IMPACT OF PARKS ON RESIDENTIAL LAND VALUES: A Case Study of Lahore

IMPACT OF PARKS ON RESIDENTIAL LAND VALUES: A Case Study of Lahore

RESEARCHERS

Sikander Haroon

(2007-CRP-13)

Maqsood Amin

(2007-CRP-18)

SUPERVISOR

Mr. Atif Bilal Aslam (Lecturer)

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE July 2011

DECLARATION This research thesis is a presentation of our original research work.

Wherever contributions of others are involved, every effort is made to indicate

this

clearly,

with

due

reference

to

the

literature,

acknowledgment of collaborative research and discussions.

I

and

DEDICATION This Research thesis is dedicated to our Parents who have never failed to give us financial and moral support, for giving all our need during the time we developed our system and for teaching us that even the largest task can be accomplished if it is done one step at a time.

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are sincerely and heartily grateful to our advisor, Mr.Atif Bilal Aslam,

whose

preliminary

to

encouragement, the

concluding

supervision level

and

enabled

support us

to

from

the

develop

an

understanding of the subject. We are sure it would have not been possible without his help. Besides we would like to thank Miss Siddiqa Amin, our junior Mr. Mubeen Raza and Umar Majeed and our classmates who boosted us morally and provided us great information resources

Mr. Sikander Haroon

III

Mr. Maqsood Amin

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL I hereby declare that this thesis is from the student’s own work and effort,

and

all

other

sources

of

information

used

have

acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted with my approval SUPERVISOR: Mr.Atif Bilal Aslam Lecturer in department of city and regional planning UET Lahore

ADVISORS’ SIGNATURE: ……………………………………

DATE:………………………………………………

IV

been

ABSTRACT Relation of parks and adjacent land is of great importance as it is a key factor to fix the value of land in proximity to parks. There is a general know how that there are some differences in prices of plots that are in front and away from parks but there is no any study on what extent these difference of prices are prevailing and what are the key factors relating to parks that contribute in fixing varying prices of plots near and away from parks. This research thesis is an effort to measure the exact percentage difference of prices of residential plots that are in proximity and away from parks. As well as to determine the key factors relating to parks that has great influence on the adjacent land prices.

In case of developed and some developing countries ,it is observed that the effect on residential property values due to its location near a park or open space has been the subject of several studies. According to those studies the value of residential properties increases by 0.44-19% as compared to those one which are away from parks.

In order to measure such percentage difference of prices of plots near and away from parks in Lahore, relevant data regarding the current market prices of plots of three categories (plots in front, at a walking distance and away from parks) have been collected through three different sources that includes household surveys, interview with property dealers and structured talks with officials of selected case study areas. The collected data have been analyzed through mean weightage technique.

After analyzing the collected data it is found that the results supported the hypothesis that the value of land varies inversely to distance. The prices of residential plots that are in front of parks are 11% more than the prices of plots that lie at a distance of more than 400 meters. Further the results revealed that the most important factors related to parks that contribute in such increase of prices are easy accessibility, natural beautification, greenery and buffer zone, recreational site, social gathering and healthy environment respectively.

Based on the findings of this research it is recommended that government should also initiate to consider the impacts of parks in fixing the adjacent land values which is not being considered at present. This initiative can help in devising various measures like imposing taxes which can then be used for development of the area.

Moreover the parks should be placed in such a way that the parks are easily accessible to the residents and maximum number of residents may take benefits from these parks.

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ........................................................................................ I DEDICATION .......................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................... III CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ................................................................. IV ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... V

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of Problem ...................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives........................................................................................ 2 1.3 Scope of Study ................................................................................. 2 1.4 Justification of Study ....................................................................... 3 1.5 Structure of the Report .................................................................... 4 1.6 Research Process ............................................................................. 5 1.7 Limitations ...................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 7 2.2 Research Line of Action .................................................................... 8 2.3 Selection of Research Topic .............................................................. 8 2.4 Literature Review ............................................................................ 9 2.5 Selection of Case Study .................................................................... 9 2.5.1 Parameters for the Selection of Study Area ...................................... 10 2.6 Selection of Sample Size ................................................................ 12 2.7 Planning & Data Collection ............................................................. 15 2.7.1 Secondary Data Collection ............................................................. 15 2.7.2 Primary Data Collection ................................................................ 16 2.8 Data Analysis ................................................................................. 16 VI

2.9 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations ................................. 16 2.10 Documentation ............................................................................ 17 2.11 Time-line Chart of the Research ................................................... 17

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 Literature Review .......................................................................... 20 3.1.1 Purpose of the Literature Review .................................................... 20 3.2 Parks ............................................................................................. 20 Active Parks ..................................................................................... 21 Passive Parks ................................................................................... 21 3.3 Benefits of Parks............................................................................ 21 3.3.1 Environmental Benefits ................................................................. 21 3.3.2 Economic Benefits ........................................................................ 22 3.3.3 Health Benefits ............................................................................ 23 3.3.4 Social Benefits ............................................................................. 23 3.4 Impact of Parks on the Residential Land Values.............................. 26 3.5 Case studies .................................................................................. 27 3.5.1 Case Studies of Developed countries ............................................... 27 Case Study of Aberdeen, Scotland ....................................................... 27 Case Study of Portland, Oregon ........................................................... 28 Case Study of Greenville, South Carolina .............................................. 28 3.5.2 Case Studies of Developing countries .............................................. 29 Case Study of Main Urban (Metro) Area of Hong Kong ............................. 29 Case Study of Mumbai, India .............................................................. 30 3.6 Approach used ............................................................................... 30 3.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 32

VII

CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY AREA 4.1 Selection of Case Study Area .......................................................... 33 4.2 Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) .......................................................... 34 4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 34 4.2.2 Location ..................................................................................... 34 4.2.3 Landuse Profile ............................................................................ 35 4.2.4 Condition of Parks ........................................................................ 37 4.3 PCSIR-II ........................................................................................ 38 4.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 38 4.3.2 Location ..................................................................................... 39 4.3.3 Land Use Profile ........................................................................... 39 4.3.4 Condition of Parks ........................................................................ 39

CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS 5.1 Prices of Plots ................................................................................ 43 5.1.1 Households Surveys ..................................................................... 43 5.1.2 Property Dealers Interviews ........................................................... 45 5.1.3 Structured Talks with Officials of Housing Schemes ........................... 46 5.1.4 Comparison of Prices .................................................................... 47 5.1.5 Current Market Price .................................................................... 48 5.2 Difference in Living near or Beyond Park ........................................ 52 5.2.1 Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) .......................................................... 52 5.2.2 PCSIR-II..................................................................................... 52 5.3 Possible Difference Living Near or Beyond Park .............................. 53 5.4 Difference in Prices Near or Beyond Park........................................ 55 5.5 Possible Factors for High Market Prices .......................................... 56 VIII

5.6 Prime Factors that Contribute for High Market Price ....................... 57 5.7 Should There Be Difference in Prices of Plots Near or Beyond Park.. 59 5.8 Willingness to Sell House ............................................................... 60 5.9 Respondent & Family Members Visiting This Park ........................... 61 5.10 Impact of Type of Recreation Activities on Prices of Plots ............. 63 5.11 Impact of Maintenance Authority on Prices of Plots ...................... 65 5.12 Impact of Size of Parks on Land Prices ......................................... 66 5.13 Impact of Size of Plots on Land Prices .......................................... 67

CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Findings......................................................................................... 69 6.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 71 6.3 Recommendations ......................................................................... 72 6.4 Areas of Future Research ............................................................... 72

Bibliography Annexure Annexure 1: Questionnaires Annexure 2: Tables

INDEX

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Role of Parks in cooling down the environment......................... 22 Figure 2: Relationship between residential property values and its distance from park ............................................................................................... 32 Figure 3: General landscaping and beautification in Park 1 and Park 2 of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) .................................................................. 37 Figure 4: Provision of Facilities in Park 1 of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) 38

IX

Figure 5: General landscaping and beautification in Japanese Park and Central Park of PCSIR-II......................................................................... 40 Figure 6: Provision of Facilities in Jasmine Park, Rose Garden,Qazi Kausar Park and Family Park of PCSIR-II ........................................................... 41

LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Location Map of Case Study Area ................................................. 11 Map 2: Location of surveyed houses in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) ....... 13 Map 3: Location of surveyed houses in PCSIR-II ..................................... 14 Map 4: Landuse Map of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)............................... 36 Map 5: Landuse Map of PCSIR -II............................................................ 42 Map 6: Map showing average prices of residential plots in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) ......................................................................................... 49 Map 7: Map showing average prices of residential plots in PCSIR-II ........ 50

LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1: Research Process ........................................................................ 5 Chart 2: Time Line Chart of the Research Work ....................................... 19 Chart 3: Various benefits of parks and green spaces................................ 25 Chart 4: Estimated Price of residential plots (Lacs/marla)....................... 45 Chart 5: Prices of various categories of Residential Plots according to Property Dealers (lacs/marla) ................................................................ 46 Chart 6: Prices of residential plots according to officials (lacs/marla) ..... 47 Chart 7: Estimated Market Prices (lacs/Marla) ........................................ 48 Chart 8: Current Market Prices of various categories of plots ................... 51 Chart 9: View of residents regarding difference of living near or beyond park ....................................................................................................... 53 Chart 10: Possible difference living near or beyond park ......................... 54 Chart 11: Difference in prices near or beyond park .................................. 56 Chart 12: Possible factors for high market prices .................................... 57 Chart 13: chart showing the factors playing vital role in fixing high prices .............................................................................................................. 58

X

Chart 14: Should there be difference in prices of plots near or beyond park .............................................................................................................. 60 Chart 15: Willingness to sell house ......................................................... 61 Chart 16: Respondent & Family members visiting this park ..................... 63 Chart 17: Impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) ............................................................................ 67 Chart 18: Impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in PCSIR-II .............................................................................................................. 68

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Calculation of estimated price of the residential plots of PCSIR-II .............................................................................................................. 44 Table 2: Prices of Residential Plots according to Property Dealers ........... 45 Table 3: Impact of Type of recreation activities on prices of plots (PCSIRII) ......................................................................................................... 64 Table 4: Impact of Type of recreation activities on prices of plots (JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2, J3)) ....................................................................... 65 Table 5: Impact of Maintenance Authority on Prices of plots.................... 66 Table 6: Impact of size of parks on Land prices ....................................... 66

XI

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of Problem Unless the benefits of parks and open spaces - both tangible and intangible - can be enumerated, it is unlikely that such amenities will be seen as the “highest and best� use of anything other than the most marginal of lands. The challenge for park advocates is to achieve widespread recognition of the economic contribution of parks for the adjacent plots and to measure it, so it is adequately represented in the planning, social and political calculus of community land use decisions.

Relationship of parks and adjacent land is of paramount importance as it is a key factor to determine the value of land in proximity to parks. They are generally taken as recreational outlet with greenery and beauty that offer multiple purposes to nearby dwellers.

In this era of hustle and bustle, people in general look for a dwelling which can extend all facilities and a close arena where they can have gathering, enjoy jogging and see their young ones enjoy fun and frolics. The very service is provided by parks. These parks according to general users’ point of view must be as close as possible to their land because time factor and time aspect matters a lot. The farther the park, the lesser is the convenience and the closer the parks more convenient it is.

There are numerous factors that come up as influencing and deciding factors for the ascent and descent in land price. These embody criteria such as plot size, location of plot (corner plots, in middle, or in proximity to primary and secondary roads) and land proximity to imperative and integral parks. The focus of research thesis would be on the last mentioned factor i.e. land proximity to parks. Our pivotal point of evaluation would be judging and focusing the influence of parks on adjacent land with respect to the capital price. Our core area of research would be the vicinity of Lahore such as Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and PCSIR-II. These two case study 1 |Page

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

areas have been undertaken by us consciously because we want to make comparison of land prices of private and Government housing schemes that has affinity with parks. We believe that our research would stand in great steed to the government as well as private schemes in getting cognizance of price factor with respect to and its link with parks.

It is due to this context that the price of land depends upon its proximity to the parks and their numbers. The price of land that is closer to parks differs from the price of land that is far away from parks. But interestingly in some cases, due to some negative aspects of parks adjacent to land, price of land may show a decreasing trend.

This research work will encompass the influence of parks on adjacent land values.

The study will bring to light to what extent parks in general escalate land prices or they mitigate land value in Pakistan real estate paradigm.

The study will also reveal the difference of prices of plots in front of a park and the plots that are at walking distance(which is taken as 400 meters)and the plots that are away from parks(in this case plots which are at a distance of more than 400 meters).

