Estate Transaction Statistics, https://www.r-one.co.kr/rone/resis/statistics/statisticsViewer.do?menuId=LHT_61010, 2020.
  18. Kim, C. W., T. T. Phipps, and L. Anselin, “Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2003, pp. 24~39.10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00013-X
  19. Kim, H. J., and H. S. Choi, “The Effect of the Type of Landscape View and the Ratio of View Screening on Housing Prices,” Korea Real Estate Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2012, pp. 109~125.
  20. Kim, T. Y., C. M. Lee, J. H. Cho, and H. Park, “Differential Values of Categorical Landscape in Apartment Price,” The Journal of Korea Real Estate Analysists Association, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2007, pp. 169~186.
  21. Kolbe, J., and H. Wüstemann, “Estimating the value of urban green space: a hedonic pricing analysis of the housing market in Cologne, Germany,” Folia Oeconomica, Vol. 5, No. 307, 2015, pp. 45~61.
  22. Kong, F., H. Yin, and N. Nakagoshi, “Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: A case study in Jinan City, China,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 79, No. 3, 2007, pp. 240~252.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.013
  23. KOSIS, Population Census, http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp, 2017.
  24. Kotchen, M. J., and S. M. Powers, “Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2006, pp. 373~390.10.1016/j.jeem.2006.02.003
  25. Krinsky, I., and A. L. Robb, “On approximating the statistical properties of elastistics,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, 1986, pp. 715~719.10.2307/1924536
  26. Kulu, H., and A. Vikat, “Fertility differences by housing type: The effect of housing conditions or of selective moves?,” Demographic Research, Vol. 17, 2007, pp. 775~802.10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.26
  27. Lanz, B., and A. Provins, “Valuing local environmental amenity with discrete choice experiments: Spatial scope sensitivity and heterogeneous marginal utility of income,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2013, pp. 105~130.10.1007/s10640-013-9648-9
  28. Łaszkiewicz, E., P. Czembrowski, and J. Kronenberg, “Can proximity to urban green spaces be considered a luxury? Classifying a non-tradable good with the use of hedonic pricing method,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 161, 2019, pp. 237~247.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.025
  29. Lee, J. S., and J. H. Kim, “The Impacts of Environmental Attributes of the Apartment on Consumer Preference: A Conjoint Analysis with View Quality and Park Access,” Journal of marketing management research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2014, pp. 91~109.
  30. Lee, J. S., J. H. Kim, and Y. H. Son, “A Study on the Influences of Environmental Factors on the Apartment Price: Focused on View Quality and Park Accessibility in Songdo Newtown,” Korea Real Estate Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2013, pp. 99~121.
  31. Louviere, J. J., D. A. Hensher, and J. D. Swait, Stated Choice Methods: analysis and applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.10.1017/CBO9780511753831
  32. Lu, B., M. Charlton, P. Harris, and A. S. Fotheringham, “Geographically weighted regression with a non-Euclidean distance metric: a case study using hedonic house price data,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2014, pp. 660~681.10.1080/13658816.2013.865739
  33. MA, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Systhesis (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Island Press, Washington DC, 2005.
  34. McFadden, D., and K. Train, “Mixed MNL models for discrete response,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 15, 2000, pp. 447~470.10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1
  35. Melichar, J., and K. Kaprová, “Revealing preferences of Prague's homebuyers toward greenery amenities: The empirical evidence of distance–size effect,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 109, No. 1, 2013, pp. 56~66.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.003
  36. Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com, 2017.
  37. Mittal, J., and S. Byahut, “Value Capitalization Effects of Golf Courses, Waterfronts, Parks, Open Spaces, and Green Landscapes — A Cross-Disciplinary Review,” Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2016, pp. 62~94.10.1080/10835547.2016.12091887
  38. MOE, Enhancement methodologies for ecological functions of urban green areas, Ministry of Environment, South Korea, 2012.
