Advertisement

Assessing the economic value of urban green spaces in Kuala Lumpur

  • 10 Accesses

Abstract

This study assessed the economic value of public urban green spaces (UGSs) in Kuala Lumpur (KL) city by using the hedonic price method (HPM). It involves 1269 house units from eight sub-districts in KL city. Based on the hedonic price method, this study formulates a global and local model. The global model and local model are analyzed using ordinary least square (OLS) regression and geographically weighted regression (GWR). By using the hedonic price method, the house price serves as a proxy for public urban green spaces’ economic value. The house price is regressed against the set of three variables which are structural characteristics, neighborhood attributes, and environmental attributes. Measurements of interest in this study are environmental characteristics, including distance to public UGSs and size of public UGSs. The results of the OLS regression illustrated that Taman Rimba Kiara and Taman Tasik Titiwangsa provide the maximum economic value. On average, reducing the distance of the house location to Taman Rimba Kiara by 10 m increased the house price by RM1700. Similarly, increasing the size of the Taman Tasik Titiwangsa by 1000 m2 increases the house price by RM60,000. The advantage of the GWR result is the economic value of public UGSs which can be analyzed by the specific location according to sub-district. From this study, the GWR result exposed that the economic values of Taman Rimba Bukit Kiara and Taman Tasik Titiwangsa were not significant in each of the sub-district within KL city. Taman Rimba Bukit Kiara was negatively significant at all sub-districts except Setapak and certain house locations located at the sub-district of KL. In contrast, Taman Tasik Titiwangsa was positively significant at all sub-districts except certain house locations at the sub-districts of Batu, KL, Setapak, and KL city center. In conclusion, results show that the house price is influenced by the environmental attribute. However, even though both of these public UGSs generate the highest economic value based on distance and size, its significant values with an expected sign are only obtained based on the specific house location as verified by the local model. In terms of model comparison, the local model was better compared with the global model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Ali G, Bashir MK, Ali H (2015) Housing valuation of different towns using the hedonic model: a case of Faisalabad city, Pakistan. Habitat Int 50:240–249

  2. Anderson ST, West SE (2006) Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Reg Sci Urban Econ 36:773–789

  3. Ball MJ (1973) Recent empirical work on the determinants of relative house prices. Urban Stud 10(2):213–233

  4. Brunsdon C, Fotheringham S, Charlton M (1998) Geographically weighted regression. J Roy Stat Soc D-Sta 47:431–443

  5. Brunson MW, Reiter DK (1996) Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. J Environ Manag 46(1):31–41

  6. Callan SJ, Thomas JM (2013) Environmental economics and management: theory, policy, and applications. Cengage Learning

  7. Case KE, Mayer CJ (1996) Housing price dynamics within a metropolitan area. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26(3):387–407

  8. Chin TL, Chau KW (2003) A critical review of literature on the hedonic price model. International Journal for Housing and Its Applications 27(2):145–165

  9. Cho S, Poudyal NC, Roberts RK (2008) Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol Econ 66:403–416

  10. City Hall Kuala Lumpur (2016). Land Use and Development Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.dbkl.gov.my/pskl2020/english/land_use_and_development_strategy/index.htm

  11. Clark DE, Herrin WE (2000) The impact of public school attributes on home sale price in California. Growth Chang 31:385–407

  12. Conway D, Li CQ, Wolch J, Kahle C, Jerrett M (2010) A Spatial Autocorrelation Approach for Examining the Effects of Urban Green Space on Residential Property Values. J Real Estate Financ

  13. Crompton JL (2001) The impact of parks on property values: a review of the empirical evidence. J Leis Res 33(1):1

  14. Czembrowski P, Kronenberg J (2016) Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 146:11–19

  15. Department of Statistic, Malaysia (2016) Population Distribution and basic Demographic Characteristic Report 2010. Retrieved from https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=117&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRXYzcVZjdz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ 4TlhUUT09

  16. Donovan GH, Butry DT (2011) The effect of urban trees on the rental price of single-family homes in Portland, Oregon. Urban For Urban Green 10(3):163–168

  17. Fletcher M, Gallimore P, Mangan J (2000) Heteroskedasticity in hedonic house price models. J Prop Res 17(2):93–108

  18. Fotheringham, A. S., Brunsdon, C., & Charlton, M. (2003). Geogra[hically weighted regression:the analysis of spatially varying relationships. John Wiley & Sons

