Search

Accurately measuring the costs and social benefits of environmental programs may have significant public sector policy implications. When considering environmental programs, governments may choose to conduct landfill clean-ups to improve urban living environments and health. However, these programs may generate substantial costs, and it is not clear whether their social benefits can recover these costs. Since the 1990s, the Hong Kong government has restored 13 closed landfills. This study seeks to quantify the short-term social benefits of this landfill clean-up program by measuring its impact on the housing market. Using the difference-in-differences method, we find that housing prices near landfill sites increase about 2.2%, on average, within two years after landfill restoration. However, housing prices show no further change after the restored landfill sites are redeveloped into urban parks and other facilities. We argue that removal of the stigma effect is likely the main channel for housing price hikes. Through a back-of-the-envelope estimation, we find that the social benefits from housing value appreciation can sufficiently recover the program costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• There was no spatial inequality in accessibility when the travel mode was walking. • Public transportation favored private housing residents' accessibility to urban parks. • Public transportation caused the spatial inequality of urban park accessibility. • Gravity-based model was used to estimate the urban park accessibility. The purpose of this study was to estimate the spatial accessibility of urban parks for residents living in large public and large private housing estates in Hong Kong. The gravity model was used to calculate the urban park accessibility for every housing estate using different transportation modes (walking, bus, mass transit railway). Google Maps API real-time travel data were used to estimate a series of regression models. We found that public transportation reduced travel time to urban parks for all residents, while it significantly increased the spatial inequality of urban park accessibility between public and private housing residents. We concluded that the spatial inequality of public park accessibility between public and private housing residents in Hong Kong did not owe to the spatial distribution of the urban parks or of the residential locations. The evidence suggested that the spatial inequality was largely attributable to differences in the accessibility and connectivity of public transportation between public housing estates and urban parks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]