The study will also encompass the difference in prices of land to the proximity of parks in regards of both private and government housing scheme.

1.2 Objectives The main objectives of the study are given as:  To test the hypothesis, “Prices of residential plots near and beyond the parks are different”.  To explore the land values of residential plots in relation with proximity to parks in housing schemes  To explore the other factors related to parks that may affect the land values  To propose some measures to ensure

the equity/access to the usage of

parks in housing schemes

1.3 Scope of Study The study under consideration can be aptly applied to the other parts of city.

Lahore city comprises of so many other parts like Johar town phase II and PCSIR2 |Page

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

II. In fact there are plethora of private and government housing schemes that can extract benefits from the findings of the proposed suggestions and practical data that has been obtained gathered from keen observation and practical work.

By dint of findings of this research thesis, policy formulation can be optimally done.

Both private and government housing schemes can take benefits from this research work. The decision making for price range of plots in proximity or away from parks would be effectively done. Especially government schemes can break free from apathy and also play at forefront by extracting profit by setting appropriate pricing with respect to land and its liaison with parks. Such profit making then can be used for the development purposes of the respective parks.

At present in government housing schemes there is no difference in price of plots close to parks and the plots that are away from parks. This is probably due to the fact that all the plots are to be allocated with the help of draws and there is no choice for the users to choose the location of the plots by themselves. But we believe that government schemes must imitate private schemes by allocating apt amount to the plots according to their position and location especially with relation to parks.

1.4 Justification of Study Compact knowledge based on solid facts and Figures plays a vital role in decision making for any aspect. In the developed countries, a number of studies related to influence of parks on adjacent land prices has been done but in context of Pakistan, no such study have ever been conducted with the help of which price mechanism for the plots in front of parks and away from parks can be differentiated.

In case of Pakistan there is a general know how that there is some differences of pricing of plots for living near and away from parks especially in private housing schemes

but there is no sound and compact justification, in terms of facts and

Figures, of the difference in price. Based on the compact evidences and collected data from the local residents of the case study areas

and also from the estate

management offices as well as from the offices of both private and government housing schemes our study will able to define the boundary of price difference of plots near and beyond parks.

3 |Page

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

1.5 Structure of the Report Overall this document is comprised of five chapters. Each of which covers the following aspects of the report: Chapter 1 contains problem statement, objectives of the study, scope of the study justification of the study and the various limitations that has to be faced by the researchers.

Chapter 2 incorporates the details about depiction of all the actions being carried out to accomplish the set objectives. This chapter elaborates the line of action to achieve the realistic and unbiased outcomes of the research. It encloses the detailed procedures of the surveys as well as the other steps involved in performing various tasks. For data analysis, the usage and application of different softwares have also been discussed.

Chapter 3 includes the most important aspect of the research: literature review. It helps to understand what has already been done regarding the selected topic. It also includes the respective problem to be inquired in context of previous studies and practices that have been held at various scales. In this chapter a stage for the undergoing research problem has been recognized after illustrating the whole scenario. This chapter depicts the past trends and practices regarding the prices of plots in front and away from parks.

Chapter 4 contains a brief profile of selected case study areas along with landuse breakup details and type and conditions of parks existing over there.

Chapter 5 contains a comprehensive analysis of the data, portraying the results that strengthen the grounds to recommend some improvements and to devise the implementation framework for these proposals. In this chapter, the acquired data related to the plot prices near and beyond parks has been documented.

Chapter 6 comprises the analytical conclusions drawn in a broader context from the respective findings. And some recommendations have been given at the end.

4 |Page

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.6 Research Process The various steps of Research Process are shown in the Chart 1 given below: INPUT

RESEARCH PROCESS

Chart 1: Research Process

5 |Page

OUTPUT

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.7 Limitations The researcher came across following limitations: 1. During the selection of case study area, we have to select such two housing schemes (one private and a government administrated housing scheme) that have been developed in a same year and should also be located close to each other so that there may be less difference in comparing the trend and impacts of prices of plots near and beyond parks, in terms of the locality. In this regard we have to face lot of difficulties in acquiring the record regarding the year of development and approval of both government and private housing scheme. A lot of time was wasted in acquiring the record regarding the development and approval of housing schemes.

2. After finding and selecting two schemes of the same year of development, the next limitation was the availability of updated maps of the case study areas. In a limited time we have to update the land use map of both Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and PCSIR-II, in order to select a suitable sample size.

Digitization and updating the land use maps took a lot of our precious time.

3. There were not enough resources for conducting the project surveys for entire Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and PCSIR-II. So the case study was limited to only two blocks of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and PCSIR-II. 4. As

our

case

administrated

study

comprised

(PCSIR-II)

and

of

the

two other

schemes. one was

One

was

under

privately

government

administration [Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)]. The authorities of PCSIR-II did not cooperate fully to give the desired data regarding the prices of plots and the hidden development charges imposed on plots.

6 |Page

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction The system of collecting data for research projects is known as research methodology. The data may be collected for either theoretical or practical research in more comprehensive words we can define methodology as the set of steps, methods, procedures to be considered while doing something. It's the answer to the questions i.e. what, how and when? For everything there is a need to review others experience and steps in order to achieve the best results. If inappropriate methodology is used, or if appropriate methodology is used poorly, the results of a study could be misleading Research Methodology defines the way we do our research work and accomplish our objectives. It plays a key role in successfully accomplishing the tasks.

There are basically many types of researches like Theoretical, Applied, Analytical, Descriptive and Empirical & Conceptual etc. The type of research that has been chose in this study is Applied & Qualitative research. For this purpose, set of qualitative factors have been used to exactly estimate the economic influence of parks on the adjacent land prices.

This chapter elaborates the line of action to achieve the realistic and unbiased outcomes of the research. It tries to provide a sound justification to adapt this methodology, with reference to the context of similar study efforts at international and national level. Attempt has been made to define the importance of research methodology. This chapter gives the details of the methodology followed and the various methods used to conduct the study. In the write up, this chapter explains three aspects; anticipated objectives versus methods employed and the output matrix, detailed illustration of overall study methodology and the time line chart of the whole study.

7 |Page

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.2 Research Line of Action Research line of action is a set of advance decisions that make up the research specifying the methods and procedures for collecting and analyzing the needed information. It is a plan for collecting and utilizing data so that desired information can be obtained with sufficient precision or so that a hypothesis can be tested properly. Decision regarding what, where, when, how much and by what means of data concerning an inquiry or a research study constitutes a research line of action It stands for advance planning of the methods to be adopted for collecting the relevant data and the techniques to be used in their analysis, keeping in view the objectives of research and the availability of resources. A general to specific approach has

been adopted while designing

the study methodology after

considering its prime importance. The specific steps which are considered in this connectivity have been enlisted and described below: •

Selection of research topic

•

Literature review

•

Selection of case study area

•

Selection of Sample Size

•

Planning & Data collection

•

Data processing

•

Data analysis

•

Findings, Conclusions and recommendations

•

Documentation

2.3 Selection of Research Topic The base line task in any research is to identify the area of interest to conduct a research which is no doubt, a time taking, knowledge based & tough matter.

Therefore, by taking into consideration this lengthy procedure, worthy efforts have been strived to choose a few researchable issues. For this, discussions have been conducted with thesis advisor & competent professionals; critical review of literature has been done & informal sittings have been organized with colleagues, which resulted in finding out the subject currently under study based on researcher’s aptitude and intentions. As a result of the various discussions with our 8 |Page

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2

supervisor and other senior professors our final our final research topic was selected which is Influence of parks on adjacent land prices

2.4 Literature Review A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, main purpose is to convey to reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Besides enlarging knowledge about the topic, writing a literature helps to collect relevant information regarding research topic and critical appraisal of studies which have already been made.

An extensive literature review has been done regarding the research topic. For this purpose various case studies were consulted from research journals and internet.

Two case studies from developing countries and three case studies from developed countries were selected, to make study more justifiable. The main objective was to get a clear idea that how this phenomena of impact of prices on residential properties due to park proximity occurs in developed as well as developing countries. This literature review helped in understanding the topic in a better way determining the proper dimension of conducting the research work.

2.5 Selection of Case Study To select a live & genuine case study to continue the research, there is always a need to establish some pre-requisites and principles around which, study area should be resolved. The determination of study area is critical first step, since it determines the geographical extent of the data collection effort and consequently helps in setting up the scope of the study. It defines the limits and let the researchers concentrate and contemplate on a specific geographical perspective.

Later on the, researcher collects the data from that specific area, pin points the issues & problems from that, makes experiments and prepares strategies for the solution of the identified issues and in the end assess the impact of the study/ project with reference to that area.

From the statement of problem it is vivid that the issue being addressed has much wider geographical extent requiring a detailed investigation of issue. But at the same time, research has severe restrictions of time and budget availability. So to 9 |Page

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

cope with the situation, ‘general to specific’ approach has been adopted for the selection of a general location of study area and then the delineation of the specific boundaries.

2.5.1 Parameters for the Selection of Study Area Paying considerations to the objectives of the study we have to select two housing schemes (one government administrated and the other one which is under private administration) a set of parameters has been established for the final and logical case study selection, which includes the following: 1. Both the areas should be developed or planned in a same year so that a comparison can be made effectively 2. Both the areas should be located close to each other so as to avoid the location influence while performing the comparisons 3. Both areas should be such whose controlling agencies are cooperative and ready to help in providing relevant data 4. As this research is concerned about the proximity of parks so both the case study areas should be on such locations where, except the parks within these areas, there should be no parks or open

spaces

around

their

boundaries(in this case around the buffer zone of 400 meters) 5. The case study should have the capacity to address the multiple scenarios & issues to formulate rigorous policy recommendations 6. The study areas should be larger enough to give a sufficient strength to the scenarios designed from information collected 7. From the researcher’s point of view, the study areas should be quite accessible and should be such about which basic material like base maps are available On the basis of the above discussion two specialized case study areas were decided which include Johar Town-II (Block J1, J2) a government housing scheme, and the other one which was PCSIR-II a private housing scheme.

Location Map of the two selected case study areas have been shown in Map 1 given below:

10 | P a g e

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Map 1: Location Map of Case Study Area

11 | P a g e

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2

2.6 Selection of Sample Size The sample size for the collection of primary information from respondents was selected equally for each case study. Due to some limitations, large sample size was difficult to select. One of the reasons to not to select a big sample size was that, both the selected case study areas itself were found to be large enough that a reasonable sample size could be reasonable enough to represent the whole of the households. Therefore a moderate sample size was selected which was 5%.in this regard 60 questionnaire was filled from Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) out of the total of 1202 households. Similarly 42 questionnaires were filled from the locality of PCSIR-II, out of the total of 845 households.

2.6.1 Sampling Technique

Initially systematic sampling was decided to cover each block or part of the area in a systematic manner. But due to some limitations, random sampling was done.

During random sampling process, almost representation of all sector and block of the case study areas were covered.

The location of surveyed houses in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) is shown in the GIS based map given in Map 2. While location of surveyed houses in PCSIR-II is shown in the GIS based map given in Map 3.

12 | P a g e

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Park 1 Park 3

Park 2

Map 2: Location of surveyed houses in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)

13 | P a g e

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Map 3: Location of surveyed houses in PCSIR-II

14 | P a g e

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2

2.7 Planning & Data Collection Data collection is the most important tool to get the inferences at highest order to make the research valuable and successful. To assess the multiple phenomena in research hypothesis, the planning and data collection stage is of high inscription.

Along with this to quantify the complex and varied research processes and inferences, to mark out the unseen & visible, internal and external factors, in order to have significant results in depth attention has to be paid towards the designing of proper as well accurate measurement technique of data collection. Planning & data assembling phase is based on some factors. These parameters in fact, aware the reader about different stakeholders, beneficiaries involved in the research but also fix the direction towards those allied strategies (field questionnaires etc) to address the all above mentioned participants of the research.

The main data collection parameters are: 1. Questionnaire designing 2. Reconnaissance survey of the selected housing schemes 3. GIS based map acquisition of both housing schemes 4. Secondary data collection from offices (LDA and PCSIR Site Office) 5. Interviews with Government Officials 6. Interviews with households 7. Interviews with Estate Agents However, after introducing the major elements of data planning & collection stage, this step has been categorized into two sub-stages; planning for data collection and data collection in the field. The planning stage includes the preparation and designing of questionnaire to be asked from the, officials of housing schemes and various estate agents which deals in the case study areas. The secondary as well as the primary data has been collected to clarify the scenario.

2.7.1 Secondary Data Collection First portion deals with the collection of data related to the prices of plots of both near and away from parks have been collected through the secondary sources.

