IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sdk/wpaper/sebe5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The value of naturalness of urban green spaces: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Bronnmann

    (Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark)

  • Veronika Liebelt

    (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany and Leipzig University Department of Economics, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Fabian Marder

    (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany and Leipzig University Department of Economics, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Jasper Meya

    (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany and Leipzig University Department of Economics, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Martin Quaas

    (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany and Leipzig University Department of Economics, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

The wide range of benefits for humans and biodiversity conservation provided by urban green spaces (UGS) are receiving substantial attention in relation to urban planning and management. However, little is known about to which extent people value the naturalness and biodiversity of urban green spaces. We study how citizens value the naturalness of and the walking distance to their closest UGS in 22 major German cities. For this purpose, we develop a unique measurement scale for the naturalness of UGS, which is embedded in an online survey and in a discrete choice experiment. Results of Mixed Logit estimates and willingness to pay values indicate clear preferences regarding the naturalness of urban green space. For our national representative sample, we elicit a mean marginal WTP for the naturalness of UGS of € 2.31 per month with a standard error of € 0.12. Moreover, the results show that WTP varies between cities. These figures underline the importance of biodiversity in urban areas and can inform urban planning. Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG– FZT 118, 202548816).

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Bronnmann & Veronika Liebelt & Fabian Marder & Jasper Meya & Martin Quaas, 2020. "The value of naturalness of urban green spaces: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 128/20, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:sdk:wpaper:sebe5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sdu.dk/~/media/Files/Om_SDU/Institutter/Miljo/ime/wp/bronnmannetal05.ashx
    File Function: First version, 2020-11
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    2. Jasper N. Meya, 2020. "Environmental Inequality and Economic Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 235-270, July.
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    4. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 187-199.
    5. Veronika Liebelt & Stephan Bartke & Nina Schwarz, 2018. "Hedonic pricing analysis of the influence of urban green spaces onto residential prices: the case of Leipzig, Germany," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 133-157, January.
    6. Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2014. "Estimating the value of Urban Green Space: A hedonic pricing analysis of the housing market in Cologne, Germany," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2015-002, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    7. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2006. "Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 583-594, June.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    9. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    10. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    11. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    13. Céline Bonnet, 2001. "Assessing consumer response to Protected Designation of Origin labelling: a mixed multinomial logit approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 433-450, December.
    14. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    15. Franco, Sofia F. & Macdonald, Jacob L., 2018. "Measurement and valuation of urban greenness: Remote sensing and hedonic applications to Lisbon, Portugal," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 156-180.
    16. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    17. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    18. Łaszkiewicz, Edyta & Czembrowski, Piotr & Kronenberg, Jakub, 2019. "Can proximity to urban green spaces be considered a luxury? Classifying a non-tradable good with the use of hedonic pricing method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 237-247.
    19. Liebelt, Veronika & Bartke, Stephan & Schwarz, Nina, 2018. "Revealing Preferences for Urban Green Spaces: A Scale-sensitive Hedonic Pricing Analysis for the City of Leipzig," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 536-548.
    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. Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    2. Ratzke, Leonie, 2023. "Revealing preferences for urban biodiversity as an environmental good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Halkos, George E & Aslanidis, Panagiotis-Stavros & Landis, Conrad & Papadaki, Lydia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2024. "A review on primary and cascading hazards by exploring individuals’ willingness-to-pay for urban sustainability policies," MPRA Paper 122262, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jonas Heckenhahn & Moritz A. Drupp, 2024. "Relative Price Changes of Ecosystem Services: Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(3), pages 833-880, March.
    5. Nordström, Jonas & Hammarlund, Cecilia, 2021. "You win some, you lose some - compensating the loss of green space in cities taking heterogeneous population characteristics into consideration," AgriFood-WP 2021:3, Lund University, AgriFood Economics Centre.
    6. Jonas Nordström & Cecilia Hammarlund, 2021. "You Win Some, You Lose Some: Compensating the Loss of Green Space in Cities Considering Heterogeneous Population Characteristics," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, October.

    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. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    3. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    5. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. Elsa Varela & Zein Kallas, 2022. "Societal preferences for the conservation of traditional pig breeds and their agroecosystems: Addressing preference heterogeneity and protest responses through deterministic allocation and scale‐exten," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 761-788, September.
    7. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    9. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.
    10. Nina Schwarz & Annegret Haase & Dagmar Haase & Nadja Kabisch & Sigrun Kabisch & Veronika Liebelt & Dieter Rink & Michael W. Strohbach & Juliane Welz & Manuel Wolff, 2021. "How Are Urban Green Spaces and Residential Development Related? A Synopsis of Multi-Perspective Analyses for Leipzig, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Zambrano-Monserrate, Manuel A. & Ruano, María Alejandra & Yoong-Parraga, Cristina & Silva, Carlos A., 2021. "Urban green spaces and housing prices in developing countries: A Two-stage quantile spatial regression analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    12. Allen Blackman & Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz & Leonardo Corral & Maja Schling, 2024. "The Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 100(2), pages 333-352.
    13. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    14. Oehlmann, Malte & Weller, Priska & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Complexity-induced Status Quo Effects in Discrete Choice Experiments for Environmental Valutation," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100616, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Bauer, Dana & Liu, Pengfei & Swallow, Stephen K. & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Do Exurban Communities Want More Development?," Working Papers 25, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    16. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    17. Ole Bonnichsen & Jacob Ladenburg, 2010. "Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments – An Application of a Protest Reduction Entreaty," IFRO Working Paper 2010/7, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Yuta Kuroda & Takeru Sugasawa, 2023. "The Value of Scattered Greenery in Urban Areas: A Hedonic Analysis in Japan," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 523-586, June.
    19. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    20. Daniele Moro & Mario Veneziani & Paolo Sckokai & Elena Castellari, 2015. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin‐enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 243-258, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biodiversity; discrete choice experiments; non-market valuation; urban green space; willingness-to-pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • R21 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Housing Demand
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sdk:wpaper:sebe5. 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: Ulla H. Oehlenschläger (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehhsdk.html .

    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.