Proximity to nature is highly valued by urbanites, who demonstrate higher willingness to pay for housing at locations near open and green spaces. However, nature in cities can generate negative externalities as well. In this article, we illustrate the complex relationship between cities and nature and suggest that their balance is time and location specific. The article presents estimates of positive and negative externalities based on data about encounters of humans with wild animals in the city of Haifa, Israel, and residential property values nearby. The data were analysed to uncover spatial regularities and basic statistical relationships. The results reveal the presence of dominant positive externalities when the human–wild animals interaction is low, driven by proximity to open and green areas. However, in certain areas and under certain circumstances, the nuisance generated by higher probabilities of encounters with wild animals near dwelling areas is correlated with lower property prices, overcoming the positive externalities of location near natural areas.
AdolpheL (2001) A simplified model of urban morphology: Application to an analysis of the environmental performance of cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(2): 183–200.
3.
AsaberPKHuffmanFE (2009) The relative impacts of trails and greenbelts on home price. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics38(4): 408–419.
4.
BatemanPWFlemingPA (2012) Big city life: Carnivores in urban environments. Journal of Zoology287(1): 1–23.
5.
BenguiguiLCzamanskiDMarinovM, et al. (2000) When and where is a city fractal?Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27(4): 507–519.
6.
BenguiguiLCzamanskiDMarinovM (2001a) City growth as a leap-frogging process: An application to the Tel Aviv metropolis. Urban Studies38(10): 1819–1839.
7.
BenguiguiLCzamanskiDMarinovM (2001b) The dynamics of urban morphology: The case of Petah Tikvah. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(3): 447–460.
8.
BenguiguiLCzamanskiDMarinovM (2004) Scaling and urban growth. International Journal of Modern Physics C15(7): 989–996.
9.
BertramCRejdanzK (2015) The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecological Economics120: 139–152.
10.
BjerkeTØstdahlT (2004) Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population. Anthrozoös17(2): 109–129.
11.
BourassaSCHoesliMSunJ (2004) What’s in a view?Environment and Planning A36(8): 1427–1450.
12.
CahillSLlimonaFCabañerosL, et al. (2012) Characteristics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) habituation to urban areas in the Collserola Natural Park (Barcelona) and comparison with other locations. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation35(2): 221–233.
13.
CamagniRCapelloRNijkampP (1998) Towards sustainable city policy: An economy–environment technology nexus. Ecological Economics24(1): 103–118.
14.
CarlosHAShiXSargentJ, et al. (2010) Density estimation and adaptive bandwidths: A primer for public health practitioners. International Journal of Health Geographics9(39): 1–8.
15.
ChiesuraA (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning68(1): 129–138.
ClergeauPMennechezGSauvageA, et al. (2001) Human perception and appreciation of birds: A motivation for wildlife conservation in urban environments of France. In: MarzluffMBowmanRDonnellyR (eds) Avian Ecology in an Urbanizing World. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, pp. 69–86.
18.
ConwayDLiCQWolchJ, et al. (2010) A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics41(2): 150–169.
19.
CzamanskiDMalkinsonDTogerM (2014) Nature in future cities: Prospects and a planning agenda. Built Environment40(4): 508–520.
20.
DaamsMNSijtsmaFJVan Der VlistAJ (2016) The effect of natural space on nearby property prices: Accounting for perceived attractiveness. Land Economics92(3): 389–410.
21.
EarnhartD (2006) Using contingent-pricing analysis to value open space and its duration at residential locations. Land Economics82(1): 17–35.
22.
ESRI (2012) ArcGIS Desktop Release (10.1) [Computer programme]. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
23.
FullerRAIrvineKNDevine-WrightP, et al. (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters3(4): 390–394.
24.
GatrellACBaileyTCDigglePJ, et al. (1996) Spatial point pattern analysis and its application in geographical epidemiology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers1: 256–274.
25.
GibbonsSMouratoSResendeGM (2014) The amenity value of English nature: A hedonic price approach. Environmental and Resource Economics57(2): 175–196.
