Good parks – bad parks: the influence of perceptions of location on WTP and preference motives for urban parks

ABSTRACT

Urban parks generate substantial public benefits, yet explicit economic assessments of such values remain relatively rare. Surveys of willingness to pay (WTP) were undertaken to assess such values for proposed new parks. The analysis assessed how preference motives and values varied according to the location of parks. Results revealed greater altruistic motivation and higher overall values for the creation of inner city as opposed to suburban parks. Spatial decomposition revealed that, after controlling for other determinants such as incomes, values generally increase for households closer to proposed parks, but that a significant downturn in values is evident for households located very close to a proposed inner city park; a finding which echoes concerns regarding the potential for such sites to provide a focus for antisocial behaviour. While these findings provide strong overall support for provision of public parks they highlight, the importance of perceptions of location and the potential for localised dis-benefits.

KEYWORDS:

• Parks
• WTP
• distance decay
• GAM

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. A UK-based poll showed that whilst 91% of people agreed that public parks and open spaces improve their quality of life, one in five respondents felt that investing money in park maintenance was not justified due to vandalism of park facilities (CABE 2005).

2. Collecting values for the creation of both parks allows us to observe any diminishment in values when compared against the value of a single park.

3. Two male (22 and 26 years) and one female (51 years) interviewers were recruited, no significant differences were found between the estimated age of refusals and respondents (t = −0.111, p = 0.912). A number of 568 individuals declined to be interviewed giving a 40% response rate. Of those who declined, 53% were female and 46% male. This study was conducted in September 2009.

4. Mean ages were calculated from mid points of census frequency data for all over 18 s.

5. Study area median household incomes were extracted from the Experian Mosaic data-set at the LSOA level.

6. Categorised reasons given for choosing the CC park: prefer the CC Location, presence of alternatives around SB location, prefer city centre location, location in need of regeneration. Reasons for choosing the SB park: dislike the CC location, SB location more rural, prefer SB location, lesser of two evils, CC location not big enough, easier parking at the SB location. Reasons which were present for either park choice: would use more, would benefit others around the location, need for greenspace around location and better access.

7. Comparison of the incomes of those who choose the SB park with those who choose the CC park shows no significance difference (Mann-Whitney N = 280, z = 0.554, p = 0.5798). Comparison of the gender split of the two park choice categories also shows no significant difference with 43.84% of those choosing A being male compared to 45.54% of those who choose B.

8. Using Stata's bctobit command

9. Mean ages were calculated from mid points of census frequency data for all over 18s.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/G017387/1].