IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v76y2020i4d10.1007_s10640-020-00489-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Greenspace Under Pandemic Lockdown

Author

Listed:
  • Brett H. Day

    (Department of Economics, University of Exeter)

Abstract

The COVID-19 outbreak resulted in unprecedented restrictions on citizen’s freedom of movement as governments moved to institute lockdowns designed to reduce the spread of the virus. While most out-of-home leisure activities were prohibited, in England the lockdown rules allowed for restricted use of outdoor greenspace for the purposes of exercise and recreation. In this paper, we use data recorded by Google from location-enabled mobile devices coupled with a detailed recreation demand model to explore the welfare impacts of those constraints on leisure activities. Our analyses reveals evidence of large-scale substitution of leisure time towards recreation in available greenspaces. Indeed, despite the restrictions the economic value of greenspace to the citizens of England fell by only £150 million over lockdown. Examining the outcomes of counterfactual policies we find that the imposition of stricter lockdown rules would have reduced welfare from greenspace by £1.14 billion. In contrast, more relaxed lockdown rules would have delivered an aggregate increase in the economic value of greenspace equal to £1.47 billion.

Suggested Citation

  • Brett H. Day, 2020. "The Value of Greenspace Under Pandemic Lockdown," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 1161-1185, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:76:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10640-020-00489-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-020-00489-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-020-00489-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-020-00489-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    2. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    3. Michel Bierlaire, 2006. "A theoretical analysis of the cross-nested logit model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 287-300, April.
    4. Venter, Zander & Barton, David & gundersen, vegard & Figari, Helene & Nowell, Megan, 2020. "Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway," SocArXiv kbdum, Center for Open Science.
    5. Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E., 2013. "Sampling of alternatives in Multivariate Extreme Value (MEV) models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 31-52.
    6. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-1988, November.
    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. Krzysztof Herman & Łukasz Drozda, 2021. "Green Infrastructure in the Time of Social Distancing: Urban Policy and the Tactical Pandemic Urbanism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    2. Ling Yu & Pengjun Zhao & Junqing Tang & Liang Pang & Zhaoya Gong, 2023. "Social inequality of urban park use during the COVID-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Bruno Marques & Jacqueline McIntosh & Chitrakala Muthuveerappan & Krzysztof Herman, 2022. "The Importance of Outdoor Spaces during the COVID-19 Lockdown in Aotearoa—New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Iwona Kantor-Pietraga & Robert Krzysztofik & Maksymilian Solarski, 2023. "Planning Recreation around Water Bodies in Two Hard Coal Post-Mining Areas in Southern Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, July.
    5. Evi Petersen & Annette Bischoff & Gunnar Liedtke & Andrew J. Martin, 2021. "How Does Being Solo in Nature Affect Well-Being? Evidence from Norway, Germany and New Zealand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Argyro Anna Kanelli & Margarita Kokkinaki & Marios-Dimitrios Sinvare & Chrisovalantis Malesios & Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos & Olga-Ioanna Kalantzi, 2023. "Keep Calm and Go Out: Urban Nature Exposure, Mental Health, and Perceived Value during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Dani Broitman, 2023. "“Passive” Ecological Gentrification Triggered by the Covid-19 Pandemic," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 312-321.
    8. Matheus Pereira Libório & Petr Iakovlevitch Ekel & Carlos Augusto Paiva Martins, 2023. "Economic analysis through alternative data and big data techniques: what do they tell about Brazil?," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-16, January.
    9. José F Baños-Pino & David Boto-García & Eduardo Del Valle & Inés Sustacha, 2023. "The impact of COVID-19 on tourists’ length of stay and daily expenditures," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(2), pages 437-459, March.
    10. Haoxian Cai & Wei Duan, 2022. "Changing Perceptions and Uses of “Companion Animal” Public and Pseudo-Public Spaces in Cities during COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Beijing," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Tassia K. Oswald & Alice R. Rumbold & Sophie G. E. Kedzior & Mark Kohler & Vivienne M. Moore, 2021. "Mental Health of Young Australians during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Exploring the Roles of Employment Precarity, Screen Time, and Contact with Nature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Sima Namin & Yuhong Zhou & Joan Neuner & Kirsten Beyer, 2021. "Neighborhood Characteristics and Cancer Survivorship: An Overview of the Current Literature on Neighborhood Landscapes and Cancer Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Vishal Kumar & Aude Vuilliomenet, 2021. "Urban Nature: Does Green Infrastructure Relate to the Cultural and Creative Vitality of European Cities?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    15. Antonios Kolimenakis & Alexandra D. Solomou & Nikolaos Proutsos & Evangelia V. Avramidou & Evangelia Korakaki & Georgios Karetsos & Aimilia B. Kontogianni & Konstantinos Kontos & Christos Georgiadis &, 2022. "Public Perceptions of the Socioeconomic Importance of Urban Green Areas in the Era of COVID-19: A Case Study of a Nationwide Survey in Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.

    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. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    2. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.
    3. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
    4. Heng Z. Chen & Frank Lupi & John P. Hoehn, 1999. "An Empirical Assessment of Multinomial Probit and Logit Models for Recreation Demand," Chapters, in: Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), Valuing Recreation and the Environment, chapter 5, pages 141-162, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    6. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago & Vareda, João, 2013. "Delineating markets for bundles with consumer level data: The case of triple-play," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 760-773.
    7. Yao, Rui & Bekhor, Shlomo, 2022. "A variational autoencoder approach for choice set generation and implicit perception of alternatives in choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 273-294.
    8. von Haefen, Roger H., 2003. "Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 145-165, March.
    9. Lupi, Frank & Hoehn, John & Christie, Gavin, 1999. "Valuing Non-indigenous Species Control and Native Species Restoration in Lake Huron," Western Region Archives 321706, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    10. Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe, 2009. "Faut-il réguler l'encombrement des sites récréatifs ? Un modèle de choix discret avec participation," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 90(1), pages 51-77.
    11. Xing, Jianwei & Leard, Benjamin & Li, Shanjun, 2021. "What does an electric vehicle replace?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Lew, Daniel K. & Larson, Douglas M., 2005. "Accounting for stochastic shadow values of time in discrete-choice recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 341-361, September.
    13. Donato Romano & Riccardo Scarpa & Fiorenza Spalatro & Laura Viganò, 2000. "Modelling Determinants of Participation, Number of Trips and Site Choice for Outdoor Recreation in Protected Areas," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 224-238, May.
    14. Newman, Jeffrey P. & Ferguson, Mark E. & Garrow, Laurie A., 2013. "Estimating GEV models with censored data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 170-184.
    15. Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 10-20.
    16. Leard, Benjamin & Li, Shanjun & Xing, Jianwei, 2019. "What Does an Electric Vehicle Replace?," RFF Working Paper Series 19-05, Resources for the Future.
    17. A. de Palma & K. Kilani, 2003. "Compensating Variation for Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2003-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    18. Lew, Daniel K., 1999. "Multi-Purpose Trip Valuation in Recreation Demand Models: Some Methodological Approaches," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 271486, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Leplat, Mélody & Le Goffe, Philippe, 2009. "Faut-il réguler l'encombrement des sites récréatifs ? Un modèle de choix discret avec participation," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 90(1).
    20. Min Qiang Zhao & Ju-Chin Huang, 2018. "The Representative Consumer Approximation Bias in Discrete Choice Welfare Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 969-984, 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:kap:enreec:v:76:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10640-020-00489-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.