each

urban parkland. Particular emphasis is given
to hedonic prices as a valuation method.
THE BENEFITS OF URBAN PARKS
Although urban parks are valued because of
the benefits they provide, we have not done a
good job identifying these benefits and who re-
ceives them. They are generally thought to be
two classes of benefits: on-site benefits that ac-
crue to those directly using the park. and off-
site or external benefits that accrue to people
outside the park proper. Individuals who live
near an urban park may receive both on-site
and external benefits.
The primary on-site benefits are the oppor-
tunities for recreation supplied by the park. For
many city parks these opportunities are usu-
ally equated with the facilities and equipment
so often found in urban parks: ball diamonds,
soccer fields, basketball courts, playgrounds,
exercise trails, and the like. The activities as-
sociated with these and related facilities pro-
duce the recreation experiences that are a major
output of the park. However. they are not the
only output - anyone who is in the park for
non-work purposes can derive benefit from it.
Thus. those obtaining on-site benefits include
both participants in active sports and more
passive users. People out for a stroll. watching
other users, or just sitting on a bench are all
deriving benefits that contribute to the eco-
nomic value of the park.
To value on-site experiences, economists use
many methods: perhaps the two most common
are travel cost and contingent valuation
(Dwyer et al., 1977). Travel cost, in its most
basic form. asks park users how far they trav-
eled to visit the park. It assumes that the eco-
nomic value of the experience is the same to
all users and that the user who traveled the
greatest distance to reach the park is the mar-
ginal user. For this person. the economic value
of the benefits is assumed to equal the cost of
travel: people who live beyond this point do not
use the park because the costs presumably ex-
teed the benefits. People who live closer to the
park, derive a “consumer surplus” from the
park because they receive the same benefit. but
have lower travel costs. Under the travel cost
model. the consumer’s surplus aggregated over
all users represents the total economic value of
the park.
Travel cost models. with a variety of refine-
ments, have been used widely to determine the
economic value of recreation resources. Al-
though they have been used in urban situa-
tions (Dwyer et al.. 1983: Peterson et al.,
1983 ). they are generally not thought to work
well for neighborhood parks because of the very
small differences in user origins. Phrased dif-
ferently, travel cost models are appropriate
wherever users of a facility travel a variety of
distances to reach it. When there is little vari-
ation in travel costs (as might be the case in a
neighborhood park ). the model may be
unworkable.
The second common valuation method -
contingent valuation - estimates consumer
surplus directly by asking users what they
would be willing to pay under various contin-
gencies. The consumer surplus is the differ-
ence between what they would be willing to pay
and what they are currently paying. As before,
the economic value of the park is the aggre-
gated consumer surplus. Like the travel cost
model, contingent valuation has been applied
widely and refined. Questions have been raised
about its validity because of problems with
people’s ability to recall and because expressed
attitudes do not always correspond with be-
havior (Bishop and Heberlein. 1979 ).
Ultimately, neither travel cost models nor
contingent valuation provide a complete esti-
mate of the economic value of urban parks be-
cause they estimate only the value of on-site
user benefits; they do not include the value of
external benefits. External benefits - those ac-
cruing to people outside the park - are neither
well documented nor well understood. Re-
cently, some economists have included exis-
tence value. the value people place on simply