Economic valuation of green urban spaces: a meta-analysis Natasha Nikodinoska 1, Gianni Guastella 1,2, Stefano Pareglio 1,2 1 Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) - Milan, Italy 2 Università Cattolica, Research Centre on Environment, Energy and Sustainable Development, Brescia (IT) Nature and society: synergies, conflicts, trade-offs Ghent, 4 th of May 2017
Why value green urban spaces: Challenges Cities and urban areas are dynamic systems supported and constrained by the availability of natural resources. About 75% of the population already lives in urban areas in Europe and this trend will continue to increase (UN 2014) The urban growth puts pressure on the use of land and presents numerous challenges for the maintenance of urban green spaces, influencing their ecological functioning and contribution to the human well-being. 1
Why value green urban spaces: Challenges Green areas are subjected to different transformation processes such as construction buildings, housing, industries (Bomans, Steenberghen, Dewaelheyns, Leinfelder, & Gulinck, 2010), although they offer multiple benefits for human populations. They can reduce the ecological footprint of cities while enhancing resilience and provision of wide range of ecosystem services. Considering high conflicting land use alternatives in urban areas, efforts in both academic and policy area are needed to show the economic value and importance of green spaces and related ecosystem services, also allocating adequate financial resources for their management. 2
Current policy and research agenda Policy is starting to acknowledge green urban and peri-urban spaces as components of the green infrastructure which can contribute to different cross-cutting challenges: Maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems and their services, as well as restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystem - Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy Sustainable land use and nature-based solution, climate adaptation and air quality part of the priority themes of the Urban Agenda Europe Increasing efforts are put in the international and EU research initiatives to promote a platform for assessing and valuing urban ecosystems and their services and mainstream their importance in policy decisions (e.g., TEEB for Cities, MAES urban ecosystems) 3
Existing literature In the past, more attention to ecosystem such as forest, wetlands, agricultural areas compared to the urban green spaces. Few existing global reviews on the assessment, valuation, operationalization of ecosystem services (e.g. Haase et al. 2014; Luederitz et al. 2016). Two meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing methods valuing open space worldwide (Brander and Koetse 2011) and national level (Perino et al. 2014). 4
Objective of the study The objectives of the study are twofold: Provide an overview of the current economic methods used for valuing green urban and peri-urban spaces in Europe Perform a meta-analysis of selected contingent valuation studies on green urban and peri-urban areas located in Europe. Research question: How socio-economic characteristics, survey designs and study area features influence the value of urban green spaces and related ecosystem services? 5
Selection procedure Search on ISI Web of Science, Scopus (60) and Scholar Google (5) The research contributions include: Study area located in Europe Valuation of green urban spaces and related ecosystem services Includes economic methods for valuation. Resulting database with publication characteristics (authors, title, year of publication, study area), economic valuation technique, types of green urban and peri-urban spaces and ecosystem services 6
7 Description of the initial database
Selected studies for meta-analysis 30 case Contingent Valuation studies were used in the meta-analysis Dependent variable was set to be /ha/year to enable a comparison in values between different green spaces and related ES (Quintas-Soriano et al. 2016) Different distribution between diverse economic methods that can be directly comparable (e.g., 52% of the studies are Contingent Valuation, while Travel Cost methods feature with 6%). While Hedonic Pricing Methods accounted for 22% of the initial sample, they are not directly comparable with the Contingent Valuation Methods. 4 of the Contingent Valuation studies were not included in the sample because lack of information on surface specification or total population. 8
Characteristics of the CV studies 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Country 25 Number of observations per study 20 15 10 5 0 "1" "2" "6" "3" "5" "7" 9
List of variables Dependent variable Ln( WTP/ha/year) continuous Explainatory variable Type of green space dummy parks and garden semi-natural areas agregated green space Location of the green spaces dummy urban/peri-urban Ecosystem services category dummy Recreation ES Type of payment vehicle dummy tax Aesthetic ES Multiple ES entry fee donation Elicitation format dummy dichotomous choice open-ended payment card Type of inteviewees dummy residents/visitors Control variables Population density study continuous Green areas/artificial GDP/inhabitant continuous continuous 10
11 Information of the variables used in the meta-analysis
12 Information of the variables used in the meta-analysis
13 Meta-regression specification model
level 3 Size Geo level 2 Study Size Geo Study Study level 1 obs obs obs obs obs obs lnarea -0.291* -0.327** -0.323** -0.291** -0.328** -0.327** (0.126) (0.119) (0.113) (0.113) (0.117) (0.119) Park_garden 0.857 0.862 1.229 a 0.857 0.829 0.862 (0.819) (0.819) (0.694) (0.732) (0.788) (0.819) Seminatural 0.557 0.514 0.615 0.557 0.489 0.514 (0.675) (0.711) (0.575) (0.603) (0.702) (0.711) Urban 0.783 0.985 0.666 0.783 0.895 0.985 (0.609) (0.644) (0.534) (0.545) (0.598) (0.644) Recreation ES 1.361 a 1.534* 1.494* 1.361* 1.500* 1.534* (0.767) (0.73) (0.652) (0.686) (0.716) (0.73) Aesthetic ES -1.293-1.283-1.671* -1.293-1.231-1.283 (0.782) (0.72) (0.718) (0.699) (0.705) (0.72) Tax -1.142-1.12-1.274* -1.142-1.134-1.12 (0.669) (0.638) (0.565) (0.599) (0.623) (0.638) Entry fee -2.545** -2.425** -2.675*** -2.545*** -2.437** -2.425** (0.827) (0.789) (0.73) (0.74) (0.776) (0.789) Dicotomous 1.868** 1.904** 2.138*** 1.868*** 1.867** 1.904** (0.611) (0.64) (0.552) (0.547) (0.626) (0.64) Open ended 1.227 1.318 1.539** 1.227* 1.24 1.318 (0.654) (0.698) (0.561) (0.585) (0.657) (0.698) Resident 1.421 1.378* 1.560* 1.421* 1.450* 1.378* (0.734) (0.685) (0.627) (0.656) (0.644) (0.685) Standard errors in parentheses a p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 14 _cons 8.089*** 8.095*** 7.817*** 8.089*** 8.158*** 8.095*** (1.341) (1.337) (1.152) (1.200) (1.267) (1.337) sigma2 level 1 1.7 0.975 1.091 1.181 0.944 0.974 sigma2 level 2 0.779 0.584 9.52E-12 0.785 0.551 sigma2 level 3 6.5E-12 0.551
Conclusions Increasing literature on values of green spaces and related ES in Europe. Great differences in the number of valued ecosystem services and green space types. Outcomes from the meta-analysis suggest that the size of the study area, type of ES (recreational ES), elicitation format and payment method influence the annual WTP per hectare. The meta-analysis could be used to support policy decisions aimed at conserving or increasing green urban spaces. It can also be used as a base to conduct benefit transfer studies, when primary valuation studies are not feasible. 15
Thank you for the attention Contact address: natasha.nikodinoska@feem.it Corso Magenta 63, 20123 Milano - Italia - Tel +39 02.520.36934 - Fax +39 02.520.36946 - www.feem.it