Social benefits of urban green space : A conceptual framework of valuation and accessibility measurements

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to review the topic “urban green space” focusing on its social benefits and measure techniques in terms of monetary value and accessibility. It suggests potential research direction by using an integrated valuation and measurement framework, and concludes that urban green space valuation in the providers’ perspective as well as accessibility analysis in the consumers’ perspective are useful tools that provide significant measure techniques in urban green space planning.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper uses a systematic approach to build up a conceptual framework that quantifies social benefits of green space from provider and consumer perspectives. The literature review indicates some limitations of existing techniques of valuation and accessibility analyses, which entails an integrated model of measurements.

Findings

The paper explores social benefits of urban green space, which includes recreational opportunities, aesthetic enjoyments, adjusting psychological well‐being and physical health, enhancing social ties, and providing educational opportunities. To analyze existing evaluation and measure techniques of urban green space, the paper points out that a single measurement only evaluates certain aspects of urban green space, which may not always be suitable to comprehensively assess social benefits from both providers’ and consumers’ perspectives. Considering this limitation, the paper offers an integrated model to measure urban green space that may deal with current limitations.

Originality/value

The originality of the study resides in designing an integrated model including valuation and measure techniques. It certainly offers an important avenue to evaluate social benefits of urban green space.

Citation

Zhou, X. and Parves Rana, M. (2012), "Social benefits of urban green space : A conceptual framework of valuation and accessibility measurements", Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831211204921