Formal Interviews have been managed from the security officials and the technical persons in field.

15 | P a g e

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.7.2 Primary Data Collection On the other hand, second part concentrates on assembling the social and as well as economic aspects of households in selected case studies. So, after finalizing the field Performa and devising a systematic approach to collect the necessary input, sample based survey was conducted and within surveys, profile of the case study has been generated after gathering the data.

2.8 Data Analysis Usually Hedonic Impact Analysis is used to study the environmental impact of parks on prices of nearby properties but it requires a lot of quantitative data. The data collected in the case of this research thesis is of qualitative nature and due to non availability of quantitative data this technique has not been applied.

Once the data has been gathered from different sources i.e. primary and secondary, the next step is to process this data to make a comprehensive analysis.

The data has been analyzed in steps. In first step the collected data was thoroughly checked to find out the errors and incompleteness in data and in next step this data was put into various softwares i.e. MS Excel and Arc GIS 9.3. MS Excel was used to prepare various tables and graphs to get a clear idea of the findings of the data which has been collected through primary and secondary sources. While Arc GIS 9.3was used to update the land use maps of case study areas and to prepare the maps showing the residential plots falling in various categories of prices.

2.9 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations In the light of the data analysis evolved through the research work for both the government housing scheme i.e. Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and private housing scheme

(PCSIR-II),

some

conclusions

were

drawn

and

finally

some

recommendations have been made.

It has been tried to put into a nut shell by presenting research problem, objectives, its methodology, case study area selection, data collection and analysis efforts and final recommendations in distinguishing chapters.

16 | P a g e

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2

2.10 Documentation It is the final step of research work in which all components of research work i.e.

Problem statement, justification and scope of study, methodology, case study area description, Literature review, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations were arranged in proper order to give them a proper shape of a research thesis.

Moreover, use of proper Linguistic style and proper structure for research thesis was also emphasized. Before final submission of thesis, draft was submitted to advisor to identify errors in research thesis and corrections were made before final submission.

2.11 Time-line Chart of the Research The schedule which has been attached below is actually a time specific plan (in terms of weeks) allocated for various activities of the whole project to finish it within assigned time span successfully. The total time period given for the completion of this project comprises 22 weeks from March to mid of July 2011. In the first two weeks the selection of topic was done, this was the most time taking process as it was finalized after many informal discussions with the supervisor and the competent professionals. The second step of the literature review took the next two and a half weeks but it was continuous in the previous 2 weeks as well. In the fourth week, the research proposal was prepared with the statement of problem; setting out the objectives, searching the scope of study etc in the fifth week selection of the case study was done by considering the basic parameters.

In the next week planning and selecting of sample size for the data obtainment by means of questionnaire formation was established. In the next week construction of secondary survey was done with collection of basic information from the officials. In next two weeks the primary data planning and collection was done. In the next three weeks the inferences were observed by putting the data against different tests of analysis techniques. In the next week the portion of conclusion and recommendations was finalized with the help of our supervisor. In the next two weeks proper formal documentation of the project was initiated and finalized. After that a first draft of the whole research was submitted to the supervisor for the

17 | P a g e

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2

purpose of correction. In the next weak final document was submitted after making the prescribed corrections.

The time line chart of research work is given in the Chart 2 given on next page.

18 | P a g e

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2

Chart 2: Time Line Chart of the Research Work

19 | P a g e

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 Literature Review A literature review is both a summary and explanation of the complete and current state of knowledge on a limited topic as found in academic books and journal articles. A well-structured literature review is characterized by a logical flow of ideas and comprehensive view of the previous research on the topic.

3.1.1 Purpose of the Literature Review •

It gives readers easy access to research on a particular topic by selecting high quality articles or studies that are relevant, meaningful, important and valid and summarizing them into one complete report.

•

It provides an excellent starting point for researchers beginning to do research in a new area by forcing them to summarize, evaluate, and compare original research in that specific area.

•

It ensures that researchers do not duplicate work that has already been done.

•

It can provide clues as to where future research is heading or recommend areas on which to focus.

•

It highlights key findings.

•

It identifies inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions in the literature.

•

It provides a constructive analysis of the methodologies and approaches of other researchers.

3.2 Parks Park is an area of land, usually in a largely natural state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set apart, and managed by a city, state, or nation. It is a piece of open land for recreational use in an urban area.

20 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

Parks can be divided into two major categorizes on the basis of functions which they perform.

Active Parks Active parks are those parks which are used as athletic fields; contain building or structures for recreational activities, courses or courts, children's play area, dog play area, or a bike path.

Passive Parks A Passive Park refers to a park which has landscaped area, natural area, ornamental garden, non-landscaped green space, stairway, decorative fountain, picnic area, water body, or trail without recreational staffing.

3.3 Benefits of Parks Parks have a number of benefits and these benefits can be broadly divided into four categories: •

Environmental benefits

•

Economic benefits

•

Health benefits

•

Social benefits

The description of these benefits is given as:

3.3.1 Environmental Benefits Parks protect and conserve biodiversity. They play a vital role in keeping our air and water clean, counteracting the damaging effects of pollution.

Parks are significant assets in the fight against climate change. They contain trees which remove carbon dioxide (the most abundant greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere and help in making environment clean and healthy. Trees also remove substantial quantities of toxic particles such as lead, and can reduce concentrations of SO2 and NO2 in the air by 4-5%. Trees in parks act as the ‘green lungs’ of our cities and towns. Their leaves naturally filter the air by stabilizing dust and absorbing pollutants.

The parks in neighborhoods break up reflected heat from hard surfaces to bring a cooling effect. Daytime temperatures have been found to be about 2-3oC lower in a 21 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

parks than the surrounding streets and the cooling effect of park can be felt up to 100m from the site, this contribution towards mitigating “heat island effect� depends on maintaining the vegetation within these parks. Trees in parks can buffer nearby houses from excessive heat and reduce energy consumption and the costs of air-conditioning. The cooling impact of trees on the surrounding objects is shown in the Figure 1.

Figure 1: Role of Parks in cooling down the environment

The visual appearance and attractiveness of neighborhood is strongly influenced by its parks. The landscape of these parks reconnects us to nature causing a soothing effect.

3.3.2 Economic Benefits Neighborhood economy benefits significantly from local neighborhood parks. They stimulate the recreation activities for local residents, and are significant sources of employment for various people.

Parks are also an asset that encourage inward investment to the City, raise property values and encourage private and public sector investment in services and facilities. Parks directly employ staff, provide jobs indirectly through Joint Venture partnerships and generate local and regional economic activity through events, supplies, maintenance, etc.

Urban parks also have clear economic values. Proximity and park views add to the residential value of a home. The real estate market consistently demonstrates that many people are willing to pay a larger amount for a property located close to parks and open space areas than for a home that does not offer this amenity. In a 22 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

2001 survey conducted for the National Association of Realtors by Public Opinion Strategies, 50 percent of respondents said they would be willing to pay 10 percent more for a house located near a park or other protected open space. In the same survey, 57 percent of respondents said that if they were in the market to buy a new home, they would be more likely to select one neighborhood over another if it was close to parks and open space.

Eminent US researcher Dr John Crompton has concluded that neighboring an urban park can add 20% to house values, creating a genuine financial offset to the cost of not developing park space as residential space.

3.3.3 Health Benefits Parks are inspiring and pleasant places to exercise and improve physical and mental wellbeing for today’s busy society that is more vulnerable to stress, mental health issues and obesity than ever before. Contact with nature enriches psychological, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of local residents. Parks are places of exercise, peace and quiet, recreation, gathering and relaxation. All these things bring enjoyment and strong community spirit.

Strong evidence shows that when people have access to parks, they exercise more.

These parks benefit local community by engaging them in regular physical activity and help in reducing risk of premature death, coronary heart disease, hypertension, respiratory diseases and endocrine systems. Depression is a mental illness that comes in several forms. The symptoms include feelings of loneliness, despair, hopelessness, and worthlessness, deep, unshakable sadness, diminished interest in activities, and thoughts of suicide. Depression can affect people of all ages and income. These parks can play an important role in relieving the stress and depression.

3.3.4 Social Benefits Parks bring neighbors together, encourage safer, cleaner neighborhoods and create a livelier community atmosphere. Parks also help improve a community’s image, socioeconomic status and enhance the area’s desirability. When people move they seek a desirable community. When they retire they also look for a community that

23 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

will accommodate their special needs. Parks are places to meet and celebrate with family and friends.

They are venues for community festivals, events and sporting activities. Parks are places of refreshment, relaxation and solitude. Parks offer a range of recreation activities to bring families and friends together in appealing places. Parks help build and strengthen ties among community residents by bringing people together. Parks play an important role in children’s physical, mental, social and emotional development. Parks can provide wonderful opportunities for children of all ages to build the skills and strengths they need to lead full and rewarding lives.

Parks provide a chance of positive contact between different ethnic groups and opens communication in a non-threatening atmosphere. It provides a means for social interaction that can help to break down the barriers of unfamiliarity, fear and isolation.

Research on low-income housing developments has found that park-like public spaces encourage residents to leave the isolation of their dwellings, socialize with one another, and form lasting ties (Coley, Kuo, and Sullivan 1997; Kuo, Coley, and Brunson 1998).

The various benefits offered by parks and green spaces are depicted in the chart 3 given below:

24 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

Chart 3: Various benefits of parks and green spaces

25 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

3.4 Impact of Parks on the Residential Land Values Parks could have both positive and negative impacts on surrounding communities.

They may benefit neighbors by providing access to recreational facilities, fostering a sense of community, providing attractive scenery and views for nearby residents and passersby, replacing an eyesore or a location for undesirable behaviors, and improving both the environmental quality and the general quality of life in the neighborhood.

On other hand, they may provide a haven for loitering or other undesirable social behavior, or cause noise and congestion. Unfortunately, in some neighborhoods, parks serve as gathering places for derelicts and criminals, and are unsafe for use by law abiding citizens. Residents may suffer from various nuisances such as: congestion, street parking, litter and vandalism which may accompany an influx of people coming into a neighborhood to use a park, noise and lights of marriage functions intruding, poorly maintained or blighted derelict facilities and undesirable groups gathering in a park engaging in morally offensive activities.

Park effects also may vary with the park area. Specifically, both the positive and negative externalities are likely to increase with park area (e.g. larger parks may provide more recreational facilities but also may be noisier). If the park is not well maintained, it can cause problems for local residents.

Additionally, park impacts may vary over time. For example, benefits may grow over time as more neighborhood residents become familiar with the park and get involved in various activities taking place at the park. These parks not only attract local residents but also attract an increasing number of visitors from nearby areas and neighborhoods.

The impact of a park may vary across neighborhoods with different characteristics.

Parks in poor neighborhoods provide an affordable alternative to city parks, which often are located in more affluent neighborhoods and are not easily accessible to poor residents. Therefore, parks may be more valuable to these residents, leading one to expect larger positive impacts (or smaller negative impacts) on residential property values in lower-income areas.

The effect on property values due to its location near a park or open space has been the subject of several studies. The value of parks reflected in residential 26 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

property values provides an insight of the benefits which the residents of that area are getting from it. Quantification of the impact of parks protection on residential property values could help guide local and state land use decision makers in preservation efforts and planning for future growth. All the factors which are responsible for difference in prices of residential plots near and away from the parks have been discussed in detail in the above section. Generally there is a positive impact on the properties located close to the park.

3.5 Case studies In order to get a clear idea of impact of proximity of parks on prices of residential plots, case studies from developing and developed countries have been discussed below, which will help to understand the possible impact of parks on nearby properties.

3.5.1 Case Studies of Developed countries Three case studies i.e. one from Scotland and two from USA have been selected to see the possible impact of parks on adjacent properties. A brief description of these case studies is given as:

Case Study of Aberdeen, Scotland This research was conducted by Dunse, White and Dehring and its key aim is to improve the understanding of economic benefits of urban open spaces and park as revealed through local house prices. This case study area is city of Aberdeen, located in the North East of Scotland. It is Scotland’s third largest city with a population of approximately 250,000, and serves as major service centre to a wide catchment area. The data for research has been obtained from the Aberdeen Solicitors Property Centre (ASPC) and it is related to residential sales from the City of Aberdeen between 1984 and 2002. In total there are 53,674 observed sales over the sample period.

The main variables used in data analysis included distance of residential property from the boundary of each park, area and perimeter of park, proximity to major road networks and school catchment areas. Through data analysis, it appeared that the residents of Aberdeen give much importance to the location of residential property located close to the park. Relative to a property located 450 meters away 27 | P a g e

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

from a park a property located on the edge of a park has an increased property value ranging from 0.44% and 19%.

