|
<br />•
<br />C~
<br />•
<br />'' ' 'f'ablg ~.~ B~l~~fi~/~Q 1 ~>~a~~sxs of 9: url~a~ parks
<br />.. _ ., ~ ,
<br />1
<br /> EXTERNAL BENEFITS ON-SITE BENEFITS
<br /> Acres Location Total Annual Recreation Users Adjusted Total Annual Annual
<br /> (a) Rent Property Property Atten- Living Atten- Recreation Operating Net
<br />Park Value Value dance Beyond dance Value Cost Benefits
<br /> Benefit Benefit 2.6~ (visit $]1
<br /> (bl lal feet(~l (al
<br /> 111 l21 131 lai f51 (6) (71 (81 (Hi U(11
<br />EIm~Beaverbrntlk
<br />;i 76 ,$69 ; $29,715'.. $2,972 60,515 51 30,863 9130,863 $74;OOU ~-40,165>:
<br />Greenwtxld 15 500a ],,421,845 142,155 29,301 59 17,28 17,288 21.000. :.X38,473,`,
<br />Hadwin 50 ~90Q 1,A24,972 1Q2,997 ---{d) 4,OQ0 98,997....
<br />Lake 78 `° 2300 a1.,0~5,408 14,591 36,335 75 27,251 27,251 :26,000 102,792
<br />Total 219. $26750) $3,991,910 5399,195 126,151 62 75,402 $75,402 $]25,000 $299,597
<br />(a) Sciurce: pity c?f.Worcester, ~9rlntfgt Rcltu~t, 1978:
<br />(b) The premium paid for housing hxaked n~xt ~o the dark as opposed to ?,000 feet away.
<br />s
<br />(c) Average Iocatign; rent across par(CS. ~ , -~ : ~ . ,
<br />j ;.
<br />td) Attendance: Figures-not available' ; ! ~ !
<br />he relationship between parks and property values
<br />has been studied before. [n a 1967 study, Kitchen and
<br />Hendon found that property values declined as distance
<br />from A.B. David Park in Lubbock, TX, increased. A simi-
<br />lar decline was found in Boulder, CO, where the sale
<br />price of single family houses dropped an average of $4.20
<br />for each foot that a house was located away from a
<br />greenbelt. In Philadelphia, a 1974 study by Hammer,
<br />Coughlin, and Horn estimated the aggregate real estate
<br />value generated by 1,300-acre Pennypack Park to be
<br />$3,391,000. They, too, noted that property values tended
<br />to decline with increasing distance from the park. In-
<br />terestingly, however, owners whose property abutted
<br />the park had somewhat depressed property values, possi-
<br />bly attributable to a feeling that they are somewhat
<br />vulnerable to annoyance from park users.
<br />This suggests that the i•eIationship between parkland
<br />and property values is mare complicated than a simple
<br />decline with distance, a suggestion confirmed by Welcher
<br />and Zerbst's 1973 study with five parks in Columbus,
<br />OH. They found that, compared to identical properties
<br />one block away, properties facing open space-type parks
<br />sold for $1,130 more while properties facing parks
<br />developed with intensively used recreation facilities, sold
<br />for $1,150 less. This makes it quite clear that the effects of
<br />parkland on property values are variable depending on
<br />the park attributes. This, then, was the hypothesis that
<br />guided uur current research .effort: City parks differ in
<br />the degree to which they posess various attributes (size,
<br />aesthetic caliber, sports facilities, and so forth) and these
<br />attributes have differential effects on the value of sur-
<br />rounding property.
<br />To study the relationship between parks and property
<br />values, we examined four parks in Worcester, Massachu-
<br />setts (pop. 161,799). Included were Elm Park, an attrac-
<br />tively landscaped and wooded area coupled with a play-
<br />ground and athletic fields located near the center of the.
<br />ci#y; Greenwood Park, 15 acres with a swimming pool,
<br />picnic tables, and a basketball court; Hadwin Park, a
<br />mostly wooded 50-acre area offering picnic sites and a
<br />tennis court; and Lake Park, 78 acres of largely un-
<br />developed woods with a ball field and picnic sites.
<br />To estimate the external effects (i.e. property value
<br />effect) prcxluced by these parks, we began by soliciting
<br />cooperation of the Worcester Multiple Listing Service.
<br />They were able to provide us with a complete list of all
<br />properties sold within a 4,000 foot radius of each park
<br />during the proceeding five years. The listing recorded the
<br />actual sales price of the house along with information on
<br />a variety of characteristics (lot size, number of rooms,
<br />fireplaces, and so forth) that might affect the sale price.
<br />To this set of information we added distance to the park
<br />as a variable. After adjusting the sales prices for inflation,
<br />we entered all this information into a sophisticated
<br />statistical analysis that enabled us to sort out and isolate
<br />the effects of the parks on the value of surrounding pro-
<br />perty values.
<br />The results clearly indicated that parks did affect the
<br />value of surrounding property; on the average, a house
<br />located 20 feet from a park sold for $2,675 more than a
<br />similar house located 2,000 feet away. As expected, this
<br />did vary from park to park (Table 1) and the effect was
<br />lost after about 2,000 feet from the park.
<br />Knowing this, we were able to estimate the total im-
<br />pact of the parks on property values by multiplying the
<br />location rent (the advantage of locating 20 feet from a
<br />park as opposed to 2,000 feet) by the total number of
<br />houses within a 2,000 feet radius of each park (Tablarl,
<br />column 3). By ammortizing this total value at 10 percent,
<br />we calculated the annual property value benefit pro-
<br />32 PARKS & RECREATION/AUGUST 1982
<br />
|