1# RECORD 4921c6722d9f1b3252972eb36e559f7e030e6f8a2# TITLE: Revisiting the Proximity Principle with Stakeholder Input: Investigating Property Values and Distance to Urban Green Space in Potchefstroom3# YEAR: 2020.0 VENUE: Land DOI: 10.3390/land90702354# AUTHORS: Zene Combrinck; E. Cilliers; L. Lategan; S. Cilliers5# PAGES: 16 CANDIDATE TABLE PAGES (1-based): [9]6# 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.789===== PAGE 1 (score 7, numeric-paren 0, table-words 0, var-words 7) =====1011land12Article13Revisiting the Proximity Principle with Stakeholder14Input: Investigating Property Values and Distance to15Urban Green Space in Potchefstroom16Zene Combrinck17, Elizelle Juanee Cilliers *18, Louis Lategan19and Sarel Cilliers20Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa;2127135349@student.g.nwu.ac.za (Z.C.); 21441480@nwu.ac.za (L.L.); sarel.cilliers@nwu.ac.za (S.C.)22* Correspondence: juanee.cilliers@nwu.ac.za23Received: 5 June 2020; Accepted: 16 July 2020; Published: 20 July 2020242526Abstract: Nature is essential to urban quality of life, yet green spaces are under pressure. In an27attempt to strengthen the case for urban greening and to reclaim nature into cities, this research28considered green spaces from an economic spatial perspective. The proximity principle, as part of29hedonic price analysis, is employed to determine the impact of green spaces on property value in30specifically selected residential areas within Potchefstroom, South Africa. Our statistical analysis31indicated a rejection of the proximity principle in some areas, contradicting internationally accepted32theory. To investigate local trends and possible reasons for the rejection, supporting quantitative data33was gathered through structured questionnaires disseminated to local residents of Potchefstroom34and Professional Planners in South Africa. Challenges pertaining to the planning of green spaces35were emphasised, despite residents’ willingness to pay more for such green spaces in close proximity36to residential areas, according to the cross-tabulations conducted. The research results contributed37to the discourse on the economic benefits of green spaces and presented the trends of such benefits38within the local context of Potchefstroom. The results emphasised the need to rethink the planning of39green spaces within the local context, and provided recommendations on how to reclaim nature into40cities from a spatial planning perspective.41Keywords: green spaces; ecosystem services; ecosystem disservices; economic benefits; proximity42principle; hedonic pricing analysis431. Introduction44Urban development often occurs at the expense of urban green spaces (UGSs), separating urbanites45from nature [1] and depriving them of the various social and environmental benefits, also known46as ecosystem services, that UGSs provide [2–4]. Importantly, UGSs also deliver certain economic47benefits. These benefits are often much more difficult to measure, generally leading to a preference48for land uses with an explicit monetary value, including commercial and residential development,49above UGSs in property development decisions [5]. Various studies have been conducted using50different techniques and methods to quantify the potential economic benefits of UGSs with the majority51of these studies focusing on the contexts of the global North [6–10]. Among these, the proximity52principle has been widely applied [8,10]. The proximity principle suggests that residential property53value increases as the distance to UGSs decreases [11], thus providing potential reciprocal increases in54property tax for authorities [6]. The majority of studies in the global North confirmed the proximity55principle [8,10], whereas in the global South results have been less conclusive. In 2015, Cilliers and56Cilliers disproved the proximity principle in a South African case study, testing the principle in the57local context of Potchefstroom. [12]. The current paper returned to the 2015 case study to verify, update58Land 2020, 9, 235; doi:10.3390/land907023559www.mdpi.com/journal/land606162===== PAGE 9 (score 21, numeric-paren 0, table-words 3, var-words 9) =====6364Land 2020, 9, 235659 of 1666The effect sizes indicated an overall medium to large effect size (≈0.5/≈0.8), indicating a visible67difference to practical significant difference between the mean ZAR per square meter values of zone 168and the zones further away from the green space. Zone 1 also presented values lower than the zones69further away from the green space, refuting much of the existing research on the positive impact70of UGS on property value. The proximity principle was thus rejected, with the statistical analyses71supporting the data showing a medium to large differences between values. Thus, in the case study72a more proximate location to a UGS did not indicate an increase in property value, but showed an73inverse effect.74The data from Cilliers and Cilliers (2015) [12] were statistically compared to the data obtained in75the 2019 Potchefstroom case study, as captured in Table 4. The effect sizes obtained from the Dependent76T-test, once again, indicated whether a practically significant difference existed between the data.77The effect sizes presented a practically significant difference between the mean ZAR per square meter78values (effect size of ≈0.8/0.5). The latter was clear by observing the old and new mean ZAR per79square