Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorKolbe, Jens
dc.contributor.authorWüstemann, Henry
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-06T11:35:58Z
dc.date.available2015-11-06T11:35:58Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn0208-6018
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/13303
dc.description.abstractUrban Green Spaces (UGS), such as parks and forests, provide a wide range of environmental and recreational benefits. One objective in the conservation efforts of UGS is to analyse the benefits associated with UGS in order to make them more visible and to provide support for landscape planning. This paper examines the effects of UGS on house prices applying a Hedonic Pricing Method (HPM). The data set contains over 85046 geo-coded apartment transactions for the years 19952012 and contains information on three intrinsic variables of the real estate (e.g. transaction price, floor area and age). In order to examine the capitalisation of UGS in real estate prices, we further incorporated cross-section geo-coded data for the different types of UGS: forests, parks, farmland and fallow land drawn from the European Urban Atlas (EUA) of the European Environment Agency for the year 2006. In order to control for additional open space categories, we further incorporated geocoded data on water bodies and fallow land. Using a Geographical Information System (GIS), we calculated the coverage of UGS in pre-defined buffers around households as well as the distance in a continuous fashion (Euclidian distance) between UGS and the households. Our results show a capitalisation of UGS in real estate prices, but the effect of the structural variables is higher. We found a positive price effect of parks, forests and water and an inverse relation between the price variable and the presence of fallow land and farmland.pl_PL
dc.description.abstractMiejskie Przestrzenie Zielone (UGS), takie jak parki i lasy, zapewniają szeroki zakres korzyści środowiskowych i rekreacyjnych. Jednym z celów w działaniach ochronnych UGS jest analiza korzyści związanych z nimi, aby stały się one bardziej widoczne i zapewniać im wsparcie w zakresie planowania krajobrazu. Artykuł analizuje wpływ UGS na ceny domów, z wykorzystaniem metody ceny hedonicznej (HPM). Zestaw danych zawiera ponad 85 046 transakcji dla mieszkań, geograficznie kodowanych, w latach 19952012 i zawiera informacje dotyczące trzech istotnych zmiennych nieruchomości (np. ceny transakcyjnej, powierzchni użytkowej i wieku). W celu zbadania kapitalizacji UGS w cenach nieruchomości, włączone zostały geokodowane dane przekrojowe dla różnych typów UGS: lasy, parki, pola uprawne i ugorów, pochodzące z Europejskiego Atlasu Miejskiego (EUA), Europejskiej Agencji Ochrony Środowiska z roku 2006. W celach sterowania, dla dodatkowych kategorii otwartych przestrzeni, włączono dane geokodowane dla zbiorników wodnych i ugorów. Korzystanie z Systemu Informacji Geograficznej (GIS) umożliwiło obliczenie zasięgu UGS w predefiniowanych buforach wokół gospodarstw domowych, jak również odległości, wyrażonej w sposób ciągły (odległość euklidesowa) pomiędzy UGS i gospodarstwami domowymi. Wyniki wskazują na kapitalizację UGS w cenach nieruchomości, ale efekt zmiennych strukturalnych jest wyższy. Wykazano pozytywny wpływ cen parków, lasów i wody oraz odwrotną zależność między zmienną cen, a obecności ugorów i gruntów rolnych.pl_PL
dc.language.isoenpl_PL
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl_PL
dc.relation.ispartofseriesActa Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Oeconomica;5
dc.titleEstimating the Value of Urban Green Space: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis of the Housing Market in Cologne, Germanypl_PL
dc.title.alternativeSzacowanie wartości miejskich przestrzeni zielonych: analiza hedoniczna cen na rynku mieszkaniowym w Kolonii, Niemcypl_PL
dc.typeArticlepl_PL
dc.rights.holder© Copyright by Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź 2014pl_PL
dc.page.number[45]-61pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationBerlin Institute of Technology – Technische Universität Berlin, Econometrics and Business Statistics, Berlin, Germanypl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationBerlin Institute of Technology – Technische Universität Berlin, Environmental and Land Economics, Berlin, Germanypl_PL
