LAUSR

Abstract The review of 33 studies generally confirmed findings from a 2001 review: House values rose as proximity to a park increased; properties immediately adjacent to a park sometimes had a lower premium than dwellings a block or two away from it; larger parks had higher premiums, and their influence extended over a longer distance; and substantially greater premiums accrued from passive than from active parks. The results suggested a premium of 8%–10% on properties adjacent to a passive park is a reasonable point of departure, which is lower than suggested by previous guidelines. Four additional insights emerged: Percentage premiums were higher for (a) multifamily or small lots than for single-family homes or large lots and (b) for permanently protected lands than for developable lands; recognition was frequently lacking (c) the heterogeneity of open space and (d) differentials among submarkets. Six managerial conclusions and five guidelines for future research are offered.