Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

The impact of green areas on dwelling prices: the case of Poznań city



Objective: The objective of this paper is to estimate the impact of urban green areas on dwelling prices in Poznań.

Research Design & Methods: In order to identify the influence of the green spaces on dwelling prices, the hedonic method was used. In the analysis, transaction prices of residential units in Poznań were used.

Findings: The application of the log-linear model allows to identify the percentage difference in the price of the same dwelling located with different distances to green areas. In case of this research, the results indicates that increase the distance from green area by one kilometer lowered the price of a dwelling by 3% in Poznań in years 2013-2015.

Implications & Recommendations: It is necessary to conduct research on impact of green areas on other types of properties. Different types of urban green areas may affect in different way.

Contribution & Value Added: The originality of this work lies in studying some aspects of influence of green areas on dwelling prices in Poland.


urban green space, hedonic methods



  1. Anderson, S.T., & West, S.E. (2006). Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36 (6), 773–789.
  2. Bark, R.H., Osgood, D.E., Colby, B.G., & Halper, E.B. (2011). How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36(2), 395–415.
  3. Chen, W.Y., & Jim, C.Y. (2010). Amenities and disamenities: A hedonic analysis of the heterogeneous urban landscape in Shenzhen (China). Geographical Journal, 176(3), 227-240.
  4. 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), 207–221.
  5. Coulson, E. (2008). Monograph on Hedonic Estimation and Housing Markets, Department of Economics, Penn State University.
  6. Crompton, J.L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: a review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 1-31.
  7. Crompton, J.L. (2005). The impact of parks on property values: empirical evidence from the past two decades in the United States. Managing Leisure, 10, 203–218.
  8. Herath, S., Choumert, J., & Maier, G. (2015). The value of the greenbelt in Vienna: a spatial hedonic analysis. The Annals of Regional Science, 54(2), 349-374.
  9. Hoshino, T., & Kuriyama, K. (2009). Measuring the benefits of neighbourhood park amenities: Application and comparison of spatial hedonic approaches. Environmental & Resource Economics, 45(3), 429-444.
  10. Kim, Y., & Johnson, R.L. (2002). The impact of forests and forest management on neighboring property values. Society and Natural Resources, 15(10), 887–901.
  11. Kolbe, J., & Wüstemann, H. (2014). Estimating the Value of Urban Green Space: A hedonic Pricing Analysis of the Housing Market in Cologne, Germany. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Oeconomica, 5(307), 45-61.
  12. 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. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3-4), 240-252.
  13. Konijnendijk, C.C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A.B., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2013). Benefits of Urban Parks. A systematic review. A Report for IFPRA, Copenhagen & Alnarp.
  14. Lancaster, K.J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157
  15. Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 161–167.
  16. Malpezzi, S. (2003). Hedonic Pricing Models: A Selective and Applied Review. In T. O’Sullivan, K. Gibb (eds.), Housing Economics and Public Policy: Essays in honor of Duncan Maclennan. Oxford: Blackwell.
  17. McConnell, V., & Walls, M.A. (2005). The value of open space: Evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits. (RFF Report), Washington, DC. Retrieved from Resources for the Future
  18. Panduro, T.E., & Veie, K.L. (2013). Classification and valuation of urban green spaces – A hedonic house price valuation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 119-128.
  19. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation under competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 35-55.
  20. Troy, A., & Grove, J.M. (2008). Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(3), 233-245.
  21. Tyrväinen, L. (1997). The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37(3–4), 211–222.
  22. Waltert, F., & Schläpfer, F. (2010) Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 141-152.
  23. Zygmunt, R., & Głuszak, M. (2015). Forest proximity impact on undeveloped land values: A spatial hedonic study. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 82-89.


Download data is not yet available.