No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Nature in the concrete jungle: valuing urban ecosystem services in Costa Rica
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 October 2023
Abstract
Urban green spaces are primarily recognized for their ability to provide opportunities for recreational activities. However, these spaces also offer a broader range of ecosystem services and benefits, which are often overlooked by city inhabitants and the government. This paper utilizes choice experiments to estimate the benefits derived from ecosystem services provided by undeveloped natural areas and urban parks in San José, Costa Rica. We evaluate three ecosystem services provided by undeveloped natural areas, namely habitats for animals and plants, hydrological control, and recreation. Additionally, we estimate the benefits derived from the restoration and construction of three types of urban parks: neighborhood, metropolitan, and central district parks. The results demonstrate that individuals place significant value on the restoration of undeveloped natural areas and urban parks. The findings also indicate variations in the valuation of ecosystem services between undeveloped natural areas and different park types, as well as among households.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Abildtrup, J, Garcia, S, Olsen, SB and Stenger, A (2013) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecological Economics 92, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou-Zeid, M and Ben-Akiva, M (2014) Hybrid choice models. In Hess, S and Daly, A (eds). Handbook of Choice Modelling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 383–412.Google Scholar
AR (2019) MINAE planea replicar el parque La Sabana en ocho puntos de la GAM. Available at https://www.ameliarueda.com/nota/4.500-hectareas-urbanas-area-metropolitana-seran-parques-recreativos (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Arnberger, A and Eder, R (2011) The influence of age on recreational trail preferences of urban green-space visitors: a discrete choice experiment with digitally calibrated images. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54, 891–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspinall, PA, Thompson, CW, Alves, S and Sugiyama, T (2010) Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open space in older people. Environment and Planning B Planning and Design 37, 1022–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bae, H (2011) Urban stream restoration in Korea: design considerations and residents’ willingness to pay. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basri, BK (2011) Valuing the attributes of Malaysian recreational parks: a choice experiment approach. PhD thesis, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Bullock, CH (2008) Valuing urban green space: hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CBD COP (2008) Report of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the work of its ninth meeting. Available at https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-09Google Scholar
Cho, S-H, Bowker, JM and Park, WM (2006) Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially weighted hedonic models. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31, 485–507.Google Scholar
Cvejić, R, Eler, K, Špela Železnikar, MP, Haase, D, Kabisch, N and Strohbach, M (2015) A typology of urban green spaces, ecosystem services provision services and demands. Report D3.1, Work package 3 of EU FP7 (ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567) GREEN SURGE project (2013–2017).Google Scholar
Daams, MN, Sijtsma, FJ and van der Vlist, AJ (2016) The effect of natural space on nearby property prices: accounting for perceived attractiveness. Land Economics 92, 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Saz Salazar, S and García Menéndez, L (2007) Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: does proximity matter? Land Use Policy 24, 296–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrini, S and Scarpa, R (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53, 342–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Baggethun, E and Barton, DN (2012) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, AR (2007) Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. The Stata Journal 7, 388–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, TP, Adamowicz, WL and Carlsson, F (2017) Choice Experiments. In Champ, PA, Boyle, KJ and Brown, TC (eds), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2d Edn. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 133–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INEC (2011) X Censo Nacional de Población y VI de Vivienda: Resultados Generales. San José, Costa Rica. Available at https://www.cipacdh.org/pdf/Resultados_Generales_Censo_2011.pdf (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Kessels, R, Jones, B, Goos, P and Vandebroek, M (2012) An efficient algorithm for constructing Bayesian optimal choice designs. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 27, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessels, R, Goos, P and Vandebroek, M (2018) A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research 43, 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, J and Wüstemann, H (2014) Estimating the value of urban green space: a hedonic pricing analysis of the housing market in Cologne, Germany. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia 5, 43–58.Google Scholar
Kulshreshtha, SN and Gillies, JA (1993) The economic value of the South Saskatchewan River to the city of Saskatoon: (II) estimation of the recreational use value. Canadian Water Resources Journal 18, 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, AY and Jim, CY (2010) Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J, Hensher, DA and Swait, J (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MINAE and GIZ (2021) Corredor Biológico Interurbano Río Torres | Biodiver_ City San José. Available at http://biocorredores.org/biodiver-city-sanjose/sobre-el-proyecto/el-proyecto (in Spanish).Google Scholar
MSJ (2014) Corredor biológico. Available at https://www.msj.go.cr/informacion_ciudadana/ambiente/SitePages/corredor_biologico.aspx (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Newell, RG and Siikamäki, J (2014) Nudging energy efficiency behavior: the role of information labels. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 1, 555–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ONT (2014) Guía Técnica Actualización de las Plataformas de Valores de Terrenos por Zonas Homogéneas. Órgano de Normalización Técnica (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Ortiz-Malavasi, E (2014) Atlas de Costa Rica 2014. Available at https://repositoriotec.tec.ac.cr/handle/2238/6749Google Scholar
Piaggio, M (2021) The value of public urban green spaces: measuring the effects of proximity to and size of urban green spaces on housing market values in San josé, Costa Rica. Land Use Policy 109, 105656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sándor, Z and Wedel, M (2018) Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 42, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siikamäki, JV, Krupnick, A, Strand, J and Vincent, JR (2019) International willingness to pay for the protection of the Amazon Rainforest. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8775, Washington DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavárez, H and Elbakidze, L (2019) Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: a choice experiment approach. Forest Policy and Economics 109, 102004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavárez, H and Elbakidze, L (2021) Urban forests valuation and environmental disposition: the case of Puerto Rico. Forest Policy Economics 131, 102572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres J (2014) Corredor biológico río Torres sería el primer corredor interurbano del país. Available at https://archivo.crhoy.com/corredor-biologico-rio-torres-seria-el-primer-corredor-interurbano-del-pais-u4l7x/nacionales/ (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Train, KE (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74, 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traoré, SAA and Salles, J-M (2014) Urban park's ecological and recreational aspects in developing country: evaluating the Bãngr-Weoogo park in Ouagadougou. In Conférence annuelle de la FAERE, 18 p.Google Scholar
Tu, G, Abildtrup, J and Garcia, SS (2016) Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: an analysis of stated residential choices. Landscape and Urban Planning 148, 120–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuffery, L (2017) The recreational services value of the nearby periurban forest versus the regional forest environment. Journal of Forest Economics 28, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrväinen, L (1997) The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban Planning 37, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN-Habitat (2016) World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and Development – Emerging Futures. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).Google Scholar
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/2030agendaGoogle Scholar
United Nations (2019) The sustainable development goals report, 2019. Available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
USEPA (2016) Generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs) for ecological risk assessment: second edition with generic ecosystem services endpoints added. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Piaggio and Siikamäki supplementary material
Piaggio and Siikamäki supplementary material
File
2.2 MB