Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:20:21.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefits from Urban Open Space and Recreational Parks: A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John K. Hagerty ,
T. H. Stevens ,
P. G. Allen  and
T. More
John K. Hagerty
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
T. H. Stevens
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
P. G. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
T. More
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Amherst
Get access

Abstract

The hedonic pricing technique was used to measure that component of house price attributable to proximity to a city park, using data on sale prices and characteristics of houses in Worcester, MA. Aggregation of these residual values over all houses in the neighborhood of a park provided an estimate of the value of the park, to which was added an estimate of recreation benefits from extrazonal users. The policy question of park system development or contraction was addressed by comparing these benefits with operating costs to gain a net measure of parkland value.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Spring 1982 , pp. 13 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was supported in part by funds provided by the USDA Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, in cooperation with the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

Bishop, R. C. and Heberlein, T. A. “Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 61 (1979): 926–30.Google Scholar
Corrill, M., Lillydahl, J. and Single, L. “The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space.” Land Economics. 54 (1978): 207–17.Google Scholar
Feenberg, D. and Mills, E. Measuring the Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement. New York Academic Press. 1980.Google Scholar
Hammer, T. R., Coughlin, R. and Horn, E. “The Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Value.” Journal of the American Institute of Planning. July (1974): 274–77.Google Scholar
Hill, R. C., Fomby, T. and Johnson, S. R. “Component Selection Norms for Principal Components Regression.” Communications in Statistics, A. 6 (1977): 309–34.Google Scholar
Kitchen, J. and Hendon, W. “Land Values Adjacent to an Urban Park.” Land Economics. 43 (1967): 357–60.Google Scholar
Li, M. M. and Brown, H. J. “Micro-Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices.” Land Economics. 56 (1980): 125–41.Google Scholar
Morzuch, B. J. “Principal Components and the Problem of Multicollinearity.” J. of the Northeast Agr. Econ. Council. 9 (1980): 81–83.Google Scholar
Nelson, Jon P. “Airport Noise, Location Rent, and the Market for Residential Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 6 (1979): 320–31Google Scholar
Rosen, S. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets.” Journal of Political Econ. 82 (1974): 34–55.Google Scholar
Toro-Vizcarrondo, C. and Wallace, T. D. “A Test of the Mean Square Error Criterion for Restriction in Linear Regression.” J. of American Statist. Assoc. 63 (1968): 558–72.Google Scholar
Weicher, J. and Zerbst, R. “The Externalities of Neighborhood Parks: An Empirical Investigation.” Land Economics. 49 (1973): 99–105.Google Scholar