dc.identifier.eissn2353-7663
dc.referencesAbkar M., Kamal M., Mariapan M., Maulan S., Sheybanic M. (2010), The Role of Urban Green Spaces in Mood Change, “Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences”, 4 (10).pl_PL
dc.referencesAcharya G., Bennett L. L. (2001), Valuing open space and land-use patterns in urban watersheds, “The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics”, 22 (2-3), pp. 221–237.pl_PL
dc.referencesAdamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. (1998), Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation, “American Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 80 (1), pp. 64–75.pl_PL
dc.referencesAlpizar F., Carlsson F., Martinsson P. et al. (2003), Using choice experiments for non-market valuation, “Economic Issues-Stoke On Trent”, 8 (1), pp. 83–110.pl_PL
dc.referencesAlriksson S., Öberg T. (2008), Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 15 (3), pp. 244–257.pl_PL
dc.referencesAppelbaum E. (1979), On the choice of functional form, “Internat. Econ. Rev.”, 20, pp. 449–458.pl_PL
dc.referencesBateman I. (1993), Evaluation of the environment: A survey of revealed preference techniques, Tech. rept. GEC Working Paper 93-06, CSERGE, University of East Anglia, Norwich, and University College, London.pl_PL
dc.referencesBenson E. D., Hansen J. L., Schwartz Jr A. L., Smersh G. T. (1998), Pricing residential amenities: the value of a view, “The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics”, 16 (1), pp. 55–73.pl_PL
dc.referencesBolitzer B., Netusil N. R. (2000), The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon, “Journal of environmental management”, 59 (3), pp. 185–193.pl_PL
dc.referencesCavailhès J., Brossard T., Foltête J. C., Hilal M., Joly D., Tourneux F. P., Tritz C., Wavresky P. (2009), GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape, “Environmental and resource economics”, 44 (4), pp. 571–590.pl_PL
dc.referencesChoumert J. (2010), An empirical investigation of public choices for green spaces, “Land Use Policy”, 27 (4), pp. 1123–1131.pl_PL
dc.referencesCornelis J., Hermy M. (2004), Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders, “Landscape and Urban Planning”, 69 (4), pp. 385–401.pl_PL
dc.referencesElsasser P. (1999), Recreational benefits of forests in Germany, The Living Forest: the Non-market Benefits of Forestry, London: The Stationery Office, pp, 175–188.pl_PL
dc.referencesIrwin E. G. (2002), The effects of open space on residential property values, “Land Economics”, 78 (4), pp. 465–480.pl_PL
dc.referencesKitchen J. W., Hendon W. S. (1967), Land values adjacent to an urban neighborhood park, “Land Economics”, pp. 357–360.pl_PL
dc.referencesKolbe J., Schulz R., Wersing M., Werwatz A. (2012), Location, location, location: Extracting location value from house prices, Tech. rept. SFB 649 Discussion Paper.pl_PL
dc.referencesKong F., Yin H., Nakagoshi N. (2007), Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modelling of the amenity value of urban green space: A case study in Jinan City, China, “Landscape and Urban Planning”, 79 (3), pp. 240–252.pl_PL
dc.referencesKuhn I., Brandl R., Klotz S. (2004), The flora of German cities is naturally species rich, “Evolutionary Ecology Research”, 6 (5), pp. 749–764.pl_PL
dc.referencesKuo F. E., Sullivan W. C. (2001a), Aggression and violence in the inner city effects of environment via mental fatigue, “Environment and Behaviour”, 33 (4), pp. 543–571.pl_PL
dc.referencesKuo F. E., Sullivan W. C. (2001b), Environment and crime in the inner city does vegetation reduce crime? “Environment and Behavior”, 33 (3), pp. 343–367.pl_PL
dc.referencesLansford N. H., Jones L. L. (1995), Recreational and Aesthetic Value of Water Using Hedonic Price Analysis, “Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics”, 20 (2), pp. 341-355.pl_PL
dc.referencesLuttik J. (2000), The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands, “Landscape and Urban Planning”, 48(3), pp. 161–167.pl_PL
dc.referencesLutzenhiser M. T., Netusil N. R. (2001), The effect of open spaces on a home’s sale price, “Contemporary Economic Policy”, 19 (3), pp. 291–298.pl_PL
dc.referencesMahan B. L., Polasky S., Adams R. M. (2000), Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach, “Land Economics”, 76 (1).pl_PL
