EVIDENCE

There are health benefits to green spaces. Nearby parks increase physical activity time, and are the dominant physical activity undertaken by residents (Han 2013). Mental health improves significantly with increasing proximity to a park, with greatest effect seen when within a short walking distance (Sturm 2014). Park access decreases stress (Grahn 2003) and increases life satisfaction (Matsuoka 2011). Social interactions improve with local parks (Maas 2009).

In addition to health, there are centuries of robust literature demonstrating the financial benefit of green spaces. America’s grandfather of landscape architecture and designer of NYC’s Central Park, Frederick Law Olmstead, was responsible for the earliest documentation of the positive relationship between public parks and real estate values (Fox 1990). Dozens of modern studies confirm that home values increase significantly with each foot of closer proximity to a green space, which are best reviewed by (Crompton 2001). Taken together, he proposed roughly a 20% increase in value for homes near parks. This effect is magnified with wealthier communities (Anderson 2006), communities with many children (Anderson 2006), passive use parks (Sainsbury 1964), and basic parks with natural landscapes (Hagerty 1985, More 1982, More 1988).

Several fears limit the adoption of green spaces, but are often unfounded (Nicholls 2005). Crime actually seems to decrease with green spaces access (Anderson 2006). Noise and loitering are worst in large open active parks such as playgrounds and ballparks whereas “parks which were well-shaded, well-designed, and were of pleasing appearance had a positive impact” (Hendon 1967). In fact, green spaces help attract desirable residential relocators such as retirees (Crompton 1997), and families (Anderson 2006).

This body of evidence indicates that the Forest Hills Pathway will be highly beneficial. Our community has several characteristics that magnify the positive impacts including affluence, a natural setting, and a mix of retirees and young families. Our design plan for the project also dovetails with the most beneficial aspects of parks as it will be natural, well-designed, and aesthetically pleasing.

References

  • Anderson, ST & West, SE. “Open space, residential property values, and spatial context.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 36 (2006): 773–789. Web. http://www.macalester.edu/~wests/AndersonWestRSUE.pdf

  • Crompton, JL. “The Impact of Parks on Property Values: A Review of Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Leisure Research 33.1 (2001): 1-31. Web. http://www.actrees.org/files/Research/parks_on_property_values.pdf

  • Crompton, JL; Love, LL; and More TA (1997) Characteristics of companies that considered recreation / parks / open space to be important in (re)location decisions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15 (1) 37-58.

  • Fox, T. (1990) Urban Open Space: An Investment that Pays. New York. The Neighborhood Open Space Coalition.

  • Grahn P, Stigsdotter UA. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 2003;2(1):1–18. http://data0.eklablog.com/sociotopes/perso/documents/landscape%20planning%20and%20stress.pdf

  • Hagerty, J; Stevens, TH, Allen PG, & More TA. (1982) Benefits of Open Space and Recreation Parks: a Case Study. Journal of Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 11 (1) 13-20.

  • Han B, Cohen D, McKenzie TL Quantifying the contribution of neighborhood parks to physical activity. Prev Med. 2013 Nov; 57(5):483-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23827723/

  • Hendon WS, Kitchen JW, & Pringle B (1967) The Sociological and Ecomonic Impact of Urban Parks in Dallas, Texas.

  • Kaplan, R & Kaplan, S. (1990) The Experience of Nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Maas J, van Dillen SME, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place. 2009 Jun; 15(2):586-595. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19022699/

  • Matsuoka R, Sullivan WC. Urban nature: Human psychological and community health. In: Douglas I, Goode D, Houck M, Wang R, editors. The Routledge handbook of urban ecology. Taylor and Francis; Oxford: 2011. pp. 408–423. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GH1dBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=Vy4KAuf_NX&sig=cutx9nxPITf7JxM1kSDX-CUGNpY#v=onepage&q&f=false

  • More, TA; Stevens, TH ; & Allen PG. (1982) The Economics of Urban Parks.: a Benefit/Cost Analysis. Parks and Recreation. August. 31-33.

  • More, TA; Stevens, TH ; & Allen PG. (1988) Valuation of Urban Parks. Landscaping and Urban Panning. 15, 139-52.

  • Nicholls, Sarah. “The Impact of Greenways on Property Values: Evidence from Austin, Texas.” Journal of Leisure Research 37.3 (2005): 321-341. Web.

  • Sainsbury, C. (1964) The impact of urban parks on surrounding residential areas: a case study. Master’s hesis, University of Washington, Seattle.

  • Sturm R & Cohen D. Proximity to Urban Parks and Mental Health. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. 2014 Mar; 17(1): 19-24. PMID: 24864118. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4049158/