# RECORD 4921c6722d9f1b3252972eb36e559f7e030e6f8a
# TITLE: Revisiting the Proximity Principle with Stakeholder Input: Investigating Property Values and Distance to Urban Green Space in Potchefstroom
# YEAR: 2020.0  VENUE: Land  DOI: 10.3390/land9070235
# AUTHORS: Zene Combrinck; E. Cilliers; L. Lategan; S. Cilliers
# PAGES: 16  CANDIDATE TABLE PAGES (1-based): [9]
# ABSTRACT: Nature is essential to urban quality of life, yet green spaces are under pressure. In an attempt to strengthen the case for urban greening and to reclaim nature into cities, this research considered green spaces from an economic spatial perspective. The proximity principle, as part of hedonic price analysis, is employed to determine the impact of green spaces on property value in specifically selected residential areas within Potchefstroom, South Africa. Our statistical analysis indicated a rejection of the proximity principle in some areas, contradicting internationally accepted theory. To investigate local trends and possible reasons for the rejection, supporting quantitative data was gathered through structured questionnaires disseminated to local residents of Potchefstroom and Professional Planners in South Africa. Challenges pertaining to the planning of green spaces were emphasised, despite residents’ willingness to pay more for such green spaces in close proximity to residential areas, according to the cross-tabulations conducted. The research results contributed to the discourse on the economic benefits of green spaces and presented the trends of such benefits within the local context of Potchefstroom. The results emphasised the need to rethink the planning of green spaces within the local context, and provided recommendations on how to reclaim nature into cities from a spatial planning perspective.


===== PAGE 1 (score 7, numeric-paren 0, table-words 0, var-words 7) =====

land
Article
Revisiting the Proximity Principle with Stakeholder
Input: Investigating Property Values and Distance to
Urban Green Space in Potchefstroom
Zene Combrinck
, Elizelle Juanee Cilliers *
, Louis Lategan
and Sarel Cilliers
Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa;
27135349@student.g.nwu.ac.za (Z.C.); 21441480@nwu.ac.za (L.L.); sarel.cilliers@nwu.ac.za (S.C.)
* Correspondence: juanee.cilliers@nwu.ac.za
Received: 5 June 2020; Accepted: 16 July 2020; Published: 20 July 2020





Abstract: Nature is essential to urban quality of life, yet green spaces are under pressure. In an
attempt to strengthen the case for urban greening and to reclaim nature into cities, this research
considered green spaces from an economic spatial perspective. The proximity principle, as part of
hedonic price analysis, is employed to determine the impact of green spaces on property value in
specifically selected residential areas within Potchefstroom, South Africa. Our statistical analysis
indicated a rejection of the proximity principle in some areas, contradicting internationally accepted
theory. To investigate local trends and possible reasons for the rejection, supporting quantitative data
was gathered through structured questionnaires disseminated to local residents of Potchefstroom
and Professional Planners in South Africa. Challenges pertaining to the planning of green spaces
were emphasised, despite residents’ willingness to pay more for such green spaces in close proximity
to residential areas, according to the cross-tabulations conducted. The research results contributed
to the discourse on the economic benefits of green spaces and presented the trends of such benefits
within the local context of Potchefstroom. The results emphasised the need to rethink the planning of
green spaces within the local context, and provided recommendations on how to reclaim nature into
cities from a spatial planning perspective.
Keywords: green spaces; ecosystem services; ecosystem disservices; economic benefits; proximity
principle; hedonic pricing analysis
1. Introduction
Urban development often occurs at the expense of urban green spaces (UGSs), separating urbanites
from nature [1] and depriving them of the various social and environmental benefits, also known
as ecosystem services, that UGSs provide [2–4]. Importantly, UGSs also deliver certain economic
benefits. These benefits are often much more difficult to measure, generally leading to a preference
for land uses with an explicit monetary value, including commercial and residential development,
above UGSs in property development decisions [5]. Various studies have been conducted using
different techniques and methods to quantify the potential economic benefits of UGSs with the majority
of these studies focusing on the contexts of the global North [6–10]. Among these, the proximity
principle has been widely applied [8,10]. The proximity principle suggests that residential property
value increases as the distance to UGSs decreases [11], thus providing potential reciprocal increases in
property tax for authorities [6]. The majority of studies in the global North confirmed the proximity
principle [8,10], whereas in the global South results have been less conclusive. In 2015, Cilliers and
Cilliers disproved the proximity principle in a South African case study, testing the principle in the
local context of Potchefstroom. [12]. The current paper returned to the 2015 case study to verify, update
Land 2020, 9, 235; doi:10.3390/land9070235
www.mdpi.com/journal/land