Case Study of Portland, Oregon Bolitzer and Netusil studied the effect of proximity to an open space (public and private parks, cemeteries and golf courses) in Portland, Oregon, using data on 16,402 sales of single family homes between 1990 and 1992. By analyzing data, they found that a home located within 1500 feet (7 ½ blocks) of a 20-acre open space (the mean for the public parks in the area) sold for approximately $2670 (in 1990 dollars) more than homes that were further from a park. Proximity to any open space increased a home’s sales price by 1.43%.

However, the increase in

value was limited to public parks and cemeteries; private parks had no statistically significant effect on home prices.

Because the mean size of the public parks

studied was twenty acres, while the mean size of the private parks was almost 4 acres.

Case Study of Greenville, South Carolina Espey and Owasu-Edusei investigated the effect proximity to 24 neighborhood parks had on the sales prices of single-family homes in Greenville, South Carolina.

This study analyzed all sales i.e. 4153 of single family houses in the city of Greenville between 1990 and 1999. South Carolina lags behind the rest of the American states in terms of open space protection, ranking third to last among the fifty states. In funding for parks and recreation, Greenville County households provide at least thirty percent less than the state's other metropolitan areas, Spartanburg, Richland, and Charleston counties. The authors divided the parks in case study area into four categories. Type I parks ranged from 15,620 to 87,687 square feet and were essentially playgrounds with some grassy areas, but were not “particularly

attractive.”

Type

2

parks

were

small,

attractive

parks

with

playgrounds. Type 3 consisted of attractive medium-sized parks with both sports fields or courts and playgrounds but also some natural areas; and type 4 parks were unattractive medium-sized parks with few amenities and no natural area.

Using a semi-log model, the authors found that the Type I parks had a statistically significant negative effect on the sales prices of homes within 300 feet of the park, 28 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3

a significant positive effect of about 15 percent on the sales of houses between 300 and 500 feet, and a significant positive effect of about 6.5 percent on the sales prices of homes located between 500 and 1500 feet of the park. Small attractive parks (Type 2) had a statistically significant positive effect of 11 percent on the sales prices of houses within 600 feet of the park, but no statistically significant effect beyond that.

For Type 3 the attractive medium size parks, there was no statically significant impact on houses within 200 feet but a positive impact on homes between 200 and 1500 feet, raising values by about 6 percent. Finally, Type 4 parks were estimated to have a significant negative impact on home values for homes within 600 feet, reducing housing sales values by just over 50 percent, but no statistically significant impact (positive or negative) beyond that.

3.5.2 Case Studies of Developing countries Two case studies i.e. one from Hong Kong and one from India have been selected to see the possible impact of parks on adjacent properties. A brief description of these case studies is given as:

Case Study of Main Urban (Metro) Area of Hong Kong Jim and Chen studied the effects of neighborhood parks on the sale price of private residential units in main urban (metro) area of Hong Kong. Due to congestion and shortage of land, home buyers in Hong Kong usually bid up the price of housing with desirable views and amenities such as adjacent green spaces. The study assessed the magnitude of the price differences of residential units near and beyond parks. The empirical results derived from 1471 transactions in case study area indicated that neighborhood parks could lift price by 16.88%, including 14.93% for availability and 1.95% for view. These parks not only increase the prices of individual housing units but also cause a hike in prices for apartments located within the service area of a neighborhood park and with a view of it. The availability of neighborhood parks was accorded the third most important attribute of an apartment, following gross area and floor level. This study showed that Neighborhood parks in the residential area were highly valued by Hong Kong

29 | P a g e

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

people. The long-term living in the high-density and high-rise apartments has not suppressed the desire for green spaces but it has fuelled the urge to live near them.

Case Study of Mumbai, India In this study Gupta, Mythili and Hegde have attempted to understand that how Mumbai residents perceive scarcity of environmental amenities and are willing to pay additional cost to receive associated benefits from the perspectives of their homes and the surrounding environment. Mumbai city is characterized by high level of infiltration of people, and so high demand for housing outstripping its supply resulting in high prices of houses along with increasing scarcity of environmental quality.

In order to carry out the study, primary data was gathered from 578 housing market transactions in northern suburbs, central suburbs and Navi Mumbai during July-November 2006. Data analysis showed that garden proximity increases the value of property up to 13.2%. The urban environmental amenities are increasingly becoming scarce in Mumbai which has resulted in such a increase in prices of residential properties close to the parks.

3.6 Approach used While determining the impact of proximity of parks on prices of residential properties “Hedonic Pricing Method “is used.

In most of the case studies which

have been discussed above, “Hedonic Pricing Method “has been used to check the proximity of parks on prices of residential properties. The hedonic pricing method is relatively straightforward and uncontroversial to apply as compared to other methods, because it is based on actual market prices and fairly easily measured data.

If data is easily available, it can be relatively inexpensive otherwise it

becomes very costly to use this method.

A brief description of this method is given as: The hedonic pricing method is used to estimate the value of environmental amenities that affect prices of residential properties. The method is based on the assumption that people value the characteristics of a good, or the services it provides, rather than the good itself.

Thus, price of residential properties will

reflect the value of a set of characteristics, including environmental characteristics 30 | P a g e

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

that people consider important when purchasing the residential properties i.e. aesthetic views or proximity to parks, nuisance and pollution.

There are some benefits of application of this method in housing sector. Some of the benefits are given as: •

The method’s main strength is that it can be used to estimate values based on actual choices made by the respondents

•

Property markets are relatively efficient in responding to information which can be helpful in data acquisition

•

Property records are typically very reliable

•

Data on property sales and characteristics are readily available through many sources like property dealers, government officials and house owners

•

The method is versatile, and can be adapted according to the nature of our analysis of data

Besides

of some advantages

this

method

also

has

some limitations

and

disadvantages. Some of them are given below: •

The scope of environmental benefits that can be measured is limited to things that are related to property and housing prices

•

The method will only capture people’s willingness to pay for perceived differences in environmental attributes, and their direct consequences. Thus, if people aren’t aware of the linkages between the environmental attribute and benefits to them or their property, the value will not be reflected in home prices or property values

•

This method does not consider outside influences, like taxes, interest rates, or other factors which may affect property values

•

The method is relatively complex to implement and interpret, requiring a high degree of statistical expertise

•

This method requires a large amount of data collection and data analysis

•

The time and expense to carry out an acquired data depends on the availability and accessibility of data

31 | P a g e

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.7 Conclusion The studies reviewed in this section present strong evidence that parks have a statistically significant and positive impact on the sales price of neighboring residential properties. These premiums associated with the park do vary according to the type of park, the layout of property, the nature of the location, maintenance and condition of park, peaceful environment, and recreational activities for the residents who are living close to it and to some extent the nature of the local population and the value of property involved. And this impact on prices reduces if the distance between parks and residential property increases.

If the condition of the park is not good and is not maintained in a proper way then it can result in decrease in residential property value.

This relationship between residential property value and its distance from park is shown in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Relationship between residential property values and its distance from park

32 | P a g e

Chapter 4

CASE STUDY AREA

CHAPTER 4

CASE STUDY AREA 4.1 Selection of Case Study Area The selection of a proper case study area has critical importance in conducting out research work because the results obtained from the data collected from case study area is used to make generalized statements which are true for that geographical locality. The main focus of this research thesis is to find out impact of park on the adjacent residential land values and various factors which are responsible for this difference of prices near and beyond parks.

The areas which have been chosen for case study are: Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and PCSIR-II. Johar Town-II is a government scheme which has been developed by LDA while, PCSIR-II is a private housing scheme. The main reasons for selection of these areas as a case study are given as: 1. Both the areas have been planned and developed in same years i.e. planned and developed in early 1980’s 2. Both the areas are located close to each other which help in avoiding the location influence while performing the comparisons 3. Both areas have proper controlling agencies which is helpful in collecting relevant data 4. Both the areas have sufficient number of parks which is helpful in conducting research work in proper way 5. Both the areas are easily accessible and secondary data is also available 6. One area is under the control of government and other is under the control of private authority which is helpful to make comparison A brief description of these case study areas is given below:

33 | P a g e

CASE STUDY AREA

Chapter 4

4.2 Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) 4.2.1 Introduction Johar town phase two was designed and planned in 1980-81. This scheme was launched by keeping in view the demand of housing for middle income people.

Being a public sector housing scheme, people showed a lot of interest in Johar Town-II as the chances of fraud was lesser as compared to private housing schemes. Initially plots were offered at a price of 50 thousands per marla which included development charges of 30 thousand rupees.

In 1990s the road network of the scheme was developed and thereafter the construction of houses started over there. Before the completion of road development work, transfer of plots took place at a rapid rate but after the completion of development and infrastructure works people started to construct houses on these plots. The process of plot sale and transfer is still in progress and plots are transferred by paying an amount of 40 thousand rupees.

The population in this housing scheme is sprawling and the property rates offered here are lesser than other very expensive private housing schemes of Lahore city like DHA and Bahria Town. The plots in Johar Town phase two were offered at low prices so that people having low income may also get benefits from it. The area is providing a very good housing opportunity for the upper middle class people.

Proper parks were provided to create aesthetics and to provide a healthy and soothing environment to the residents living over there. This scheme has a number of blocks and for research purposes two blocks of this scheme have been selected i.e. J2 and J3 and 50 thousand rupees are charged for plot transfer.

4.2.2 Location Johar town phase two is located in southern portion of Lahore city. It is surrounded by a number of housing schemes. J2 and J3 blocks have been selected for research purpose. Nazaria-e-Pakistan Avenue, Fatima Road and Abdul Haque Road provide access to these blocks. In the north of these blocks is J1 block of Johar town phase

34 | P a g e

CASE STUDY AREA

Chapter 4

two, in south is Expo center, in western direction there is Ali Town and Judicial Colony and in eastern direction there is H2 block of Johar Town-II.

4.2.3 Landuse Profile According to LDA officials 80% plots of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are developed.

About 1202 residential plots are developed into houses and 508 plots are still vacant. Other landuses include 3 parks, 55 commercial, 4 educational, 1 public and 2 religious building. The percentage of parks in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)is 6.72% of the total area.

Landuses of Johar Town and J2, J3 blocks are shown in the Map 4 given below:

35 | P a g e

CASE STUDY AREA

Chapter 4

Map 4: Landuse Map of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)

36 | P a g e

Chapter 4

CASE STUDY AREA

4.2.4 Condition of Parks According to LDA officials, the concept of high prices of plots located close to parks was not taken into consideration when the scheme was started and no maintenance charges are received from residents of the area for proper maintenance of parks. In J three parks J2 and J3 blocks have been provided. These parks are managed and controlled by PHA. Overall condition of these parks is good. Two of these parks are providing active recreation and one park is providing passive recreation. Area of one of these parks is less than one acre and area of rest of two parks ranges from 1-5 acres.

These parks are used by all age groups and have a number of uses like play area for children, exercise, walking and jogging for elders. Moreover marriage parties and functions are also arranged in these parks by taking permission from authority and payment of charges. These parks are easily accessible to the majority of residents of these blocks and can be accessed on foot. Some pictures of these parks are given below.

The general condition of three parks of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) regarding the landscaping and beautification is shown in the Figure 3.

Park 1

Park2

Figure 3: General landscaping and beautification in Park 1 and Park 2 of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)

37 | P a g e

CASE STUDY AREA

Chapter 4

These pictures clearly depict that these parks are well maintained and proper attention is being paid regarding their beautification and landscaping.

Provision of various types of swings and overall condition of playing field in these parks of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) is shown in the Figure 4 given below.

Figure 4: Provision of Facilities in Park 1 of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) t he

These pictures depict that these facilities need a little bit attention and maintenance work to make park more attractive for active recreational activities.

4.3 PCSIR-II 4.3.1 Introduction After e having a successful completion and seeing the demand of phase I of PCSIR the authorities decided to extend its phase in order to meet the prevailing demand of the customers and to provide them with more security and comfort. This scheme was planned in 1980-81. One of the significant components of PCSIR- II is the availability of natural greenery to almost all the houses. A large majority of the plots lies within the range (usually of 400 meters or walking distance) of the parks irrespective of their sizes.

When this scheme was started its focus was on middle income group of society and plots were offered at 20 thousand per marla and this price was exclusive of

38 | P a g e

CASE STUDY AREA

Chapter 4

development charges of 15 thousand. Plot transfer and plot sale process is also in action in PCSIR-II and 50 thousand rupees are charged for plot transfer.