  19. Forrest D, Glen J, Ward R (1996) The impact of a light rail system on the structure of house prices. J Transp Econ Policy 31(4):15–29

  20. Gairola S, Noresah MS (2010) Emerging trend of urban green space research and the implications for safeguarding biodiversity: a viewpoint. Nat Sci 8(7):43–49

  21. Garrod G, Willis K (1992) Valuing the goods characteristics – an application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. J Environ Manag 34(1)

  22. Gibbons S, Mourato S, Resende GM (2014) The amenity value of English nature: a hedonic price approach. Environ Resour Econ 57(2):175–196

  23. Goodman AC (1989) Topics in empirical urban housing research. In: Muth, Goodman (eds) Regional and Urban Economics. Harwood Academic Publisher, pp 49–146

  24. Goodman AC, Thibodeau TG (1998) Housing market segmentation. J Hous Econ 7(2):121–143

  25. Green Facts (2016) Non-Market Value. Retrieved from http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/mno/non-market-value.htm

  26. Haurin DR, Brasington D (1996) Schoolquality and real house prices: inter and intra metropolitan effects. J Hous Econ 5:351–368

  27. Hu S, Yang S, Li W, Zhang C, Xu F (2016) Spatially non-stationary relationships between urban residential land price and impact factors in Wuhan city, China. Appl Geogr 68:48–56

  28. Huh S, Kwak SJ (1997) The choice of functional form and variables in the hedonic price model in Seoul. Urban Stud 34(7):989–998

  29. Hussein H (2006) Barrier-free park design for the disabled persons: a case study of the KLCC Park. J Des Built Environ 2(1):57–67

  30. Ishikawa N, Fukushige M (2012) Effects of street landscape planting and urban public parks on dwelling environment evaluation in Japan. Urban For Urban Green 11(4):390–395

  31. Jaimes NBP, Sendra JB, Delgado MG, Plata RF (2010) Exploring the driving forces behind deforestation in the state of Mexico (Mexico) using geographically weighted regression. Appl Geogr 30:576–591

  32. Jim CY, Chen WY (2006) Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban green space in Guangzhou, China. Landsc Urban Plan 75(1–2):81–96

  33. Kain JF, Quigley JM (1970) Measuring the value of housing quality. J Am Stat Assoc 65:532–548

  34. Ketkar K (1992) Hazardous waste sites and property values in the state of New Jersey. Appl Econ 24:647–659

  35. Kohlhase JE (1991) The impact of toxic waste sites on housing values. J Urban Econ 30:1–26

  36. Kong F, Yin H, Nakagoshi N (2007) Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case study in Jinan City, China. Landsc Urban Plan 79:240–252

  37. Lariviere J, Czajkowski M, Hanley N, Aanesen M, Falk-Petersen J, Tinch D (2014) The value of familiarity: effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good. J Environ Econ Manag 68(2):376–389

  38. Latinopoulos D (2018) Using a spatial hedonic analysis to evaluate the effect of sea view on hotel prices. Tour Manag 65:87–99

  39. Laverne RJ, Winson-Geideman K (2003) The influence of trees and landscaping on rental rates at office buildings. J Arboric 29(5):281–290

  40. Li MM, Brown HJ (1980) Micro-neighborhood externalities and hedonic housing prices. Land Econ 56(2):125–141

  41. Linneman P (1980) Some empirical results on the nature of the hedonic price function for the urban housing market. J Urban Econ 8(1):47–68

  42. Lupi F, Graham-Tomasi T, Taff SJ (1991) A hedonic approach to urban wetland valuation (no. 13284). University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics

  43. Lutzenhiser M, Netusil NR (2001) The effect of open space on a home’s sale price. Contemp Econ Policy 19(3):291–298

  44. Maclennan D, Tu Y (1996) Economic perspectives on the structure of local housing systems. Hous Stud 11(3):387–406

  45. Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing the urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ 76(1):100–113

  46. Mazlina M, Ismail S (2007). Green infrastructure as network of social spaces for well-being of urban residents: a review. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Built Environment in Developing Countries. Universiti Sains Malaysia

  47. Mazlina M, Ismail S (2008) Green infrastructure as network of social spaces for well-being of urban residents in Taiping, Malaysia. Jurnal Alam Bina 11(2):1–18

  48. Mohd Yusof MJ (2013) True colours of urban green spaces: identifying and assessing the qualities of green spaces in Kuala Lumpur. University Of Edinburgh, Malaysia