===== PAGE 9 (score 21, numeric-paren 0, table-words 3, var-words 9) =====

Land 2020, 9, 235
9 of 16
The effect sizes indicated an overall medium to large effect size (≈0.5/≈0.8), indicating a visible
difference to practical significant difference between the mean ZAR per square meter values of zone 1
and the zones further away from the green space. Zone 1 also presented values lower than the zones
further away from the green space, refuting much of the existing research on the positive impact
of UGS on property value. The proximity principle was thus rejected, with the statistical analyses
supporting the data showing a medium to large differences between values. Thus, in the case study
a more proximate location to a UGS did not indicate an increase in property value, but showed an
inverse effect.
The data from Cilliers and Cilliers (2015) [12] were statistically compared to the data obtained in
the 2019 Potchefstroom case study, as captured in Table 4. The effect sizes obtained from the Dependent
T-test, once again, indicated whether a practically significant difference existed between the data.
The effect sizes presented a practically significant difference between the mean ZAR per square meter
values (effect size of ≈0.8/0.5). The latter was clear by observing the old and new mean ZAR per
square meter values in Table 4. Property values increased between 2015 and 2019 by 68% in Grimbeek
Park, 35% in Van der HoffPark, 55% in the Potchefstroom Dam area, 46% in Heilige Akker and 45% in
Oewersig, thus presenting an aggregate increase on average of almost 50%. Various potential factors
could have led to the increase in property values identified from 2015 to 2019. Inflation was a potential
factor as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased from 5.78% in 2013 to 6.59% in 2016 and decreased,
thereafter, to 4.25% in 2019 [40]. Other factors influencing property value in South Africa, according
to the Absa residential property market database, include migration trends, security issues, income
levels, employment, monetary and fiscal policies, investment returns, the condition of the property
and foreign property buying of South African properties [41].
Table 4. Dependent T-test statistical analysis.
Area
Zone
N (188)
R/m4 Old
R/m2 New
% Increase
between Old
and New
Effect Sizes
Dependent T-Test
a ≈0.2 small
b ≈0.5 medium
c ≈0.8 large
Statistically significant difference
between Old and New
(p < 0.05)
Area A:
Grimbeek
Park
1
14
798.20
1260.70
68%
1.13
0.006
2
14
953.12
1611.67
1.64
0.001
3
13
974.76
1699.25
0.69
0.011
Area B:
Van der Hoff
Park
1
15
938.29
1290.59
35%
1.95
0.0001
2
15
1105.07
1472.43
2.23
0.0001
3
13
1202.56
1624.30
2.69
0.0001
Area C:
Potchefstroom
Dam Area
1
9
718.97
1116.44
55%
1.88
0.0001
2
9
843.41
1303.45
1.36
0.0001
3
9
925.29
1448.64
1.47
0.0001
Area D:
Heilige Akker
1
10
1114.23
1751.96
46%
1.75
0.0001
2
12
1413.52
1904.15
1.33
0.0001
3
14
1238.36
1850.28
1.39
0.0001
Area E:
Oewersig
1
14
1079.50
1668.44
45%
1.03
0.0001
2
14
1292.09
1852.15
1.54
0.0001
3
13
1120.30
1549.20
1.51
0.0001
3.2. Data Results Part B: Community Survey and Professional Planner Survey
3.2.1. Potchefstroom Resident Survey
The results obtained from the survey indicated that the sample of Potchefstroom residents
recognise the social, environmental and economic value of green spaces; however, fewer residents
recognise the economic value of green spaces. Question 4 focused on the residents’ perceptions of
green spaces in Potchefstroom, referring to safety matters. A total of 52% of respondents agreed
that green spaces in Potchefstroom are perceived as crime hotspots, thus, contributing to unsafe
neighbourhoods and indicating a related ecosystem disservice (cross-reference to Section 2.2). A total
of 60% of respondents agreed that they would pay more for a property that is located next to a green
space in Question 5; however, many residents were unsure or disagreed. Interestingly, some residents


===== PAGE 10 (score 3, numeric-paren 0, table-words 0, var-words 3) =====

Land 2020, 9, 235
10 of 16
who perceived green spaces as crime hotspots in Question 4, still agreed that they would be willing to
pay more for a property that is located next to green space (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Potchefstroom resident survey results. Question 1: Urban green spaces have environmental
value; Question 2: Urban green spaces have social value; Question 3: Urban green spaces have economic
value; Question 4: Urban green spaces are perceived as crime hot spots in Potchefstroom; Question 5: I
would pay more for a property because it is located next to an urban green space.
As a result of the answers to Question 4 and 5, in recognition of the ecosystem disservices linked
to the South African and Potchefstroom contexts, a cross-tabulation were conducted as part of the
analysis, in an attempt to further clarify findings: Question 4 (Urban green spaces are perceived as
crime hot spots) was cross-tabulated with Question 5 (I would pay more for a property because it is
located next to an urban green space). The cross-tabulation was completed with 74 valid cases and
a medium practical significant difference as the Cramer’s V test value was V = 0.287 (V≈0.3) was
presented. Thus, findings supported the observation that although certain residents perceived UGSs
as crime hotspots (ecosystem disservices), they residents are still willing to pay more for a property is
located next to an UGS.
3.2.2. Professional Planner Survey
The results of Question 1 and Question 2, as shown in Figure 4, both indicated that 88% of the
planners agreed that unattractive green spaces are due to a lack of maintenance by local authorities
and a lack of community engagement. Question 3 delivered interesting results as 50% of respondent
planners agreed that environmental considerations are not prioritised in the planning process; however,
the other 50% were either unsure or disagreed that environmental considerations are not prioritised in
the planning process Question 4 of the survey focussed on local budgeting for green space planning and
indicated that only 62% of respondents agreed with the statement that green spaces are not prioritised
in local budgeting. A total of 38% of the planners were either unsure or disagreed that green spaces are
not prioritised in local budgeting. The majority of planner respondents reported being familiar with
green space typologies (92%).