meter values in Table 4. Property values increased between 2015 and 2019 by 68% in Grimbeek80Park, 35% in Van der HoffPark, 55% in the Potchefstroom Dam area, 46% in Heilige Akker and 45% in81Oewersig, thus presenting an aggregate increase on average of almost 50%. Various potential factors82could have led to the increase in property values identified from 2015 to 2019. Inflation was a potential83factor as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased from 5.78% in 2013 to 6.59% in 2016 and decreased,84thereafter, to 4.25% in 2019 [40]. Other factors influencing property value in South Africa, according85to the Absa residential property market database, include migration trends, security issues, income86levels, employment, monetary and fiscal policies, investment returns, the condition of the property87and foreign property buying of South African properties [41].88Table 4. Dependent T-test statistical analysis.89Area90Zone91N (188)92R/m4 Old93R/m2 New94% Increase95between Old96and New97Effect Sizes98Dependent T-Test99a ≈0.2 small100b ≈0.5 medium101c ≈0.8 large102Statistically significant difference103between Old and New104(p < 0.05)105Area A:106Grimbeek107Park108110914110798.201111260.7011268%1131.131140.006115211614117953.121181611.671191.641200.001121312213123974.761241699.251250.691260.011127Area B:128Van der Hoff129Park130113115132938.291331290.5913435%1351.951360.00011372138151391105.071401472.431412.231420.00011433144131451202.561461624.301472.691480.0001149Area C:150Potchefstroom151Dam Area15211539154718.971551116.4415655%1571.881580.000115921609161843.411621303.451631.361640.000116531669167925.291681448.641691.471700.0001171Area D:172Heilige Akker1731174101751114.231761751.9617746%1781.751790.00011802181121821413.521831904.151841.331850.00011863187141881238.361891850.281901.391910.0001192Area E:193Oewersig1941195141961079.501971668.4419845%1991.032000.00012012202142031292.092041852.152051.542060.00012073208132091120.302101549.202111.512120.00012133.2. Data Results Part B: Community Survey and Professional Planner Survey2143.2.1. Potchefstroom Resident Survey215The results obtained from the survey indicated that the sample of Potchefstroom residents216recognise the social, environmental and economic value of green spaces; however, fewer residents217recognise the economic value of green spaces. Question 4 focused on the residents’ perceptions of218green spaces in Potchefstroom, referring to safety matters. A total of 52% of respondents agreed219that green spaces in Potchefstroom are perceived as crime hotspots, thus, contributing to unsafe220neighbourhoods and indicating a related ecosystem disservice (cross-reference to Section 2.2). A total221of 60% of respondents agreed that they would pay more for a property that is located next to a green222space in Question 5; however, many residents were unsure or disagreed. Interestingly, some residents223224225===== PAGE 10 (score 3, numeric-paren 0, table-words 0, var-words 3) =====226227Land 2020, 9, 23522810 of 16229who perceived green spaces as crime hotspots in Question 4, still agreed that they would be willing to230pay more for a property that is located next to green space (Figure 3).231Figure 3. Potchefstroom resident survey results. Question 1: Urban green spaces have environmental232value; Question 2: Urban green spaces have social value; Question 3: Urban green spaces have economic233value; Question 4: Urban green spaces are perceived as crime hot spots in Potchefstroom; Question 5: I234would pay more for a property because it is located next to an urban green space.235As a result of the answers to Question 4 and 5, in recognition of the ecosystem disservices linked236to the South African and Potchefstroom contexts, a cross-tabulation were conducted as part of the237analysis, in an attempt to further clarify findings: Question 4 (Urban green spaces are perceived as238crime hot spots) was cross-tabulated with Question 5 (I would pay more for a property because it is239located next to an urban green space). The cross-tabulation was completed with 74 valid cases and240a medium practical significant difference as the Cramer’s V test value was V = 0.287 (V≈0.3) was241presented. Thus, findings supported the observation that although certain residents perceived UGSs242as crime hotspots (ecosystem disservices), they residents are still willing to pay more for a property is243located next to an UGS.2443.2.2. Professional Planner Survey245The results of Question 1 and Question 2, as shown in Figure 4, both indicated that 88% of the246planners agreed that unattractive green spaces are due to a lack of maintenance by local authorities247and a lack of community engagement. Question 3 delivered interesting results as 50% of respondent248planners agreed that environmental considerations are not prioritised in the planning process; however,249the other 50% were either unsure or disagreed that environmental considerations are not prioritised in250the planning process Question 4 of the survey focussed on local budgeting for green space planning and251indicated that only 62% of respondents agreed with the statement that green spaces are not prioritised252in local budgeting. A total of 38% of the planners were either unsure or disagreed that green spaces are253not prioritised in local budgeting. The majority of planner respondents reported being familiar with254green space typologies (92%).255