HamidiSEwingR (2014) A longitudinal study of changes in urban sprawl between 2000 and 2010 in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning128: 72–82.
28.
ICBS (2014) Haifa, 2014. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics [in Hebrew]. Available at: http://www.cbs.gov.il (accessed 1 July 2016).
29.
IrwinEGBockstaelNE (2001) The problem of identifying land use spillovers: Measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics83(3): 698–704.
30.
JansenALugeEGuerraB, et al. (2007) Leptospirosis in urban wild boars, Berlin, Germany. Emerging Infectious Diseases13(5): 739–742.
31.
JimCYChenWY (2006) Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China). Landscape and Urban Planning78(4): 422–434.
32.
KongFYinHNakagoshiN, et al. (2010) Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: Identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landscape and Urban Planning95(1): 16–27.
33.
LeongMBertoneMABaylessKM, et al. (2016) Exoskeletons and economics: Indoor arthropod diversity increases in affluent neighbourhoods. Biology Letters12(8): 20160322.
34.
LicoppeAPrévotCHeymansM, et al. (2013) Wild boar/feral pig in (peri-)urban areas. International survey report as an introduction to the workshop: Managing wild boar in human-dominated landscapes. In: Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists, IUGB 2013, Brussels, Belgium, 28 August 2013. Available at: http://www.wildlife-man.be/docs/urban-wild-boar-international-survey.pdf (accessed 10 February 2017).
35.
LindseyKJAdamsCE (2006) Public demand for information and assistance at the human–wildlife interface. Human Dimensions of Wildlife11(4): 267–283.
36.
LuttikJ (2000) The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and urban planning48(3): 161–167.
37.
LutzenhiserMNetusilNR (2001) The effect of open spaces on a home’s sale price. Contemporary Economic Policy19(3): 291–298.
38.
McKinneyML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation127(3): 247–260.
39.
McKinneyML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems11(2): 161–176.
40.
MatthiesSKopelDRüterS, et al. (2013) Vascular plant species richness patterns in urban environments: Case studies from Hannover, Germany and Haifa, Israel. In: MalkinsonDCzamanskiDBenensonY (eds) Modeling of Land-Use and Ecological Dynamics. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 107–118.
41.
MoranchoAB (2003) A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning66(1): 35–41.
42.
Navarro-GonzalezNCasas-DíazEPorreroCM, et al. (2013) Food-borne zoonotic pathogens and antimicrobial resistance of indicator bacteria in urban wild boars in Barcelona, Spain. Veterinary Microbiology167(3): 686–689.
43.
NgEYuanCChenL, et al. (2011) Improving the wind environment in high-density cities by understanding urban morphology and surface roughness: A study in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning101(1): 59–74.
44.
RadeloffVCStewartSIHawbakerTJ, et al. (2010) Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107(2): 940–945.
45.
RosenS (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. The Journal of Political Economy82(1): 34–55.
46.
SchierackPRömerAJoresJ, et al. (2009) Isolation and characterization of intestinal Escherichia coli clones from wild boars in Germany. Applied and Environmental Microbiology75(3): 695–702.
47.
SchläpferFWaltertFSeguraL, et al. (2015) Valuation of landscape amenities: A hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning141: 24–40.
48.
SetoKCFragkiasMGüneralpB, et al. (2011) A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PloS One6(8): e23777.
49.
TakanoTNakamuraKWatanabeM (2002) Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health56(12): 913–918.
TogerM (2016) Urban open spaces: Network morphology, dynamics and influence on wildlife foraging in Haifa. PhD thesis, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel.
52.
TogerMBenensonICzamanskiD, et al. (2015) The connectivity of the Haifa urban open space network. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design43(5): 848–870.
53.
TzoulasKKorpelaKVennS, et al. (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning81(3): 167–178.
54.
VanDruffLWRowseRN (1986) Habitat association of mammals in Syracuse, New York. Urban Ecology9(3–4): 413–434.
55.
Van HerzeleAWiedemannT (2003) A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning63(2): 109–126.
56.
WolchJRByrneJNewellJP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning125: 234–244.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
