IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i3p413-d769442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Valuation of Urban Green Spaces across a Socioeconomic Gradient: A South African Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Gerhardus Lategan

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

  • Zene Steynberg

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

  • Elizelle Juanee Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
    School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia)

  • Sarel Stephanus Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

Abstract

Urban green spaces (UGSs) may present economic contributions through increases in proximate property values, encapsulated in the proximity principle (PP). More data on the PP is required from the Global South, where the quality and equitable distribution of UGSs are important considerations. This paper investigates the PP in Potchefstroom, South Africa following a quantitative approach, by statistically analyzing municipal property valuations in three districts differentiated according to their socioeconomic status (SES). Districts are divided into sample areas where three zones are demarcated according to their proximity to a UGS. The results show that property valuations are generally higher for properties in closer proximity to UGSs in lower- and higher-income samples, but are lower in middle-income areas. Neighborhood characteristics and SES, UGS amenity and maintenance, ecosystem services and disservices, domestic garden area and residential property size may be connected to the confirmation or rejection of the PP. The rejection of the PP in middle-income areas indicates a need to improve public UGSs as amenity destinations. The results confirming the PP in low-income areas could incentivize expenditures to improve UGS area and quality to increase the willingness to pay for proximity to such spaces and, reciprocally, increase revenue from municipal property taxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Gerhardus Lategan & Zene Steynberg & Elizelle Juanee Cilliers & Sarel Stephanus Cilliers, 2022. "Economic Valuation of Urban Green Spaces across a Socioeconomic Gradient: A South African Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:413-:d:769442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/3/413/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/3/413/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schäffler, Alexis & Swilling, Mark, 2013. "Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 246-257.
    2. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    3. 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.
    4. Wilkerson, Marit L. & Mitchell, Matthew G.E. & Shanahan, Danielle & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Ives, Christopher D. & Lovelock, Catherine E. & Rhodes, Jonathan R., 2018. "The role of socio-economic factors in planning and managing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 102-110.
    5. Mayor, Karen & Lyons, Seán & Duffy, David & Tol, Richard S. J., 2009. "A Hedonic Analysis of the Value of Parks and Green Spaces in the Dublin Area," Papers WP331, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    6. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    7. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    8. Peter De Lacy & Charlie Shackleton, 2017. "Aesthetic and Spiritual Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Sacred Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Faith A. Manditsera & Catriona M. M. Lakemond & Vincenzo Fogliano & Cuthbert J. Zvidzai & Pieternel A. Luning, 2018. "Consumption patterns of edible insects in rural and urban areas of Zimbabwe: taste, nutritional value and availability are key elements for keeping the insect eating habit," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(3), pages 561-570, June.
    10. Liora Bigon, 2013. "Garden cities in colonial Africa: a note on historiography," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 477-485, July.
    11. de Wit, Martin & van Zyl, Hugo & Crookes, Doug & Blignaut, James & Jayiya, Terence & Goiset, Valerie & Mahumani, Brian, 2012. "Including the economic value of well-functioning urban ecosystems in financial decisions: Evidence from a process in Cape Town," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 38-44.
    12. 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.
    13. Zene Combrinck & Elizelle Juanee Cilliers & Louis Lategan & Sarel Cilliers, 2020. "Revisiting the Proximity Principle with Stakeholder Input: Investigating Property Values and Distance to Urban Green Space in Potchefstroom," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Burné van Zyl & E. Juaneé Cilliers & Louis G. Lategan & Sarel S. Cilliers, 2021. "Closing the Gap Between Urban Planning and Urban Ecology: A South African Perspective," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 122-134.
    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. Muhammad Mushahid Anwar & Muhammad Hashim & Asad Aziz & Alice Stocco & Hazem Ghassan Abdo & Hussein Almohamad & Ahmed Abdullah Al Dughairi & Motrih Al-Mutiry, 2023. "Urban Green Spaces Distribution and Disparities in Congested Populated Areas: A Geographical Assessment from Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-12, May.

    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. Zene Combrinck & Elizelle Juanee Cilliers & Louis Lategan & Sarel Cilliers, 2020. "Revisiting the Proximity Principle with Stakeholder Input: Investigating Property Values and Distance to Urban Green Space in Potchefstroom," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, July.
    2. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    3. Hagen, Bjoern & Pijawka, David & Prakash, Mihir & Sharma, Shreyash, 2017. "Longitudinal analysis of ecosystem services' socioeconomic benefits: Wastewater treatment projects in a desert city," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 209-217.
    4. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    6. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Abramowicz Dawid & Stępniewska Małgorzata, 2020. "Public Investment Policy as a Driver of Changes in the Ecosystem Services Delivery by an Urban Green Infrastructure," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 39(1), pages 5-18, March.
    9. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    10. Yi, Hoonchong & Güneralp, Burak & Filippi, Anthony M. & Kreuter, Urs P. & Güneralp, İnci, 2017. "Impacts of Land Change on Ecosystem Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 125-135.
    11. Fiona Nevzati & Mart Külvik & Joanna Storie & Liisa-Maria Tiidu & Simon Bell, 2023. "Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Well-Being: Testing a Method for Evaluating Natural Environment and Contact Types in the Harku Municipality, Estonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-24, June.
    12. Qilong Shao & Li Peng & Yichan Liu & Yongchang Li, 2023. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Urban Ecosystem Services: Structure, Evolution, and Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2021. "Urban Ecosystem Services: New Findings for Landscape Architects, Urban Planners, and Policymakers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    16. Daria Sikorska & Piotr Sikorski & Richard James Hopkins, 2017. "High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Marzena Suchocka & Magdalena Błaszczyk & Adam Juźwiak & Joanna Duriasz & Adam Bohdan & Jerzy Stolarczyk, 2019. "Transit versus Nature. Depreciation of Environmental Values of the Road Alleys. Case Study: Gamerki-Jonkowo, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    18. Mekala, Gayathri Devi & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2018. "Lost in Transactions: Analysing the Institutional Arrangements Underpinning Urban Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 399-409.
    19. Sutton, Paul C. & Anderson, Sharolyn J., 2016. "Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City's Central Park," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 87-91.
    20. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:413-:d:769442. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.