filed under: economics of trails

The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Non-market Benefits

by Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls

The authors review is distinguished from other surveys of open space that have been done in recent years by its broad focus on non-use values for all types of open space, and because it reviews primarily, although not exclusively, studies of applications in North America.

Rff Report Open Spaces

Open space provides a range of benefits to citizens of a community, beyond the benefits that accrue to private landowners. Parks and natural areas can be used for recreation; wetlands and forests supply storm-water drainage and wildlife habitat; farms and forests provide aesthetic benefits to surrounding residents. And in rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, any preserved land can offer relief from congestion and other negative effects of development.

It is one thing to recognize that open space provides these benefits but quite another to place a monetary value on them. To make important policy and planning decisions about zoning, restrictions on land use, government purchase of lands for parks, and similar initiatives, however, estimates of preferences and even dollar values can be essential. In this study, we review more than 60 published articles that have attempted to estimate the value of different types of open space.

The two major approaches for estimating open space value from the economics literature are the focus of this study: revealed preference methods and stated preference methods. In the first category are hedonic property value studies in which the open space value is inferred by estimating the sales price or value of a property as a function of measures of proximity to open space and other property and neighborhood characteristics. In the second are studies that use carefully designed surveys to elicit preferences or values households place on various types of open space amenities. Both contingent valuation and contingent choice studies are reviewed.

Both the revealed and stated preference studies generally show that there is value to preserving most types of open space land uses, but the values tend to vary widely with the size of the area, the proximity of the open space to residences, the type of open space, and the method of analysis. One conclusion we draw from this review is that the extant literature tends to be case study specific. However, it is possible to draw conclusions from the range of studies about the direction of particular effects, how values vary by location and other influences, and the differences among the methodologies used to estimate values. In addition, we suggest areas where additional research is needed to improve valuation estimates. We also conclude that more analysis is needed about how to conduct studies with broader applicability.

Published January 01, 2005

More Articles in this Category

Three Hidden Health Benefits of Hiking, 2021 Edition Guide

Hiking is widely recognized as one of the healthiest hobbies anyone can have, and for a good reason too. When we break it down to plain physics, walking activates most muscle groups, which not only keeps us in shape but also conditions us to become more resilient to all bodily ailments and harms.

Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans

This second edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans provides science-based guidance to help people ages 3 years and older improve their health through participation in regular physical activity.

San Jose Trails by the Numbers

San Jose is developing a 100 mile trail network! View the handout!

Promoting Parks and Recreation’s Role in Economic Development

This study builds on previous NRPA research on the economic importance of local park and recreation agencies by exploring the role that quality park amenities play in 21st century regional economic development.