  39. Mok, H. M., P. P. Chan, and Y.-S. Cho, “A hedonic price model for private properties in Hong Kong,” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1995, pp. 37~48.10.1007/BF01099610
  40. Morancho, A. B., “A hedonic valuation of urban green areas,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2003, pp. 35~41.10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00093-8
  41. More, T. A., T. Stevens, and P. G. Allen, “Valuation of urban parks,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 15, No. 1-2, 1988, pp. 139~152.10.1016/0169-2046(88)90022-9
  42. Nesbitt, L., M. J. Meitner, S. R. J. Sheppard, and C. Girling, “The dimensions of urban green equity: A framework for analysis,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 34, 2018, pp. 240~248.10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.009
  43. Netusil, N. R., “Urban environmental amenities and property values: Does ownership matter?,” Land Use Policy, Vol. 31, 2013, pp. 371~377.10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.07.016
  44. OECD, Compact City Policies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2012.
  45. Panduro, T. E., and K. L. Veie, “Classification and valuation of urban green spaces—A hedonic house price valuation,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 120, 2013, pp. 119~128.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.009
  46. Pearson, L., C. Tisdell, and A. Lisle, “The impact of Noosa National Park on surrounding property values: An application of the hedonic price method,” Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2002, pp. 155~171.10.1016/S0313-5926(02)50023-0
  47. Peiser, R. B., and G. M. Schwann, “The private value of public open space within subdivisions,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol., 1993, pp. 91-104.
  48. Poe, G. L., E. K. Severance-Lossin, and M. P. Welsh, “Measuring the difference (X - Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1994, pp. 904~915.10.2307/1243750
  49. Poudyal, N. C., D. G. Hodges, and C. D. Merrett, “A hedonic analysis of the demand for and benefits of urban recreation parks,” Land Use Policy, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2009, pp. 975~983.10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.008
  50. Powe, N. A., G. Garraod, C. Brunsdon, and K. Willis, “Using a geographic information system to estimate an hedonic price model of the benefits of woodland access,” Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 70, No. 2, 1997, pp. 139~149.10.1093/forestry/70.2.139
  51. Sillano, M., and J. de Dios Ortúzar, “Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence,” Environment and Planning A, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2005, pp. 525~550.10.1068/a36137
  52. Smith, V. K., “The role of site and job characteristics in hedonic wage models,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1983, pp. 296~321.10.1016/0094-1190(83)90036-0
  53. Sohn, W., H. W. Kim, J.-H. Kim, and M.-H. Li, “The capitalized amenity of green infrastructure in single-family housing values: An application of the spatial hedonic pricing method,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 49, 2020, pp. 126643.10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126643
  54. Taylor, L., and D. F. Hochuli, “Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 158, 2017, pp. 25~38.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.024
  55. The Census Bureau, QuickFacts United States, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/VET605219, 2020.
  56. Train, K., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.10.1017/CBO9780511753930
  57. 12648124
  58. Van Leeuwen, E., P. Nijkamp, and T. de Noronha Vaz, “The multifunctional use of urban greenspace,” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Vol. 8, No. 1-2, 2010, pp. 20~25.10.3763/ijas.2009.0466
  59. Vrooman, D. H., “An empirical analysis of determinants of land values in the Adirondack Park,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 2, 1978, pp. 165~177.10.1111/j.1536-7150.1978.tb02811.x
  60. Wang, Y., D. Potoglou, S. Orford, and Y. Gong, “Bus stop, property price and land value tax: A multilevel hedonic analysis with quantile calibration,” Land Use Policy, Vol. 42, 2015, pp. 381~391.10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.017
  61. Wendelboe-Nelson, C., S. Kelly, M. Kennedy, and J. W. Cherrie, “A Scoping Review Mapping Research on Green Space and Associated Mental Health Benefits,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16, No. 12, 2019, pp. 2081.10.3390/ijerph16122081 31212860 PMC6616579
  62. Wu, J., and A. J. Plantinga, “The influence of public open space on urban spatial structure,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2003, pp. 288~309.10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00023-8
  63. Yoo, S., J. Im, and J. E. Wagner, “Variable selection for hedonic model using machine learning approaches: A case study in Onondaga County, NY,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 107, No. 3, 2012, pp. 293~306.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.009
  64. Yoon, J. J., and W. Yu, “The Influence of Landscape Outlook Characteristics,” Journal of Korea Planning Association, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2001, pp. 67~83.
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 30
  • No :3
  • Pages :395-433
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2021.30.3.395
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close