  49. Morancho AB (2003) A hedonic valuation of urban green area. Landscape Urban Plan 66:35–41

  50. Nakaya T (2014) GWR4 Windows Application for Geographically Weighted Regression Modelling: GWR4 User Manual. GWR4 Development Team

  51. Noor NM, Asmawi MZ, Abdullah A (2015) Sustainable urban regeneration: GIS and hedonic pricing method in determining the value of green space in housing area. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 170:669–679

  52. Nur Syafiqah AS, Abdul-Rahim AS, Mohd Johari MY, Tanaka K (2018) An economic valuation of urban green spaces in Kuala Lumpur City. Pertanika J Soc Sci Hum 26(1):469–490

  53. Oliveira S, Pereira JM, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Lourenço L (2014) Exploring the spatial patterns of fire density in southern Europe using geographically weighted regression. Appl Geogr 51:143–157

  54. Orford S (2000) Modelling spatial structures in local housing market dynamics: a multilevel perspective. Urban Stud 37(9):1643–1671

  55. Palmquist RB (1992) Valuing localized externalities. J Urban Econ 31:59–68

  56. PEMANDU (2014) Economic transformation programme (ETP) annual report 2013. Retreived From https://www.pmo.gov.my/dokumenattached/NTP-Report-2013/ETP_2013_ENG.pdf

  57. Pietsch M (2012) GIS in landscape planning. INTECH Open Access Publisher

  58. Samuelson P (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure, review of economics and statistics. 36(4):387–389

  59. Saphores JD, Li W (2012) Estimating the value of urban green areas: a hedonic pricing analysis of the single family housing market in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc Urban Plan 104:373–387

  60. Saz-Salazar SD, Rausell-Koster P (2008) A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: dealing with zero responses. Landsc Urban Plan 84(3–4):241–251

  61. Schnare AB, Struyk RJ (1976) Segmentation in urban housing markets. J Urban Econ 3(2):146–166

  62. Smith VK, Krutilla JV (1982) Explorations in natural-resource economics. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

  63. Straszheim MR (1975) An econometric analysis of the urban housing market. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York

  64. Tajima K (2003) New estimates of the demand for urban green space: implications for valuing the environmental benefits of Boston’s big dig project. J Urban Aff 25(5):641–655

  65. Teh TS (1994) Current state of green space in Kuala Lumpur. Malays J Trop Geogr 25(2):115–127

  66. Ting TP (2012) Urban green spaces and liveability in Southeast Asia. Urbanization in Southeast Asia: Issues & Impacts, 262

  67. Troy A, Grove JM (2008) Property values, parks, and crime: a hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landsc Urban Plan 87:233–245

  68. Tyrvainen L (1997) The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landsc Urban Plan 37(3):211–222

  69. Tyrvainen L (2001) Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. J Environ Manag 62(1):75–92

  70. Tyrvainen L, Miettinen A (2000) Property prices and urban forest amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 39(2):205–223

  71. Tyrvainen L, Vaananen H (1998) The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc Urban Plan 43(1–3):105–118

  72. Wolf KL (2003) Public reponse to the urban forest in inner-city business districts. J Arboric 29(3):117–126

  73. Yaakup A, Johar F, Abu-bakar SZ, Sulaiman S, Baharuddin MN (2005) Integrated land use assessment: the case of klang valley region, Malaysia. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Working Paper (No.223)

  74. Yu D (2007) Modelling owner-occupied single-family house values in the city of Milwaukee:a geographically weighted regression approach. GISci Remote Sens 44:267–282

  75. Yusof MJM (2012) Identifying green space in Kuala Lumpur using higher resolution satellite imagery. Alam Cipta, International Journal of Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice 5:93–106

  76. Yusof MJM, Rakhshandehroo M (2016) The nature, functions, and management of urban green space in Kuala Lumpur. J Archit Plan Res 33(4):347–360

  77. Zhou X, Parves Rana M (2012) Social benefits of urban green space: a conceptual framework of valuation and accessibility measurements. Manag Environ Qual Int J 23(2):173–189

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Abdul Samad Abdul-Rahim.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

A. Samad, N., Abdul-Rahim, A.S., Mohd Yusof, M.J. et al. Assessing the economic value of urban green spaces in Kuala Lumpur. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07593-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Economic valuation
  • Ordinary Least Square regression
  • Geographically weighted regression
  • Hedonic pricing method
  • Public urban green space
  • House Price