dc.referencesMansfield C., Pattanayak S.K., McDow W., McDonald R. (2002), Shades of Green: Measuring the Value of Urban Forests in the Housing Market, Working paper 02_02. Research Triangle Institute.pl_PL
dc.referencesMarcus C. C., Barnes M. (1999), Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations, John Wiley & Sons.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcConnell V., Walls M. A. (2005), The value of open space: Evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits, Resources for the Future Washington, DC, USA.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcPherson, E G. et al. (1998), Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Sacramento’s urban forest, “Journal of Arboriculture”, 24, pp. 215–223.pl_PL
dc.referencesMelichar J., Vojáček O., Rieger P., Jedlička K. (2009), Measuring the value of urban forest using the Hedonic price approach, “Regional Studies”, 2, pp. 13–20.pl_PL
dc.referencesMorancho A. B. (2003), A hedonic valuation of urban green areas, “Landscape and urban planning”, 66 (1), pp. 35–41.pl_PL
dc.referencesMyeong S., Nowak D. J., Duggin M. J. (2006), A temporal analysis of urban forest carbon storage using remote sensing, “Remote Sensing of Environment”, 101 (2), pp. 277–282.pl_PL
dc.referencesNowak D. J. (1994), Air pollution removal by Chicago´s s urban forest, Chicago´s urban forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project, pp. 63–81.pl_PL
dc.referencesNowak D. J., Crane D. E., Stevens J. C., Ibarra M. (2002), Brooklyn’s urban forest, vol. 290. Citeseer.pl_PL
dc.referencesRambonilaza M., Dachary-Bernard J. (2007), Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method?, “Landscape and Urban Planning”, 83 (4), pp. 318–326.pl_PL
dc.referencesReady R. C., Abdalla C. W. (2005), The Amenity and Disamenity Impacts of Agriculture: Estimates from a Hedonic Pricing Model, “American Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 87 (2), pp. 314-326.pl_PL
dc.referencesRowntree R. A., Nowak, D. J. et al. (1991), Quantifying the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide, “Journal of Arboriculture”, 17 (10), pp. 269–275.pl_PL
dc.referencesShultz S. D., King D. A. (2001), The use of census data for hedonic price estimates of open-space amenities and land use, “The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics”, 22 (2-3), pp. 239–252.pl_PL
dc.referencesSmith V. K., Poulos C., Kim H. (2002), Treating open space as an urban amenity, “Resource and Energy Economics”, 24 (1), pp. 107–129.pl_PL
dc.referencesSukopp H., Wittig R., Blume H. P. (1993). Stadtökologie, G. Fischer Stuttgart.pl_PL
dc.referencesTameko A. M., Donfouet P., Pythagore H., Sikod F. (2011), The Economic Valuation of Improved Urban Parks: A Case Study of Warda Park, “Journal of Sustainable Development”, 4 (1).pl_PL
dc.referencesThibodeau F. R., Ostro B. D. (1981), Economic analysis of wetland protection, “Journal of Environmental Management”, 12, pp. 19–30.pl_PL
dc.referencesThorsnes P. (2002), The value of a suburban forest preserve: Estimates from sales of vacant residential building lots, “Land Economics”, 78 (3), pp. 426–441.pl_PL
dc.referencesUlrich R. S., Simons R. F., Losito B. D., Fiorito E., Miles M. A., Zelson M. (1991), Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments, “Journal of environmental psychology”, 11 (3), pp. 201–230.pl_PL
dc.referencesVanslembrouck I., Van Huylenbreock G., Van Meensel J. (2005), Impact of Agriculture on Rural Tourism: A Hedonic Pricing Approach, “Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 56 (1), pp. 17-30.pl_PL
dc.referencesVanslembrouck I., Van Huylenbroeck G. (2006), Landscape amenities: economic assessment of agricultural landscapes, vol. 2. Springer.pl_PL
dc.referencesWeicher J. C., Zerbst R. H. (1973), The externalities of neighborhood parks: an empirical investigation, “Land Economics”, pp. 99–105.pl_PL
dc.referencesWillis K. G., Garrod G. D. (1993), Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach, “Journal of environmental management”, 37 (1), pp. 1–22.pl_PL
dc.referencesWu J. J., Adams R. M., Plantinga A. J. (2004), Amenities in an Urban Equilibrium Model: Residential Development in Portland, Oregon, “Land Economics”, 80 (1), pp. 19-32.pl_PL
dc.relation.volume307pl_PL


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord