IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v6y2021i4p54-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Assessment of South African Urban Green Spaces Using the Proximity Principle: Municipal Valuation vs. Market Value

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Lategan

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • Juaneé Cilliers

    (School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Australia)

  • Zinea Huston

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • Nadia Blaauw

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • Sarel Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

Abstract

Urban green spaces (UGSs) deliver ecosystem services and potential economic benefits like increases in proximate residential property prices. The proximity principle (PP) premises that property prices increase as distance to UGS decreases. The PP has generally been confirmed by studies using municipal valuations and market values internationally. Conversely, South African studies have mostly employed municipal valuations and results have rejected the PP. There is an accepted interrelationship, but also often discrepancies, between municipal valuations and market values, presenting scope for this article to explore whether negative results are confirmed when market values replace municipal valuations in PP studies in the South African context. Accordingly, a statistical analysis of market values is completed in the Potchefstroom case study, where five test sites are replicated from studies that employed municipal valuations for longitudinal comparison. Results verify generally higher market values than municipal valuations and confirm the PP in two, but reject the PP in three, of five test sites. Previous studies employing municipal valuations in the case study confirmed the PP in one instance, thus presenting certain, but limited, inconsistencies between findings based on municipal valuation vs. market value. Results suggest that the market’s willingness to pay for UGS proximity is sensitive to the ecosystem services and disservices rendered by specific UGS, but not significantly more than reflected in municipal valuations. Overall, findings underscore the need to protect and curate features that encourage willingness to pay for UGS proximity to increase municipal valuations and property taxes to help finance urban greening.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Lategan & Juaneé Cilliers & Zinea Huston & Nadia Blaauw & Sarel Cilliers, 2021. "Economic Assessment of South African Urban Green Spaces Using the Proximity Principle: Municipal Valuation vs. Market Value," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 54-66.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v6:y:2021:i:4:p:54-66
    DOI: 10.17645/up.v6i4.4407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4407
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.v6i4.4407?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn Dehring & Neil Dunse, 2006. "Housing Density and the Effect of Proximity to Public Open Space in Aberdeen, Scotland," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 34(4), pages 553-566, December.
    2. Stephen Gibbons & Susana Mourato & Guilherme Resende, 2014. "The Amenity Value of English Nature: A Hedonic Price Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 175-196, February.
    3. Matthew Cypher & J. Andrew Hansz, 2003. "Does assessed value influence market value judgments?," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 305-318, December.
    4. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    5. Piotr Czembrowski & Edyta Łaszkiewicz & Jakub Kronenberg & Gustav Engström & Erik Andersson, 2019. "Valuing individual characteristics and the multifunctionality of urban green spaces: The integration of sociotope mapping and hedonic pricing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Gabriel Babawale, 2013. "Valuation accuracy – the myth, expectation and reality!," African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(3), pages 387-406, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Louis Lategan & Brian Fisher-Holloway & Juanee Cilliers & Sarel Cilliers, 2025. "Moving on to Greener Pastures? A Review of South Africa’s Housing Megaproject Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-26, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Louis Lategan & Juaneé Cilliers & Zinea Huston & Nadia Blaauw & Sarel Cilliers, 2021. "Economic Assessment of South African Urban Green Spaces Using the Proximity Principle: Municipal Valuation vs. Market Value," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 54-66.
    2. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, Báli, 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    3. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    4. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    5. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    6. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    7. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    10. John F. Chamblee & Peter F. Colwell & Carolyn A. Dehring & Craig A. Depken, 2011. "The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 453-472.
    11. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    12. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    14. Shunqian Gao & Liu Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2022. "Changes in and Patterns of the Tradeoffs and Synergies of Production-Living-Ecological Space: A Case Study of Longli County, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Park, Mi Sun & Shin, Seongmin & Lee, Haeun, 2021. "Media frames on urban greening in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    16. Christoph Schneider & Bianca Achilles & Hendrik Merbitz, 2014. "Urbanity and Urbanization: An Interdisciplinary Review Combining Cultural and Physical Approaches," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26, January.
    17. Jeroen Degerickx & Martin Hermy & Ben Somers, 2020. "Mapping Functional Urban Green Types Using High Resolution Remote Sensing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-35, March.
    18. Jonas Smit Andersen & Sara Maria Lerer & Antje Backhaus & Marina Bergen Jensen & Hjalte Jomo Danielsen Sørup, 2017. "Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    19. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    20. Heather L Reynolds & Leslie Brandt & Burnell C Fischer & Brady S Hardiman & Donovan J Moxley & Eric Sandweiss & James H Speer & Songlin Fei, 2020. "Implications of climate change for managing urban green infrastructure: an Indiana, US case study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 1967-1984, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v6:y:2021:i:4:p:54-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.