Scenic wealth of biosphere reserve: valuing cultural ecosystem services using hedonic pricing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2025.26.02Keywords:
countryside, cultural ecosystem services, hedonic pricing, economic valuation, water bodiesAbstract
This research uses the hedonic pricing method to explore the economic valuation of cultural ecosystem services (CES). North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, located in Latvia, has been used as a case study site. This vast area, with its diverse ecosystems, is crucial for studying CES due to its unique ecological and cultural significance as well as its interaction with human settlements. CES, including recreation, aesthetic appreciation, and cultural heritage, contribute to human well-being but are underrepresented in economic valuation and can be utilised in decision-making, especially in decisions regarding development alternatives. This study uses real estate transaction data and geographical information systems (GIS) to analyse how proximity to natural and cultural amenities influences property values. The research variables include structural attributes (e.g., property size and age), environmental factors (e.g., distance to waterbodies, coastlines, or nature trails), and neighbourhood landscape characteristics. Hedonic pricing models reveal that properties near natural amenities, such as coastlines and nature trails, exhibit higher valuations, reflecting the premium on access to CES and the potential for higher usage. Key findings include significant positive correlations between property prices and proximity to CES-rich environments, underscoring their role in shaping market perceptions and economic behaviors. However, the study highlights areas of concern, such as data limitations and methodological complexities, in isolating the specific impacts of CES. This interdisciplinary research provides empirical evidence for integrating CES into sustainable land-use planning and policy-making. By quantifying the economic benefits of CES, it advocates for enhanced recognition and preservation of these services, thereby balancing ecological conservation with socio-economic development.
References
1. Aladwan, Z., & Ahamad, M. S. S. (2019). Hedonic Pricing model for real property valuation via GIS - a review. Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports, 29(3), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.2478/ceer-2019-0022
2. Amrith, S. The Burning Earth: An Environmental History of the Last 500 Years. London: Allen Lane, 2024.
3. Batisse, M. The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Conservation and Management. Environmental Conservation. 1982, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 101–111.
4. Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP). Guidance for national biodiversity indicator development and use. Cambridge: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2011.
5. Boyle, K. J. Contingent valuation in practice. In: Handbook of Environmental Economics. 2003, vol. 2, p. 445–489.
6. Chen, Y., Liu, G., Yan, N., Yang, Q., Gao, H., Su, L., Santagata, R. Comprehensive evaluation of urban greenspace ecological values marketability through the spatial relationship between housing price and ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling. 2023, vol. 484, p. 110482. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110482.
7. Coetzer, K. L., Witkowski, E. T. F., Erasmus, B. F. N. Reviewing Biosphere Reserves Globally: Effective Conservation Action or Bureaucratic Label? Biological Conservation. 2014, vol. 176, p. 162–171.
8. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., et. al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997, vol. 387, no. 6630, p. 253–260.
9. Costanza, R., Daly, H. E. Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology. 1992, vol. 6, p. 37–46. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610037.
10. Cronon, W. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
11. Czembrowski, P., Kronenberg, J. Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016, vol. 146. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.10.005.
12. Dahal, R. P., Grala, R. K., Gordon, J. S., et. al. A Hedonic Pricing Method to Estimate the Value of Waterfronts in the Gulf of Mexico. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2019, vol. 41, p. 185–194. https://doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2024.02.03
13. Dorigo, G., Tobler, W. Push-pull migration laws. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 1983, vol. 73, no. 1, p. 1–17.
14. Eloomis, J.; Richardson, L.; Dara, P. K.; et. al. Ecosystem service values provided by National Parks to residential property owners. Ecological Economics, 2024, vol. 220, p. 108175. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108175.
15. Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York: Random House, 1981, p. 72–98.
16. Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H. The Value of Biodiversity. AMBIO. 1992, vol. 21, p. 219–226.
17. European Commission. A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas — Towards More Substantial, Connected, Resilient and Prosperous Rural Areas by 2040 [online]. 2021 [viewed 2025-09-05]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1414177/
18. Eurostat. House price index (HPI) [online]. [viewed 2025-09-05]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/prc_hpi_a/default/table?lang=en&category=prc.prc_hpi.prc_hpi_inx
19. Garrod, G., Willis, K. G. Valuing Goods’ Characteristics: An Application of the Hedonic Price Method to Environmental Attributes. Journal of Environmental Management. 1992, vol. 34, p. 59–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80110-0.
20. Gould, R. K., Morse, J. W., Adams, A. B. Cultural ecosystem services and decision-making: How researchers describe the applications of their work. People and Nature. 2019, vol. 1, no. 4, p. 457–475. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10044.
21. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem services indicators. Ecological Indicators. 2013, vol. 29, p. 434–444. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013.
22. Hong, I., Yoo, C. Analysing spatial variance of Airbnb pricing determinants using multiscale GWR approach. Sustainability. 2020, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 4710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114710
23. Investropa. Latvia Price Forecasts [online]. [viewed 2025-09-05]. Available from: https://investropa.com/blogs/news/latvia-priceforecasts
24. Ishwaran, N., Persic, A., Tri, N. H. Concept and Practice: The Case of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. 2008, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 118–131.
25. Jim, C. Y., Chen, W. Y. Value of scenic views: Hedonic assessment of private housing in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2009, vol. 91, p. 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.009
26. Jankava, A., Palabinska, A., Didrihsone, D. Analysis of the indicators of the cadastral value base for residential building land in Latvia. Journal of Baltic Surveying. 2016, vol. 4, p. 41–47.
