Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 429–444 | Cite as

Measuring the Benefits of Neighbourhood Park Amenities: Application and Comparison of Spatial Hedonic Approaches

  • Tadao Hoshino
  • Koichi Kuriyama


The hedonic price method was used to estimate the influence of parks on the rental prices of single-room dwellings in Setagaya Ward, Tokyo, Japan. A simple least squares method is not optimal when the data set contains spatial autocorrelation. To improve the accuracy of estimates, we employed spatial autoregression and kriging models, resulting in a higher validity of the spatial models compared to the least squares model. Kriging models were superior to others particularly in terms of prediction accuracy, indicating that these models should be employed if the objective is superior prediction rather than estimation. The results showed that the effect of parks on property values varied with the buffer distance and park size.


Hedonic approach Kriging Spatial autocorrelation Spatial regression models Urban parks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acharya G, Bennett LL (2001) Valuing open space and land-use patterns in urban watersheds. J Real Estate Finance Econ 22: 221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L, Bera AK, Florax R et al (1996) Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26: 77–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basu S, Thibodeau TG (1998) Analysis of spatial autocorrelation in house prices. J Real Estate Finance Econ 17: 61–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheshire P, Sheppard S (1995) On the price of land and the value of amenities. Economica 62: 247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho SH, Bowker JM, Park WM (2006) Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially weighted hedonic models. J Agri Resource Econ 31: 485–507Google Scholar
  7. City of Tokyo (2006) Setagaya Ward statistics. Cited June 2007
  8. City of Tokyo (2006) Summary of Setagaya Ward administration, ch 7. Cited May–June 2007
  9. Cressie NA (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubin RA (1988) Estimation of coefficients in the presence of spatially autocorrelated error terms. Rev Econ Stat 70: 466–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubin RA, Pace RK, Thibodeau TG (1999) Spatial autoregression techniques for real estate data. J Real Estate Lit 7: 79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrent. http://www.forrent.j. Cited May–June 2007
  13. Florax RJGM, Nijkamp P (2003) Misspecification in linear spatial regression models. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2003-081/3Google Scholar
  14. Geoghegan J (2002) The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Pol 19: 91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geoghegan J, Wainger L, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Eco Econ 23: 251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hidano N, Takebayashi M (1990) Benefit estimation of multi-use transport facilities improvement: a hedonic approach. Infrastruct Planning Rev 8: 121–128Google Scholar
  17. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78: 465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2001) The problem of identifying land use spillovers: measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. Am J Agri Econ 8: 698–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim CW, Phipps TT, Anselin L (2003) Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach. J Environ Econ Manage 45: 24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim J, Goldsimth P (2009) A spatial hedonic approach to asses the impact of swine production on residential property values. Environ Resource Econ 42: 509–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1999) A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model. Int Econ Rev 40: 509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leggett CG, Bockstael NE (2000) Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land prices. J Environ Econ Manage 39: 121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lutzenhiser M, Netusil NR (2001) The effect of open space on a home’s sale price. Contemporary Econ Pol 19: 291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmquist RB (1992) Valuing localized externalities. J Urban Econ 32: 40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmquist RB (1999) Hedonic models. In: Van Den Bergh JCJM (eds) Handbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 765–776Google Scholar
  26. Paterson WR, Boyle KJ (2002) Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Econ 78: 417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosen S (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J Pol Econ 82: 34–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shultz SD, King DA (2001) The use of census data for hedonic price estimates of open-space amenities and land use. J Real Estate Finance Econ 22: 239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith V, Poulos C, Kim H (2002) Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resource Energy Econ 24: 107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tyrvainen L, Miettinen A (2000) Property prices and urban forest amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 39: 205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wackernagel H (2003) Multivariate geostatistics, 3rd edn. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social EngineeringTokyo Institute of TechnologyMeguro-ku, TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Natural Resource Economics, Graduate School of AgricultureKyoto UniversitySakyo-ku, KyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations