The Potential of Contingent Valuation for Planning Practice. The Example of Dortmund Westpark

Jost Wilker; Dietwald Gruehn

doi:10.1007/s13147-016-0468-6

Authors

Jost Wilker Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Schwannstraße 3, 40476, Düsseldorf, Germany
Dietwald Gruehn Lehrstuhl Landschaftsökologie und Landschaftsplanung, Technische Universität Dortmund, August-Schmidt-Straße 10, 44221, Dortmund, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-016-0468-6

Keywords:

Green infrastructure planning, City parks, Contingent valuation, Park management, Decision making

Abstract

This paper highlights the practical opportunities that contingent valuation can deliver to improve park management. Although green infrastructure, such as urban parks, provides huge benefits to society, investments require a strong economic justification and have to be based on societal needs and preferences. Accordingly, this paper investigates, by means of a survey of willingness to pay and willingness to work, how users value possible improvements to the management of Dortmund Westpark, and which determinants influence their decisions. In line with the scientific discussion of integrating economic valuation in decision making, we introduce a simple approach to applying valuation results to planning. Total willingness to pay and willingness to work are set in proportion to the real-time costs of suggested proposals. To make the findings useful for park management, these proposals consider the weighting of users’ preferences. Total hypothetical working hours are also integrated into the approach by proposing where they could be used most effectively. Our study reveals the high social values people attach to park improvements and demonstrates the potential benefits of contingent valuation study results for decision making.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahmed, S.U.; Gotoh, K. (2007): Estimation of the willingness to pay for preserving public parks in Nagasaki City by using contingent valuation. In: Reports of the Faculty of Engineering, Nagasaki University 37, 68, 53-60.

Amundsen, O. M.; Allen, W.; Hoellen, K. (2009): Green Infrastructure Planning: Recent Advances and Applications. http://www.carolinamountain.org/sites/default/files/files/Nature%20and%20 Commerce/4%20PASMemoMay-June09.pdf (October 12, 2016).

Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Portney, P.R.; Learner, E.E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H. (1993): Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Washington, DC.

Bateman, I.J.; Landford, I.H.; Willis, K.G.; Turner, R.K.; Garrod, G.D. (1993): The Impacts of Changing Willingness to Pay Question Format in Contingent Valuation Studies: An Analysis of Open-ended, iterative Bidding and Dichotomous Choice Formats. Norwich. = CSERGE Working paper GEC 1993-05

Bateman, I.J.; Harwood, A.R.; Mace, G.M.; Watson, R.T.; Abson, D.J.; Andrews, B.; Binner, A.; Crowe, A.; Day, B.H.; Dugdale, S.; Fezzi, C.; Foden, J.; Hadley, D.; Haines-Young, R.; Hulme, M.; Kontoleon, A.; Lovett, A.A.; Munday, P.; Pascual, U.; Paterson, J.; Perino, G.; Sen, A.; Siriwardena, G.; van Soest, D.; Termansen, M. (2013): Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom. In: Science 341, 6141, 45-50.

BKI – Baukosteninformationszentrum Deutscher Architektenkammern (2012): Objektdaten Freianlagen. Kosten abgerechneter Objekte mit statistischen Kostenkennwerten. Stuttgart.

Bühl, A. (2010): PASW 18. Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse. München.

Carson, R.T. (2012): Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, 4, 27-42.

Carson, R.T.; Flores, N.E.; Meade, N.F. (2001): Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. In: Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 2, 173-210.

Chiesura, A. (2004): The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 1, 129-138.

Christie, M. (1999): An Assessment of the Economic Effectiveness of Recreation Policy using Contingent Valuation. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42, 4, 547-564.

Costa, C.S. (2007): Ökonomische Argumente für eine Grünflächenentwicklung. In: Stadt und Grün 56, 2, 13-19.

Del Saz Salazar, S.; Menendez, L.G. (2007): Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? In: Land Use Policy 24, 1, 296-305.

Elsasser, P.; Meyerhoff, J.; Montagné, C.; Stenger, A. (2009): A bibliography and database on forest benefit valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany, and Switzerland – A possible base for a concerted European approach. In: Journal of Forest Economics 15, 1‑2, 93-107.

Europäische Kommission (2013): Grüne Infrastruktur (GI) – Aufwertung des europäischen Naturkapitals. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d41348f2-01d5-4abe-b817-4c73e6f1b2df.0012.04/DOC_1&format=PDF (October 12, 2016).

Freeman III., A.M.; Herriges, J.A.; Kling, C.L. (2014): The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Theory and Methods. Hoboken.

Gälzer, R. (2001): Grünplanung für Städte. Planung, Entwurf, Bau und Erhaltung. Stuttgart.

Gronemann, S.; Hampicke, U. (1997): Die Monetarisierung der Natur. Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und Methoden. In: Weise, P. (ed.): Nachhaltigkeit in der ökonomischen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main, 164-207. = Jahrbuch Ökonomie und Gesellschaft 14.

Gruehn, D. (2013): Germany Goes Green – Innovations towards a Sustainable Regional Development. In: World Technopolis Review 1, 4, 230-239.

Grunert, H. (2001): Grün Macht Geld – Macht Geld Grün. Die ökonomische Bedeutung des Stadtgrüns. In: Stadt und Grün 50, 8, 539-544.

Haab, T.C.; Interis, M.G.; Petrolia, D.R.; Whitehead, J.C. (2013): From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation. In: Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35, 4, 593-612.

Hausman, J. (2012): Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, 4, 43-56.

James, P.; Tzoulas, K.; Adams, M.D.; Barber, A.; Box, J.; Breuste, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Frith, M.; Gordon, C.; Greening, K.L.; Handley, J.; Haworth, S.; Kazmierczak, A.E.; Johnston, M.; Korpela, K.; Moretti, M.; Niemelä, J.; Pauleit, S.; Roe, M.H.; Sadler, J.P.; Ward Thompson, C. (2009): Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. In: Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8, 2, 65-75.

Jilkova, J.; Holländer, R.; Kochmann, L.; Slavik, J.; Slavikova, L. (2010): Economic Valuation of Environmental Resources and its Use in Local Policy Decision-Making: A Comparative Czech-German Border Study. In: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 12, 3, 299-309.

Johnston, R.J. (2006): Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum. In: Environmental Economics and Management 52, 1, 469-481.

Klaphake, A. (2003): Mehr Ökonomie für den Freiraum! Konzeptionelle Grundlagen und empirische Ergebnisse der Ökonomie städtischer Freiräume. In: Stadt und Grün 52, 10, 7‑13.

Klaphake, A.; Meyerhoff, J. (2003): Der ökonomische Wert städtischer Freiräume. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 61, 1-2, 107-117.

Knetsch, J.L. (2010): Values of gains and losses: Reference states and choice of measure. In: Environmental and Resource Economics 46, 2, 179-188.

Matz, K. (2006): Was ist ein Stadtpark wert? Ökonomische Bewertung des Görlitzer Parks in Berlin mit einer Zahlungsbereitschaftsanalyse. Berlin. = Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung 128.

McConnell, V.; Walls, M. (2005): The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Nonmarket Benefits. Washington, DC.

Meyerhoff, J. (2004): Der Einfluss von Einstellungen auf die Zahlungsbereitschaft für Veränderungen in Natur und Landschaft. Ergebnisse aus zwei Kontingenten Bewertungen zum Wattenmeer und zur Elbe. Frankfurt am Main.

Milchert, J. (2005): Mit Grün Geld verdienen. In: Stadt und Grün 54, 1, 11-15.

Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. (1989): Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.

Neumeyer, H.-P.; Kieslich, W.; Liesen, M. (2004): StadtgrünPlan. Stadtbezirk Innenstadt-West. Erstellt im Auftrag der Stadt Dortmund, Regiebetrieb Stadtgrün. Dortmund.

Pearce, D.W.; Atkinson, G.; Mourato, S. (2006): Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Environment. Recent Developments. Paris.

Schröder, T. (2000): Der Park lebt nicht vom Staat allein. In: Topos 19, 68-74.

Slootweg, R.; van Beukering, P.J.H. (2008): Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Lessons from Influential Cases. Report of the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment. Utrecht.

Stadt Dortmund (2006): Parks und Gärten in Dortmund. Dortmund.

Stadt Dortmund (2009): Statistisches Jahrbuch. Dortmunder Statistik 2009. Dortmund.

Stewart, S.; Kahn, J.R. (2009): An introduction to choice modeling for non-market valuation. In: Alberini, A.; Kahn, J.R. (eds.): Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Cheltenham/Northampton, 153-176.

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010): The Ecological and Economic Foundations. London.

Venkatachalam, L. (2004): The contingent valuation method: a review. In: Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24, 1, 89-124.

Weinberg, S.L.; Abramowitz, S.K. (2008): Statistics using SPSS. An Integrative Approach. Cambridge.

Whitehead, J.C. (2006): A practitioner’s primer on the contingent valuation method. In: Alberini, A.; Kahn, J.R. (eds.): Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Cheltenham/Northhampton, 66-91.

Wilker, J. (2010): GrünAnlage – Was ist uns Stadtgrün wert? Ökonomische Bewertung des Westparks in Dortmund. Diplomarbeit, Technische Universität Dortmund.

Wilker, J.; Rusche, K. (2014): Economic valuation as a tool to support decision-making in strategic green infrastructure planning. In: Local Environment 19, 6, 702-713.

Wilker, J.; Rusche, K.; Benning, A.; MacDonald, M.A.; Blaen, P. (2016): Applying ecosystem benefit valuation to inform quarry restoration planning. In: Ecosystem Services 20, 44-55.

Willis, K.G. (2003): Pricing Public Parks. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46, 1, 3‑17.