27. Kaltenborn, B., Linnell, D. C. J., Gomez-Baggethun, E. Can cultural ecosystem services contribute to satisfying basic human needs? A case study from the Lofoten archipelago, northern Norway. Applied Geography. 2020, vol. 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102229
28. Klaiber, H. A., Phaneuf, D. J. Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2010, vol. 60, no. 2, p. 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.002
29. Latinopoulos, D. Using a spatial hedonic analysis to evaluate the effect of sea view on hotel prices. Tourism Management. 2018, vol. 65, p. 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.019
30. Lee, E. S. A Theory of Migration. Demography. 1966, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 47–57.
31. Lībiete, Z., Jūrmalis, E., Pauliņa, I., Bārdule, A., Gerra-Inohosa, L. Discussing indicators for some less studied cultural ecosystem services provided by forests: example from Latvia. In: Rural Development 2023: Bioeconomy for the Green Deal. Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, 2025. DOI: 10.15544/RD.2023.039.
32. Lieber, J. A Hedonic Pricing Model in Helsinki, Finland: Exploring the Impacts of Green Infrastructure on Apartment Listing Prices. In: Aarrevaara, E., Maksheeva, A., eds. MurCS Proceedings. 2022 [online]. Available from: https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/791456/LAB_2023_MUrCS.pdf
33. Luminor. Nekustamā īpašuma vērtējums: kāpēc nepieciešams un kad to veikt? [online]. Luminor Bank AS, 17.08.2023 [viewed 2025-09-04]. Available from: https://www.luminor.lv/lv/jaunumi/nekustama-ipasuma-vertejums-kapec-nepieciesams-un-kad-veikt
34. McElwee, P., He, J., Hsu, M. Challenges to understanding and managing cultural ecosystem services in the global South. Ecology & Society. 2022, vol. 27, no. 3. DOI: 10.5751/ES-13427-270323.
35. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing, Vol. 2: Current States and Trends. Washington DC: Island Press, 2005, p. 917.
36. Nowak-Olejnik, A., et al. The benefits and disbenefits associated with cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces. Science of The Total Environment [online]. 2024, 172092 [viewed 2025-09-05]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172092
37. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Latvia 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019 [online]. DOI: 10.1787/2cb03cdd-en. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecdenvironmental-performance-reviews-latvia-2019_2cb03cdd-en [viewed 2025-09-04].
38. Özkan, D. G., Özkan, S. D. Evaluating social interaction performance and sense of community in urban green space: the case of Trabzon Ganita coast. Landscape Architecture and Art. 2024, vol. 24, no. 24, p. 21–27. https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2024.24.03
39. Ruskule, A., Klepers, A., Veidemane, K. Mapping and assessment of cultural ecosystem services of Latvian coastal areas. One Ecosystem. 2018, vol. 3, e25499. DOI: 10.3897/oneeco.3.e25499.
40. Sander, H. A., Haight, R. G. Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanising area using hedonic pricing. Journal of Environmental Management. 2012, vol. 113, no. 1–2, p. 194–205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.031.
41. Sander, H., Polasky, S. The value of views and open space: Estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County, Minnesota. Land Economics. 2009, vol. 85, no. 4, p. 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.009
42. Schumacher, E. F. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered [online]. 1973 [viewed 2025-09-05]. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20141014171926/http://www.ditext.com/schumacher/small/small.html
43. Spage, A., Markova, M. Assessment of cultural ecosystem services in a national park: participatory mapping in Latvia. Land. 2025, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 1822. DOI: 10.3390/land14091822.
44. Spanou, E., Kenter, J. O., Graziano, M. The effects of aquaculture and marine conservation on cultural ecosystem services: An integrated hedonic–eudaemonic approach. Ecological Economics. 2020, vol. 176, p. 106757. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106757.
45. Surgelas, V., Puķīte, V., Arhipova, I. Property Valuation in Latvia and Brazil: A Multifaceted Approach Integrating Algorithm, Geographic Information System, Fuzzy Logic, and Civil Engineering Insights. Real Estate. 2024, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 229–251. https://doi.org/10.3390/realestate1030012
46. Trading Economics. Latvia Home Ownership Rate [online]. [viewed 2025-09-05]. Available from: https://tradingeconomics.com/latvia/home-ownership-rate
47. UNESCO. Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) [online]. 2025 [viewed 2025-09-05]. Available from: https://www.unesco.org/en/mab
48. United Nations Development Programme. Handbook on planning, monitoring and evaluating for development results. New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2009.
49. Veidemane, K., Reke, A., Ruskule, A., Vinogradovs, I. Assessment of coastal cultural ecosystem services and well-being for integrating stakeholder values into coastal planning. Land. 2024, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 362. DOI: 10.3390/land13030362.
50. Wang, C., Jie, H. Long-term evolution of ecologically fragile waterside rural areas and strategies for local spatial planning: An empirical study in Baiyangdian, China. Land. 2024, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 1675. DOI: 10.3390/land13101675.
51. Worster, D. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
52. Worster, D. The Wealth of Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
53. Yang, L., Cao, K. Cultural ecosystem services research progress and future prospects. Sustainability. 2022, vol. 14, no. 19, p. 11845. DOI: 10.3390/su141911845.
54. Zhang, Z., Ye, Q., Law, R. Determinants of hotel room price. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2011, vol. 23, no. 7, p. 972–981. DOI: 10.1108/09596111111167551.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Landscape Architecture and Art
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