4.3.2 Location PCSIR phase II is located in south of Lahore. It is surrounded by a number of private housing schemes and a few blocks government housing scheme is also located along its northern boundary. The residential housing schemes and town that surrounds PCSIR phase II includes sunny park housing society in south west, Abdallian housing society on north east, Pir Mansoor colony on south east and Nawab town on North West of PCSIR-II.

4.3.3 Land Use Profile PCSIR phase II comprise of total 1300 plots which are further divided into different land uses. According to the officials of PCSIR almost 65% of the total housing scheme has been fully developed and the remaining percentage of development is increasing day by day. According to the updated GIS based map of PCSIR-II (prepared and updated by Lahore development authority), the dominant land uses includes 845 developed residential units and 23 commercial units and 6 fully developed and properly maintained parks and a functional dispensary and a hospital. Rests of the plots are vacant up till the date of updating of PCSIR-II map.

The parks of PCSIR-II occupy an area of 4.6% of the total area of the scheme.

4.3.4 Condition of Parks According to PCSIR-II officials, the concept of high prices of plots located close to parks was not taken into consideration when the scheme was started and maintenance charges for parks is included in the monthly maintenance charges of 500 rupees received from residents of the area for proper maintenance of parks. All the parks in the scheme are managed and maintained by the management authority of this housing scheme. There are 6 well developed and maintained parks in PCSIR-II. All of them lie in the category of active parks. Adequate spaces for the purpose of playing are maintained by the maintenance staff.

Swings and other playing activities for the children have been installed. Moreover proper tracks for the purpose of walking and jogging have been laid down for the comfort of the residents using these parks.

39 | P a g e

CASE STUDY AREA

Chapter 4

Landscaping has been done to provide a pleasing effect for the users. The overall overview of these parks gives the impression that they are being maintained at a regular interval and the officials of the PCSIR housing scheme also told us that the maintenance of these parks are given more importance as these parks if properly maintained, attracts more capital in the form of additional charges on the plots that are near to them.

These parks are also used by local residents to organize marriage functions and other parties and it can be done by taking permission from authority and payment of charges.

Some of the pictures depicting the condition and the activities performed in these parks are given in Figure 5.

Japanese Park

Central Park

Figure 5: General landscaping and beautification in Japanese Park and Central Park of PCSIR-II

These pictures clearly show that the management of these parks is paying special attention for the proper maintenance of these parks. That’s why the management of PCSIR-II also includes the maintenance charges of parks in their monthly service charges.

The various types of active recreational facilities provided in the parks of PCSIR-II are shown in the Figure 6.

40 | P a g e

Chapter 4

CASE STUDY AREA

Jasmine Park

Rose Garden

Qazi Kausar Park

Family Park

Figure 6: Provision of Facilities in Jasmine Park, Rose Garden,Qazi Kausar Park and Family Park of PCSIR-II

The pictures given above show that the management is paying much attention on the provision of active recreation. And the condition is much better than the parks of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3).

Landuses of PCSIR-II are shown in the Map 5 given below and this map also shows the location of parks in the housing scheme.

41 | P a g e

CASE STUDY AREA

Chapter 4

Map 5: Landuse Map of PCSIR -II

42 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 5

DATA ANALYSIS This chapter contains a comprehensive analysis of the data, portraying the results that strengthen the grounds to observe the exact difference in prices of plots that are near and beyond the parks. In this chapter, the acquired data related to the prices of plots and the factors that contribute to the difference in prices of plots near and beyond parks has been comprehensively analyzed and documented.

5.1 Prices of Plots In order to investigate the impact of parks on nearby residential land values, information was gathered from three main sources: 1. Households Surveys 2. Property Dealers Interviews 3. Structured Talks with Officials of Housing Schemes

5.1.1 Households Surveys In order to remain focus on our research topic we have divided all the residential plots into three categories. These first categories include the plots that are exactly in front of parks in the selected case study areas and the second category include the plots that are located within the walking distance(in this case 400 meters) and the last category comprises of plots that are located away from parks(more than 400 meters buffer zone).

After dividing the residential plots into the above mentioned categories, to estimate the prices of plots of these categories, surveys have been done from the local. The results gathered are analyzed using arithmetic mean formula. This method helped us to calculate the mean weighted values against each category. The data gathered from the field survey was in the form of price ranges so it was necessary to have a single compact value so that a comparison of the prices of different category plots can be made. In this method different frequencies of respondents were multiplied by their respective chosen mean value of the price range.

43 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

Then the sum of the multiplied entries was divided by the total number of respondents for each category of plots to get a compact price (single value). The whole process for the calculation of estimated price of the plots of PCSIR-II can also be seen in the tabular form which is given below. For the similar type of calculations of Johar town phase II, see the Annexure Table 1 Table 1: Calculation of estimated price of the residential plots of PCSIR-II

PCSIR Location of House

Close to the park

Frequency Range of of respondents prices (f) 14 4.0- 4.5

SUM

14

Park at a walk of 5 mins

10 4

SUM

14

Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

4 8 2

SUM

14

Average price(f(x))

f*f(X)

Accumulative price(∑f*f(X)/∑f)

4.25

59.50

4.25

59.50 3.5-4.0 4.0- 4.5

3.75 4.25

37.50 17.00

3.89

54.50 3.5-4.0 3.5-4.0 4.0- 4.5

3.5 3.75 4.25

14.00 30.00 8.50

3.75

52.50

After calculating the estimate prices of the plots of all the three categories from the Local residents, the results can be inferred as The estimated price of plots in front of parks in Johar town phase-II (Block J2, J3) according to the local respondents is 4.53 lacs/Marla. Similarly according to the local respondents the estimated price of plots in the range of walking distance is 4.18 lacs/Marla And the plots that are at a distance of more than 400 meters from the parks, the price according to the local respondents is 4.13 lacs/Marla.

Similarly the estimated price of plots in front of parks in PCSIR-II according to the local respondents is 4.25 lacs/marla, and according to the local respondents the estimated price of plots in the range of walking distance is 3.89 lacs/Marla. And the plots that are at a distance of more than 400 meters from the parks, the price according to the local respondents is 3.75 lacs/Marla.

The estimated values according to the respondents of both PCSIR-II and Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are given in chart 4.

44 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

4.53

Near parks

4.18

4.25

4.13

Within walking distance

Away from parks

Near parks

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

3.89

walking distance

3.75

Away from parks

PCSIR-II

Chart 4: Estimated Price of residential plots (Lacs/marla)

For details see Annexure Table 2.

5.1.2 Property Dealers Interviews Six property dealers were contacted to collect information about the prices of plots which are located near parks. All of these Estate Agencies are located near Johar Town. The information collected from them is given in the table 2 given below: Table 2: Prices of Residential Plots according to Property Dealers

Prices (lacs/marla) Johar Town-II

Name of Estate Agency Arabian Developers Al-Musawar estate Hamza estate Zafar property Iqra estate advisors K.C Real estate

Average price

PCSIR-II

Near parks 4.5-5

Away from parks 4-4.5

Near parks 4.2-4.8

Away from parks 3.9-4.1

4-4.5 4.8-5.2 5-5.6 5-5.2 4.6-5

3.75-4.0 4-4.6 4.4-4.8 4.6-4.8 4-4.2

4-4.3 4-4.5 4.1-4.3 4.7-4.9 4.3-4.6

3.7-4.1 4.1-4.4 3.6-4 4.2-4.5 3.8-4

4.87

4.3

4.4

4.03

Data analysis shows that the prices of the plots, in Johar Town-II located close to the parks range from 4-5.6 lacs per marla while in PCSIR-II prices range from 4-4.9 lacs per marla. Data collected from Estate agencies shows that there are no differences in prices of plots located within walking distance of 5minutes walk and 45 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

beyond that. Prices of the plots, in Johar Town-II located away from the parks, range from 3.75-4.8 lacs per marla while in PCSIR-II prices range from 3.6-4.5 lacs per marla.

So, the average prices of plots in Johar Town-II located close to the parks is 4.87 lacs per marla and average prices of plots in PCSIR-II located close to the parks is 4.4 lacs per marla. The average prices of plots in Johar Town-II located within walking distance and away from parks is 4.3 lacs per marla and average prices of plots in PCSIR-II located within walking distance and away from parks is 4.03 lacs per marla.

The prices of various categories of plots in both case study areas according to property dealers are shown in chart 5.

4.87

Near parks

4.30

4.30

4.40

Away Near parks Within walking from parks distance

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

4.03

4.03

walking Away distance from parks

PCSIR-II

Chart 5: Prices of various categories of Residential Plots according to Property Dealers (lacs/marla)

For details see Annexure Table 3a.

5.1.3 Structured Talks with Officials of Housing Schemes The prices of each category plot were also verified from the respective development authority officials. Although in case of Johar town, the plots are not directly sold through the concerned development authority (LDA), rather all the plots if available are in the market and can be purchased through different estate agents. but still we 46 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

gathered a rough estimate of the prices of plots near or beyond parks from the officials of LDA in order to get their point of view regarding the prevailing prices of plots near and beyond parks.

According to LDA officials the average market price of plots close to the parks in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) is 5 lacs and proximity of parks increases the value of plots by 10-15% of normal price of plot. Impacts of parks on nearby residential plots are always positive and no negative impacts have been seen so far i.e. environmental, social, and economic.

According to PCSIR-II officials the average market price of plots in PCSIR-II is 4 lacs and parks’ proximity increases the value of plots by 10-15% of normal price of plot. Impacts of parks on nearby residential plots are always positive and no negative impacts have been seen so far i.e. environmental, social, and economic.

The results are shown in the chart 6 given below: 5.00

4.50

4.50

4.60 4.00

Near parks

Within walking distance

Away from parks

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Near parks

walking distance

4.00

Away from parks

PCSIR-II

Chart 6: Prices of residential plots according to officials (lacs/marla)

For details see Annexure Table 3.

5.1.4 Comparison of Prices The Estimated prices of plots of all the three categories in Johar town phase-II are higher than the prices of the plots in PCSIR phase-II. The prices of the plots of all

47 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

the three categories from the three different sources and their comparison can also be seen in a graphical form as follows.

Property Dealers 4.87

Officials

Households

5.00 4.53

Near parks

4.30

4.50 4.18

Within walking distance

4.50 4.60 4.40 4.30 4.25 4.13

Away from parks

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Near parks

4.03

4.00

3.89 4.03

walking distance

4.00 3.75

Away from parks

PCSIR-II

Chart 7: Estimated Market Prices (lacs/Marla)

For details see Annexure Table 4.

5.1.5 Current Market Price After having the compact prices of plots of each category through three different sources, we get three prices for each category plots. For example the price of plots in front of parks in PCSIR-II, according to local residence is 4.25 lacs/marla.

Similarly according to estate agents, the estimated price is 4.40 lacs/marla. And according to officials the price of per Marla in PCSIR-II is 4.60 lacs. In this way we have three different values against the same category plots. So in order to have a single value for a single category plot we give different weightage to each source by keeping in mind the importance and reliability of each source.

In this way by keeping the authenticity and reliability factor in mind we assign 75% weightage to the prices told by estate agents as they are in the market and are the major dealers of sale and purchase of plots and similarly 20% weightage was given to the prices told by local respondents and only 5% weightage given to the prices 48 | P a g e

DATA ANALYSIS

Chapter 5

told by the officials. In this way the different prices told by the three sources were multiplied by their weightage and then the sum of the multiplied entries was divided by 3 to get a single weighted value against each category plot. Tabular illustration of the process can be seen in the Annexure Table 5.

After calculating the weighted value the result inferred is as follows: The current market price per Marla of plots in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3), that are in front of parks is 4.81 lacs. And market price per Marla of plots within the range of walking distance of parks is 4.29 lacs. Similarly market price per Marla of plots that are located at a distance of more than 400 meters from parks is 4.28 lacs.

The GIS based map of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) showing plots falling into various categories of prices is given below:

Map 6: Map showing average prices of residential plots in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) Similarly the current market price per Marla of plots in PCSIR-II that are in front of parks is 4.38 lacs. And market price per Marla of plots within the range of walking distance of parks is 4.00 lacs. Similarly market price per Marla of plots that are located at a distance of more than 400 meters from parks is 3.97 lacs.

49 | P a g e

DATA ANALYSIS

Chapter 5

The GIS based map of PCSIR-II showing plots falling into various categories of prices is given below:

Map 7: Map showing average prices of residential plots in PCSIR-II

The chart showing the current weighted values of the plots in front of parks as well as the plots within walking distance and the plots away from parks is as below.

