The Relative Impacts of Trails and Greenbelts on Home Price

  • Paul K. Asabere
  • Forrest E. Huffman


This study examines the impacts of trails and greenbelts and other amenities on home value. Using the hedonic framework the study provides analyses of a database consisting of roughly 10,000 sales of homes occurring from April 2001 to March 2002 in and around San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Among other things, our study shows that trails, greenbelts, and trails with greenbelts (or greenways) are associated with roughly 2, 4, and 5%, price premiums, respectively. The following amenities: proximity to golf course, neighborhood playground, tennis court, neighborhood pool, view, and cul-de-sac, all add significantly to home value.


Amenity Trail Greenbelt Home value Hedonic estimation 



The authors would like to offer special thanks to Tim Wooten, Property Tax Division, Office of the Comptroller, State of Texas, for data access. All usual caveats apply.


  1. Asabere, P. K. (1990). The value of a Neighborhood Street with reference to the Cul-de-sac. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 3, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asabere, P. K., & Huffman, F. E. (1996). Negative and positive impacts of golf course proximity on home prices. Appraisal Journal, LXIV(4), 351–355.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, E. D., Hansen, J. L., Schwartz, A. J., & Smersh, G. T. (1998). Pricing residential amenities: the value of view. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, S. E. (1999). Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 577–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogart, W. T., & Cromwell, B. A. (2000). How much is a neighborhood school worth? Journal of Urban Economics, 47, 280–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolitzer, B., & Netusil, N. R. (2000). The impact of open space on property values in Portland. The Journal of Environmental Management, 59(3), 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Box, G., & Cox, D. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of American Statistical Association, Series B, 26, 211–243.Google Scholar
  8. Brasington, D. M. (1999). Which measure of school quality does the housing market value? Journal of Real Estate Research, 18(3), 395–413.Google Scholar
  9. Correll, M. R., Lillydahl J. H., & Singell, L. D. (1978). The effects of greenbelts on residential property values: some findings on the political economy of open space. Land Economics, 54(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond, D. Jr. (1980). The relationship between amenities and urban land prices. Land Economics, 56(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Do, Q. A., & Grudnitski, G. (1995). Golf courses and residential house prices: an empirical examination. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 10, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downes, T. A., & Zabel, J. E. (2002). The impact of school characteristics on house prices: Chicago 1987–1991. Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earnhart, D. (2006). Using contingent-pricing analysis to value open space and its duration at residential locations. Land Economics, 82(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
  14. Evenson, K. R., Herring, A. H., & Huston, S. L. (2005). Evaluating change in physical activity with the: building of a multi-use trail. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2):177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbons, S., & Machin, S. (2005). Valuing rail access using transport innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(1), 148–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Irwin, E. G. (2002). The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics, 78(4), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jud, G. D., & Watts, J. M. (1981). Schools and housing value. Land Economics, 57, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaufman, D., & Cloutier, N. (2006). The impact of small brownfields and green spaces on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, 33(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kennedy, P. (1992). A Guide to Econometrics, 3rd ed.,Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kimmel, M. M. (1985). Parks and Property Values: An Empirical Study in Dayton and Columbus, Ohio, Thesis, Oxford, OH: Miami University, Institute of Environmental Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. Krizek, K. J. (2006). Two approaches to valuing some of bicycle facilities’ presumed benefits. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsey, G., Man, G., Payton, S., & Dickson, K. (2004). Property values, recreation values, and urban greenways. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(3), 69–90.Google Scholar
  24. Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3), 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahan, B. L., Polasky, S., & Adams, R. M. (2000). Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Economics, 76(1), 100–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McMillen, D. P. (2004). Airport expansions and property values: the case of Chicago O’Hare Airport. Journal of Urban Economics, 55(3), 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michaels, R. G., & Smith, V. K. (1990). Market segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: the case of hazardous waste sites. Journal of Urban Economics, 28, 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Association of Realtors and National Association of Home Builders. (2002). Consumers’ Survey on Smart Choices for Home Buyers: April 2002.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, A. C. (1986). Using land markets to evaluate urban containment programs, APA Journal, 156–171.Google Scholar
  30. Rodriquez, M., & Sirmans, C. F. (1994). Quantifying the value of a view in single family housing markets. The Appraisal Journal, 62(4), 600–603.Google Scholar
  31. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, V. K., Paulos, C., & Kim, H. (2002). Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resource and Energy Economics, 24, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, G., Macera, C. A., Scudder-Soucie B., Schmid, T., Pratt, M., & Buchner, D. (2005). A cost-benefit analysis of physical activity using bike/pedestrian trails. Health Promotion Practice, 6(2), 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yrvainen, L., & Miettinen, A. (2000). Property prices and urban forrest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fox School of Business and ManagementTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations