Locational and socio-economic sorting in the use of green space: Evidence from Brussels

Urban green space is important for making cities sustainable. It provides environmental benefits and makes cities attractive to people. Extensive evidence exists on their benefits but is lacking in quantifying how and whether socio-economic benefits of green space accrue to all households or only a portion depending on their socio-economic status and residential location. From urban economic theory we know that residential markets sort households by income along an urban–suburban continuum and the housing-transport-costs trade-off. This trade-off can however be dominated in the presence of exogenous central amenities (parks) or endogenous effects (high income attracting high income) and pull better-off households toward the center, adding discrepancies in accessibility to green amenities by different socio-economic groups. Tiebout's hypothesis implied that marginal benefits from localised amenities are the same for all households in a given location but empirics point to non-efficient sorting and endogenous effects (socio-economic sorting) in the demand for localised amenities in general. We address these questions based on results of a survey conducted along an urban-suburban continuum in Brussels (Belgium) in May 2016. The survey includes around 500 respondents sampled across (non-park) public space and malls to reach both users and non-users of green space and cover the variety of residential locations (good or bad provision of green / distant or far from the CBD). We analyse the role of proximity, size and quality of public green space on its use across different socio-economic attributes and residential/job places and stated willingness-to-pay and substitution possibilities with private green space.