50 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

4.81

Near parks

4.29

4.28

4.38

Within walking distance

Away from parks

Near parks

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

4.00

3.97

walking distance

Away from parks

PCSIR-II

Chart 8: Current Market Prices of various categories of plots

For details see Annexure Table 5.

From the above graph it can be clearly seen that in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) there is a difference of 52 thousand in the plots that are located in front of parks and plots that are located in a range of 400 meters from parks. So we can say that there is a difference of 10.81% in the prices among these plots. Similarly the difference between the prices of plots in front of parks and the plots located at a distance of more than 400 meters is 11.01%. In the same way it can be seen that there is a negligible difference of prices between the plots that lie within the range of 400 meters but not in front of parks and the plots that are at a distance of more than 400 meters. The difference is only 0.23%.

Similarly the above graph shows that in PCSIR窶的I there is a difference of 38 thousand in the plots that are located in front of parks and plots that are located in a range of 400 meters from parks. So we can say that there is a difference of 8.68% in the prices among these plots. Similarly the difference between the prices of plots in front of parks and the plots located at a distance of more than 400 meters is 9.36 %. In the same way it can be seen that the difference of prices between the plots that lie within the range of 400 meters but not in front of parks and the plots that are at a distance of more than 400 meters is also negligible. The difference is only 0.75%.

51 | P a g e

DATA ANALYSIS

Chapter 5

5.2 Difference in Living near or Beyond Park It is quite evident from the above analysis that there is a difference in prices of plots near and beyond parks. The question arises that is there really any difference in living near or beyond parks due to which there is a difference in prices.

5.2.1 Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) In Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) from the total respondents that live in front of parks 78.60% of the respondents agreed to the fact that there is a difference in living in front or away from parks. Remaining 21.40%of the respondents do not think that there is any difference living near or beyond parks.

Similarly from the total respondents that live within the buffer zone of 400 meters from parks 71.40% of the respondents agreed to the fact that there is a difference in living in front or away from parks. Remaining 28.60%of the respondents do not think that there is any difference living near or beyond parks.

And the total respondents that live outside the buffer zone of 400 meters from parks 78.60% agreed to the fact that there is a difference in living in front or away from parks. Remaining 21.40%of the respondents do not think that there is any difference living near or beyond parks.

5.2.2 PCSIR-II In PCSIR-II from the total respondents that live in front of parks 85% of the respondents agreed to the fact that there is a difference in living in front or away from parks. Remaining 15%of the respondents do not think that there is any difference living near or beyond parks.

Similarly from the total respondents that live within the buffer zone of 400 meters from parks 80% of the respondents agreed to the fact that there is a difference in living in front or away from parks. Remaining 20%of the respondents do not think that there is any difference living near or beyond parks.

And the total respondents that live outside the buffer zone of 400 meters from parks 70% agreed to the fact that there is a difference in living in front or away from parks. Remaining 30%of the respondents do not think that there is any difference living near or beyond parks.

52 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

Following chart is also depicting the percentages of respondents that agreed and disagreed on the fact that is there any difference living in front and away from parks.

Close to the park 78.60%

71.40%

Park at a walk of 5 mins

Park at a walk of more than 5 mins 85% 80%

78.60%

70%

28.60% 21.40% 21.40%

Agreed

Disagreed PCSIR-II

15% 20% Agreed

30%

Disagreed

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Chart 9: View of residents regarding difference of living near or beyond park

For details see Annexure Table 6.

Although in both housing schemes majority of the respondents agreed that there is a difference living near or beyond parks. The percentage in case of PCSIR-II is more than Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3). This is due to the reason that PCSIR-II is a privately administrated and the parks in this locality is more maintained and developed than those in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3).

5.3 Possible Difference Living Near or Beyond Park When asked from the respondent of PCSIR-II and Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) about the possible differences in living near and beyond parks. 28.50% respondents in PSCIR窶的I told that parks provide a recreational site to them and they do not have to waste time to reach these recreational sites. 38% respondents consider parks as a place of exercise areas where they can easily go and have their exercise without doing any effort to reach to the far away open spaces. And 57.10% respondents consider parks as a place that provides natural beautification.

47.60% respondents feel that parks are the source of healthy environment and similarly 45% respondents consider parks as a source of greenery and buffer zone.33.33% respondents feel the difference of easy accessibility to these parks while living in front of them. These all are the positive factors that contributes to 53 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

the high prices of plots in front of parks. But a small percentage of respondents also feel some negative aspects of parks. About 4.80% respondents feel the difficulty of parking issues during parties in parks.4.80% respondents also show their grief’s on late night functions that becomes the source of disturbance for them.

Similarly 30% respondents in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) told that parks provide a recreational site to them. 25 % respondents consider parks as a place of exercise areas where they can easily go and have their exercise without doing any effort to reach to the far away open spaces. And 40% respondents consider parks as a place that provides natural beautification. 41.60% respondents feel that parks are the source of healthy environment and similarly 56.60% respondents consider parks as a source of greenery and buffer zone. 65% respondents feel the difference of easy accessibility to these parks while living in front of them. These all are the positive factors that contributes to the high prices of plots in front of parks. But a small percentage of respondents also feel some negative aspects of parks. About 5% respondents feel the issues of privacy while living in front of parks. Following graph depicts the above mentioned percentages of both PCSIR-II and Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) in a form of a comparison.

PCSIR-II

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

Chart 10: Possible difference living near or beyond park

The above shown graph depicts the variations in the percentages in both PCSIR-II and Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3). It can be observed that percentage of responses 54 | P a g e

DATA ANALYSIS

Chapter 5

of exercise area in PCSIR-II is 38% and in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) this percentage is 25%.the reason is that the parks of PCSIR-II are well developed and equipped with proper jogging tracks. Whereas no such facility is prevailing in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3). The other major difference is in the easy accessibility factor.

The percentage in PCSIR-II is .33.33 where as in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) this percentage becomes .65%.the main reason of this difference according to the respondents of both case study areas is that parks are almost accessible in both PCSIR-II as majority of the plots lies in the range of 400 meters which is considered as a walking distance. On the other end, in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) more houses lie at a range of more than 400 meters so those respondents feel the issue of easy accessibility and recons that increase of prices of plots in front of parks is due to this factor.

5.4 Difference in Prices Near or Beyond Park When asked from the respondents about their experience regarding the difference of prices of plots in front and away from parks.

In PCSIR-II 100% respondents living in front of parks told that there is a difference of prices of plots near and beyond parks and 93% respondents that live at a walking distance as well as the respondents whose plots are located at a distance of more than 400 meters, agreed that the difference in prices of plots near and beyond parks are prevailing in their area. Rest of the 7% respondents doesn’t feel that there is any difference of prices.

55 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

Close to the park

Park at a walk of 5 mins

Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

100.00%

100.00% 93.00% 93.00%

85% 75%

25% 7.00% 0.00%

Agreed

7.00%

Disagreed

0.00%

Agreed

15%

Disagreed

Chart 11: Difference in prices near or beyond park

For details see Annexure Table 7.

The above chart also shows that In Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) 100% respondents living in front of parks told that there is a a difference of prices of plots near and beyond parks and 75% respondents that live at a walking distance agreed that the difference in prices of plots near and beyond parks are prevailing in their area. Rest of the 25% respondents doesn’t feel that there is any difference of prices. Similarly 85%of the respondents living at a distance of more than 400 meters feel this difference and the other 15% does not feel the difference of price of plots near and away from parks.

5.5 Possible Factors for High Market Prices When asked from the respondents about the possible factors that contribute in fixing high prices of plots that are located in front of parks 47.60% respondents of PCSIR-II and 63% respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) feel that parks are a major source of recreational sites. And 64% respondents of PCSIR-II and 43% respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) consider the factor of social gathering in the increase of prices. And 35.70% respondents of PCSIR-II and 35% respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) feel the difference of prices are due to 56 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

the factor of availability of exercise area. Whereas 69% respondents of PCSIR-II and51.70% respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) feel the factor of natural beatification in fixing high prices of plots that are in front of parks. 60% respondents of PCSIR-II and 46.70% respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) feel the factor of healthy environment in fixing high prices of plots that are in front of parks. Similarly 64.30% respondents of PCSIR-II and 55% respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) consider the factor that is responsible for the high price of plots in front of parks is Greenery and buffer zone. And 71.40% respondents of PCSIR-II and 65% respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) feel that the factor of easy accessibility to parks is the main reason of high prices of the plots that are located in front of them.

PCSIR-II

63%

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3) 69.00%

64%

60% 51.70%

47.60% 43%

64.30%

71.40% 65%

55%

46.70%

35.70% 35%

Recreational Site

Social Exercise Area Natural Healthy Greenery and Easy Gathering Beautification Environment Buffer Zone Accessibility

Chart 12: Possible factors for high market prices

For details see Annexure Table 8.

The above shown chart represents a more clear comparison of the views of respondents of both the case study areas regarding the factors that contribute to high prices of plots in front of parks.

5.6 Prime Factors that Contribute for High Market Price After having the view points of the respondents of both Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and PCSIR-II, a prioritization chart can be made that show the most important 57 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

factors in a hierarchical order that contribute in fixing the high prices of plots that are in front of parks the chart of those important factors along with their percentages is given below

68.20%

60.35% 59.65% 55.45%

54%

53% 35.35%

Chart 13: chart showing the factors playing vital role in fixing high prices

For details see Annexure Table 9.

The above chart is depicting the most influential factors. It can be seen that easy accessibility is the top most factor that contributes in fixing the high prices of plots in front of the parks. 68.20% of the total respondents feel that easy access to parks is the prime reason of price differences of plots that are in front and away from parks. The second most important factor in this regard according to the results of the survey is natural beatification.60.35% respondents feel that the high prices of plots in front of parks is due to the reason that these parks enhance the natural beatification of the surrounding area. The third important factor in this respect is greenery and buffer zone.59.65% respondents feel that natural greenery and buffer zone helps in eliminating various pollutions the fourth factor that plays an important role in the high price of plots facing parks is the recreational site.55.45%respondats feel hat parks are the major source of recreation and if the parks are in close proximity to their plots, there are more chances for them to avail such recreation .similarly 54% respondents consider the reason of high prices of plots facing parks 58 | P a g e

DATA ANALYSIS

Chapter 5

is social gathering similarly 53% respondents feel that the prices of plots facing parks are high as parks provide a healthy environment for the residents of those plots. And the least contributing factor in this regard is the facility of parks to provide exercise area. Only 35.35 respondents feel that this factor play its role in fixing high prices of plots that is in front of parks.

5.7 Should There Be Difference in Prices of Plots Near or Beyond Park When asked from the respondents about their opinion whether they think there should be any difference of prices of plots that are in front of parks and the plots that are away from parks.

In PCSIR-II 64.30% of the respondents that are living in front of parks are of the opinion that there should be a difference of prices of plots in front of parks as these plots enjoy more facilities as compared to the people that live away from parks. But rest of 35.70% respondents don’t agree that there should be any difference of prices as this may create a class difference and affordability factors for the intended users.

Whereas 71.40% of the total respondents that live within the range of walking distance In PCSIR-II also agreed on fixing relatively high prices on the plots that are facing parks. The reason they put forward is the availability of different facilities at footsteps. Rest of the 28.60% respondents doesn’t agree that there should be any difference of prices of plots that are near and beyond parks.

Similarly 78.50% of the total respondents that live at a distance of more than 400 meters feel that there should be a reasonable difference of prices for the plots that face parks as they enjoy more facilities compared to the others.

In the same way the 80% of the respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) that are living in front of parks are of the opinion that there should be a difference of prices of plots in front of parks as these plots enjoy more facilities as compared to the people that live away from parks. But rest of 20% respondents don’t agree that there should be any difference of prices as this may create a class difference and affordability factors for the intended users.

59 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

Whereas 60% of the total respondents that live within the range of walking distance In Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) also agreed on fixing relatively high prices on the plots that are facing parks. The reason they put forward is the availability of different facilities at footsteps. Rest of the 40% respondents doesn’t agreed that there should be any difference of prices of plots that are near and beyond parks.

Similarly 85% of the total respondents that live at a distance of more than 400 meters feel that there should be a reasonable difference of prices for the plots that face parks as they enjoy more facilities compared to the others. Rest of 15% of the respondents doesn’t agree on fixing high prices for plots that are facing parks.

Close to the park

64.30%

71.40%

Park at a walk of 5 mins

78.50%

Park at a walk of more than 5 mins 85%

80% 60%

40%

35.70% 28.60% 21.50%

Yes

No PCSIR-II

20%

Yes

15%

No

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Chart 14: Should there be difference in prices of plots near or beyond park

The above chart is showing a type of comparison of the respondents of both the case study areas about their point of views regarding the fixing of some extra charges on plots that face parks and as a result enjoy more facilities compared to other users of the area.

For details see Annexure Table 10.

5.8 Willingness to Sell House Specifically when asked the respondents about their willingness to sell their plots as a result of any positive or negative impacts of parks. 100% respondents of PCSIR-II that they are quite satisfied living in their houses. And there are no such factors as a result of which they wish to sale their plots. Whereas in case of Johar Town-II 60 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

(Block J2, J3), only 4% respondents are willing to sell their house. When asked from them about the reason of selling their plots they told us to gain economic benefits. Rests of the 96% of the respondents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are not willing to sell their houses.

PCSIR-II

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3) 100%

96%

4%

0%

Willing

Not willing

Chart 15: Willingness to sell house

For details see Annexure Table 11.

5.9 Respondent & Family Members Visiting This Park In order to explore more reasons of the increase of prices of plots facing parks, when asked from the respondents about their frequency of visits to these parks and also the frequency of visits of their family members in PCSIR-II 78.60% children of age less than 10 years of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park where as 57.10% children of age less than 10 years of the respondents that are living within the walking distance visit parks and similarly 42.80% children of age less than 10 years of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks.

Whereas in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) 30% children of age less than 10 years of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park where as 55% children of age less than 10 years of the respondents that are living within the 61 | P a g e

DATA ANALYSIS

Chapter 5

walking distance visit parks and similarly 45% children of age less than 10 years of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks similarly in PCSIR phase-II, 64.30% males of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park and 42.80% males of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living within the walking distance visit parks and similarly 64.30% males of age between 10 to 50 years of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks.

Whereas in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) 75% males of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park and 55% males of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living within the walking distance visit parks and similarly 35% males of age between 10 to 50 years of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks.

Similarly in PCSIR phase-II, 42.80% females of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park and 50% females of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living within the walking distance visit parks and similarly 35.70% females of age between 10 to 50 years of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks.

Whereas in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) 65% females of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park and 45%females of age between 10 to 50 years, of the respondents that are living within the walking distance visit parks and similarly 40% females of age between 10 to 50 years of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks.

Similarly in PCSIR phase-II, 35.70% elderly people, of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park and 50% elderly people, of the respondents that are living within the walking distance visit parks and similarly 42.80% elderly people of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks.

62 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

Whereas in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) 40% elderly people, of the respondents that are living in front of parks visits the park and 45% elderly people, of the respondents that are living within the walking distance visit parks and similarly 35% elderly people of the respondents that are living at a distance of more than 400 meters, visits the parks.

90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Close to the Park at a walk Park at a walk Close to the Park at a walk Park at a walk park of 5 mins of more than 5 park of 5 mins of more than 5 mins mins PCSIR-II Children less than 10 years

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3) Males 10-50 years

Females 10-50 years

Elderly people

Chart 16: Respondent & Family members visiting this park

The above graph shows the frequency of visits of the respondents and their family members to the parks. It is evident from the graph that in case of PCSIR-II there is an inverse relation between the frequency of visits of children and the distance. And in case of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) there is a less frequency of children that visits parks as compared to PCSIR phase-II.the reason is that the area of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) is quite large. And parents feel the security issues in allowing their children to visit these parks. Whereas PCSIR phase II is quite a secure place regarding any security issues.

For details see Annexure Table 12.

5.10 Impact of Type of Recreation Activities on Prices of Plots The parks in the case study area were divided into two major categories i.e. Parks providing active recreation and parks providing passive recreation. In order to find 63 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

out whether type of recreational activities affects housing prices or not data was collected both for Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and PCSIR-II. In PCSIR-II there are 6 parks and all these parks are providing active recreational activities for the residents of this area. There is no park providing only passive recreational activities.

According to house hold survey conducted in PCSIR-II, the plots located close to the park providing active recreational activities have price 4.38 lacs per marla. The plots which are located within a walking distance of 5 minutes from the parks providing active recreational activities have price 4.00 lacs per marla. The plots which are located at a walk of more than 5 minutes from a park providing active recreational activities have price 3.97 lacs per marla. The results are given in the table below: Table 3: Impact of Type of recreation activities on prices of plots (PCSIR-II)

Type of recreation activities

Number of parks

Active Passive

Prices of Plots prices of plots in front of parks (lacs/marla)

prices of plots within walking distance (lacs/marla)

prices of plots away from parks (lacs/marla)

6

4.38

4.00

3.97

0

0

0

0

In Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) there are three parks. Two parks are providing active recreation and one park is providing passive recreation.

According to house hold survey conducted in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3), the plots located close to the park providing active recreational activities have price 4.81 lacs per marla. While the plots located close to the park providing passive recreational activities also have a same price. The plots which are located within a walking distance of 5 minutes from the parks providing active recreational activities have price 4.29 lacs per marla. And the plots located close to the park providing passive recreational activities also have a same price. The plots which are located at a walk of more than 5 minutes from a park providing active recreational activities have

64 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

price 4.28 lacs per marla. And the plots located close to the park providing passive recreational activities also have a same price.

These results are given in the table below: Table 4: Impact of Type of recreation activities on prices of plots (JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2, J3))

Type of recreation activities

Number of parks

Active Passive

2 1

Prices of Plots prices of plots in front of parks (lacs/marla)

prices of plots within walking distance (lacs/marla)

prices of plots away from parks (lacs/marla)

4.81 4.81

4.29 4.29

4.28 4.28

5.11 Impact of Maintenance Authority on Prices of Plots In PCSIR-II, management of PCSIR-II is responsible for proper maintenance of parks and PHA is responsible for maintenance of parks in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3).

The household survey conducted in PCSIR-II and Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) shows that the prices of plots located close to the park in PCSIR-II is 4.38 lacs per marla. While in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3), prices of plots located close to the Park is 4.81 lacs per marla. So there is a difference in the prices of plots located close to the park of both the housing schemes and plots of this category in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are 52 thousand rupees per marla costly than the plots of PCSIR-II. The prices of plots in PCSIR-II located at a walking distance of 5 minutes from park have a price of 4.00 lacs per marla and plots in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) located at a walking distance of 5 minutes from park have a price 4.29 lacs per marla. So there is a difference in the prices of plots located at walking distance of 5 minutes from park of both the housing schemes and plots of this category in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are 29 thousand rupees per marla costly than the plots of PCSIR-II. The prices of plots in PCSIR-II located at a walking distance of more than 5 minutes from park have a price of 3.97 lacs per marla and plots in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) located at a walking distance of more than 5 minutes from park have a price of 65 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

4.28 lacs per marla. So there is a difference in the prices of plots located at walking distance of more than 5 minutes from park of both the housing schemes and plots of this category in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are 31 thousand rupees per marla costly than the plots of PCSIR-II. So we can say that the plots located in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) where parks are managed by PHA are more costly than the plots located in PCSIR-II where parks are managed by Management of PCSIR-II. The results are given in the table given below: Table 5: Impact of Maintenance Authority on Prices of plots

Authority responsible for maintenance

Number of parks

prices of plots in front of parks (lacs/marla)

prices of plots within walking distance (lacs/marla)

prices of plots away from parks (lacs/marla)

6

4.38

4.00

3.97

3

4.81

4.29

4.28

PCSIR-II Management PHA

5.12 Impact of Size of Parks on Land Prices In order to check the impact of size of park on the prices of nearby residential plots the required data is arranged in the table 6. This table shows that there is no impact of size of parks on nearby residential plots.

Table 6: Impact of size of parks on Land prices

Impact of size of parks on Land prices Area (acres) Less than one 1_5

Close to the park PCSIRII

Park at a walk of 5 mins PCSIRII

4.38

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3) 4.81

4.00

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3) 4.29

4.38

4.81

4.00

4.29

66 | P a g e

Park at a walk of more than 5 mins PCSIRJOHAR TOWN-II II (BLOCK J2,J3)

3.97

4.28

3.97

4.28

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

5.13 Impact of Size of Plots on Land Prices In order to see the impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3), the collected data is given in the chart 17. This table clearly shows that the prices of per marls residential plot are not depending on the size of plot.

Plot Sizes (marlas)

60

6_ 10

11_20

20+

28 12

4.81 4.81 4.81 Close to the Park

Percentage of Plots (%)

4.29 4.29 4.29

4.28 4.28 4.28

Within Walking Away from Park Distance Prices (lacs/marla)

Chart 17: Impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)

In order to see the impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in PCSIR-II the collected data is given in the chart 18. This table clearly shows that the prices of per marls residential plot are not depending on the size of plot.

67 | P a g e

Chapter 5

DATA ANALYSIS

40

Plot Sizes (marlas) 34

upto 5

6_ 10

11_20

26

4.38 4.38

4.38

Close to the Park Percentage of Plots (%)

4.00 4.00

4.00

3.97 3.97 3.97

Within Walking Away from Park Distance Prices (lacs/marla)

Chart 18: Impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in PCSIR-II

For details see Annexure Table 14.

68 | P a g e

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 6

CHAPTER6

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Findings  The case study area is located in southern portion of Lahore City and it aims at providing housing to upper middle income class of society.  Both the schemes were planned in 1980-81.  Initial price offered in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) was 50 thousand rupees per marla and in PCSIR-II it was 35 thousand rupees per marla.  80% of area of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) and 65% residential plots of PCSIR-II have been developed into houses.  The major categories of plots in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are 5 marla, 10 marla, 15 marla and 20 marla plots. The major categories of plots in PCSIRII are 4.5 Marla, 9 Marla and 18 Marla.  Total number of parks in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) is 3 and total number of parks in PCSIR-II is 6.  2 parks out of 3 in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are tot lots and one is sub Neighborhood Park. While all the parks in PCSIR-II fall in the category of tot lots.  2 parks out of 3 in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are providing active recreation and one is providing passive recreation. While all the six parks in PCSIR-II are providing active recreation.  The parks in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) are managed and maintained by PHA and the parks in PCSIR-II are being managed and maintained by management of PCSIR-II.

69 | P a g e

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 6

 These parks are frequently used by the residents and most of the visits are made on daily basis.  78% residents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) agree with the fact that there is difference in living near and beyond park. While 76% residents of PCSIR-II agree with the fact that there is difference in living near and beyond park.  According to the residents major reasons for difference in living near and beyond park are because parks serves as recreational places and provide natural beautification, greenery, healthy environment and exercise area.  According to 87% residents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) there is difference in prices near and beyond park. While 95% residents of PCSIR-II consider that this phenomena of difference in prices exists.  Keeping in view the various benefits associated with proximity to park, 75% residents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) say that that plots closer to parks should have a high prices while 71% of residents of PCSIR-II supported this opinion.  4% residents of Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) who are living close to park want to sell their property for economic gain while nobody in PCSIR-II wants to sell property.  Survey conducted from property dealers and officials of the scheme revealed that proximity to park increases the value of nearby residential land by 1015%.  The average prices of the parks were calculated on the basis of data gathered from household surveys, property dealers and officials of the housing schemes.  Data analysis revealed that in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) price of plot near park is 4.81 thousand rupees per marla, price of plot within walking distance of 400 m is 4.29 thousand rupees per marla and price of plots located away from park is 4.28 thousand rupees per marla.  In PCSIR-II price of plot near park is 4.38 thousand rupees per marla, price of plot within walking distance of 400 m is 4.00 thousand rupees per marla and price of plots located away from park is 3.97 thousand rupees per marla.

70 | P a g e

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 6

 When these schemes were developed the concept of high prices of residential land due to proximity to park was not taken into consideration.  The land located close to the parks managed by PHA has higher prices than the prices of land located close to the park managed by management of PCSIR-II.  In Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) value of residential plot located close to the park increases by 10.8% as compared to a plot located at a walking distance of 400 m and 11.01% as compared to a plot located beyond that distance. 

While in PCSIR-II value of residential plot located close to the park increases by 8.68% as compared to a plot located at a walking distance of 400 m and 9.36 % as compared to a plot located beyond that distance.

6.2 Conclusion  Data analysis shows that Proximity to parks increases the value of nearby residential plots. 

The impact of high prices reduces if the distance between parks and residential land increases.

 Type of recreational activities (active and passive) has the same impact on the prices of nearby residential plots i.e. value increases  Maintenance authority responsible for maintenance and management of parks also puts an impact on prices of nearby residential plots.  No negative impact on the prices of nearby residential plots has been seen so far.  LDA is not using the concept of high prices of plots close to parks in their new developing scheme i.e. LDA Avenue I  Majority of the residents of the case study area are of the view that residential plots located close to the park should have high prices because they enjoy maximum benefits associated with the proximity to park.  Impact on prices of the residential plots is not dependent on the size of adjacent park within a particular housing scheme.

71 | P a g e

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 6

6.3 Recommendations  As for extra profit making private housing schemes usually charge extra percentage of amount on plots that are in front of parks. Similarly in Government housing schemes, the concept of additional charges on plots facing parks should also be applied for the purpose of accumulating more taxes which should therefore be used for the purpose of development of the area.  If it is not feasible to charge additional amount on the plots facing parks, then the prices of plots that cannot enjoy the full benefits of parks should be reduced so as to maintain some sort of difference in prices of plots that are in front and away from the proximity of parks.  Monthly maintenance charges should also be imposed keeping in view the distance of plots from parks. The residents of plots that are the major beneficiaries of parks should be charged more as compared to the residents residing away from the proximity of parks.  The concept of having more percentage of parks and open spaces in new housing schemes than the existing percentage i.e. 7%. should be encouraged so as to provide the users healthy environment and green buffer zones. The cost of development of parks should be recovered by imposing additional charges on plots facing parks. 

For already existing housing schemes Government should invest capital to maintain parks and open spaces. This will help to increase the values of land due to proper maintenance and subsequently it will help to collect more amounts of taxes as the result of increased land values.

6.4 Areas of Future Research  The research has been carried out in planned residential areas only. Study on unplanned areas can also be done to estimate the net percentage difference of price of plots that are in proximity and away from parks.  This research has been carried out only to estimate the percentage difference of prices of residential plots. Similar study can be done to examine the influence of parks and open spaces on adjacent commercial units.

72 | P a g e

Chapter 6

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ďƒ˜ The major limitation encountered by the research team was a lack of time.

The scope of the research had to be limited due to time constraints. More extensive and in depth research can be done prior to make large scale decisions that could produce significant fiscal and property value impact. ďƒ˜ Due to the unavailability of sufficient quantitative data, hedonic method could not be used which is usually recommended to study the increase in prices of land due to the impacts of parks. By having the relevant data about structural

characteristics

(physical

attributes

of

the

land)

neighborhood/community characteristics (e.g. school district, local property tax, rate); environmental characteristics (e.g., noise and pollution levels, existence of a view); locational characteristics (proximity to

various

amenities including schools, shopping and parks), the Implementation of this multiple regression-based method can be used to measure the impact of parks on adjacent land values. ďƒ˜ Another possible area of future research would be to undertake an evaluation of the differences in proximate values of land between communities, and not individual land or properties within a community. Such comparison may be between communities that are adjacent to Community Parks and other being away from parks. This type of analysis would help to better identify all those factors that make one community have higher overall assessed values verses other less valued communities.

73 | P a g e

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY •

Dunse, White and Dehring (2007) Urban parks, Open Space and Residential Property Values, RICS Research Paper Series [Internet], September, Volume 7, Number 8. Available from: < http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx? fileID =5728&fileExtension=PDF> [Accessed 13 March 2011]

•

B. Bolitzer and N.R. Netusil (2000) The impact of open spaces on property values

in

Portland,

[Internet],Issue

Oregon.,

59,

pp.

Journal

of

Environmental

185–193.

Management

Available

from:

<

http://harbaugh.uoregon.edu/Readings/Environmental/Bolitzer%20and%20Netu sil%202000%20JEM%20Portland%20land%20parks.pdf >

[Accessed

1

May

2011] •

M. Espey and K. Owusu-Edusei (2001) Neighborhood parks and residential property values in Greenville, South Carolina, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics [Internet], Issue Number 33, pp. 487-492. Available from: <gozips.uakron.edu/~yy16/SOURCES/pdf/neighborhood%20park.pdf> [Accessed 23 April 2011]

•

C.Y. Jim, Wendy Y. Chen, External Effects of Neighborhood Parks and Landscape

Elements

on

High-Rise

Residential

Value

[Internet],

Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Available from:

<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VB0-

4X9D5GR21&_cdi=5912&_user=3451693&_pii=S0264837709001239&_origin=g ateway&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2010&_sk=999729997&view=c&wchp=dGLb VzbzSkzV&md5=1cbc0068764fe6ee771b192441767370&ie=/sdarticle.pdf> [Accessed 27 February 2011] •

Gupta, Mythili and Hegde (2009), Deriving Implicit Prices for Urban Environmental Amenities from Mumbai Housing Prices: A Revealed Preference Approach [Internet], National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India, Available from: < www.ceep europe.org/workshop_files/workshop48_151.pdf > [Accessed 18 April 2011]

Annexure

ANNEXURE Annexure 1: Questionnaires

Annexure

Annexure

Annexure

Annexure

Annexure

Annexure

Annexure 2: Tables Annexure Table 1: Calculation of estimated price of the residential plots Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)

Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) Location of House

number of respondants (f)

Range of prices

Close to the park

13 5 2

SUM

20

Park at a walk of 5 mins

5 13 2

SUM

20

Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

7 11 2

SUM

20

Average price(f(x))

4.5 -5.0 4.0- 4.5 3.5-4.0

4.75 4.25 3.75

Accumulative price(â&#x2C6;&#x2018;f*f(X)/â&#x2C6;&#x2018;f)

f*f(X) 61.75 21.25 7.50

4.53

90.50 3.5-4.0 4.0- 4.5 4.5 -5.0

3.75 4.25 4.75

18.75 55.25 9.50

4.18

83.50 3.5-4.0 4.0- 4.5 4.5 -5.0

3.75 4.25 4.75

26.25 46.75 9.50

4.13

82.50

Annexure Table 2: Estimated Price of residential plots (Lacs/marla) from household surveys

Current Market Prices (lacs/Marla) JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Respondent Households

PCSIR-II

Near parks

Within walking distance

Away from parks

Near parks

walking distance

Away from parks

4.53

4.18

4.13

4.25

3.89

3.75

Annexure Table 3: Estimated Price of residential plots (Lacs/marla) from property dealers

Current Market Prices (lacs/Marla) JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Respondent Officials

PCSIR-II

Near parks

Within walking distance

Away from parks

Near parks

walking distance

Away from parks

5.00

4.50

4.50

4.60

4.00

4.00

Annexure Annexure Table 3a: Estimated Price of residential plots (Lacs/marla) from Property dealers

Current Market Prices (lacs/Marla) JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Respondent Property Dealers

PCSIR-II

Near parks

Within walking distance

Away from parks

Near parks

walking distance

Away from parks

4.87

4.30

4.30

4.40

4.03

4.03

Annexure Table 4: Comparison of Prices (lacs/Marla)

Comparison of Prices (lacs/Marla) JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Respondent Property Dealers Officials Households

PCSIR-II

Near parks

Within walking distance

Away from parks

Near parks

walking distance

Away from parks

4.87

4.30

4.30

4.40

4.03

4.03

5.00 4.53

4.50 4.18

4.50 4.13

4.60 4.25

4.00 3.89

4.00 3.75

Annexure Table 5: Current Market Prices of various categories of plots

Current Market Prices (lacs/Marla) JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Near parks

Within walking distance

4.81

PCSIR-II

Away from parks 4.29

Near parks

4.28

walking distance

4.38

Away from parks

4.00

3.97

Annexure Table 6: Difference in living near or beyond park

Difference in living near or beyond park Location of House Close to the park Park at a walk of 5 mins Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

PCSIR-II Agreed 78.60% 71.40% 78.60%

Disagreed 21.40% 28.60% 21.40%

Agreed 85% 80% 70%

Disagreed 15% 20% 30%

Annexure Annexure Table 7 Difference in prices near or beyond park

Difference in prices near or beyond park JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

PCSIR-II

Location of House Close to the park Park at a walk of 5 mins Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

Agreed 100.00% 93.00%

Disagreed 0.00% 7.00%

Agreed 100.00% 75%

Disagreed 0.00% 25%

93.00%

7.00%

85%

15%

Annexure Table 8: Possible factors for high market prices

Possible factors for high market prices Case Study Areas

Recreational Social Exercise Natural Healthy Site Gathering Area Beautification Environment

PCSIR-II

Greenery and Buffer Zone

Easy Accessibility

47.60%

64%

35.70%

69.00%

60%

64.30%

71.40%

63%

43%

35%

51.70%

46.70%

55%

65%

JOHAR TOWNII (BLOCK J2,J3)

Annexure Table 9: Table showing the factors playing vital role in fixing high prices

Ranking of factors for high market prices Case Study Areas

Easy Accessibility

Natural Beautification

Greenery and Buffer Zone

Percentages

68.20%

60.35%

59.65%

Recreational Social Healthy Exercise Site Gathering Environment Area 55.45%

54%

53%

35.35%

Annexure Table 10: Should there be difference in prices of plots near or beyond park

Should there be difference in prices of plots near or beyond park JOHAR TOWN-II Location of House PCSIR-II (BLOCK J2,J3) Yes

No

Yes

No

Close to the park

64.30%

35.70%

80%

20%

Park at a walk of 5 mins

71.40%

28.60%

60%

40%

Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

78.50%

21.50%

85%

15%

Annexure Annexure Table 11: Willingness to sell house

Willingness to sell house Case Study Areas PCSIR-II JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Willing

Not willing 0% 4%

100% 96%

Annexure Table 12: Respondent & Family members visiting this park

Respondent & Family members visiting this park Case Study Area

Children less than 10 years

Location of House

Males 1050 years

Females 1050 years

Elderly people

78.60%

64.30%

42.80%

35.70%

57.10%

42.80%

50%

50%

PCSIR-II

Close to the park Park at a walk of 5 mins Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

42.80%

64.30%

35.70%

42.80%

30%

75%

65%

40%

JOHAR TOWN-II (BLOCK J2,J3)

Close to the park Park at a walk of 5 mins Park at a walk of more than 5 mins

55%

55%

45%

45%

45%

35%

40%

35%

Annexure Table 13: Impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3)

Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) Size of Plot (marlas) 6_ 10 11_20 20+

Prices (lacs/marla) Close to the Within Walking Away from Park Distance Park 28 4.81 4.29 4.28 60 4.81 4.29 4.28 12 4.81 4.29 4.28

Percentage of Plots (%)

Annexure Annexure Table 14: Impact of size of plots on the residential land prices in PCSIR-II PCSIR-II Size of Plot (marlas)

Prices (lacs/marla) Percentage of Plots (%)

Close to the Park

Within Walking Distance

Away from Park

upto 5

26

4.38

4.00

3.97

6_ 10

40

4.38

4.00

3.97

11_20

34

4.38

4.00

3.97

Index

INDEX Documentation..............................................................18

A E Active Parks ...................................................................22 Approach used...............................................................31

Economic Benefits .........................................................23 Environmental Benefits ..................................................22

B F BENEFITS OF PARKS .......................................................22 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations .................17

C H Case studies ...................................................................28 Case Studies of Developed countries ..............................28

Health Benefits ..............................................................24

Case Studies of Developing countries .............................30

Households Surveys .......................................................45

Case Study of Aberdeen, Scotland ..................................28 Case Study of Greenville, South Carolina.........................29 Case Study of Main Urban (Metro) Area of Hong Kong ....30 Case Study of Mumbai, India ..........................................31 Case Study of Portland, Oregon ......................................29 Chapter 1 ....................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 ....................................................................... 4 Chapter 3 ....................................................................... 4 Chapter 4 ....................................................................... 4

I Impact of Maintenance Authority on Prices of plots ........68 Impact of Parks on the Residential Land Values ..............27 Impact of size of parks on Land prices.............................69 Impact of size of Plots on Land prices .............................70 Impact of Type of recreation activities on prices of plots .67 Introduction......................................................... 7, 36, 40

Chapter 5 ....................................................................... 4 Chapter 6 ....................................................................... 5 COMPARISON OF PRICES ................................................50

J

Conclusion .....................................................................33 Condition of Parks.................................................... 39, 41 CURRENT MARKET PRICE................................................50

D Data Analysis .................................................................17 Difference in Living near or Beyond Park.........................54 Difference in prices near or beyond park ........................57

Johar Town-II (Block J2, J3) ....................................... 36, 54 Justification of Study ....................................................... 3

L Land Use Profile .............................................................41 Landuse Profile ..............................................................37 Limitations...................................................................... 6

Index Literature Review....................................................... 9, 21

S

Location................................................................... 36, 41 Sampling Technique .......................................................13

O

Scope of Study ................................................................ 2 Secondary Data Collection..............................................16

Objectives....................................................................... 2

Selection of Case Study ................................................... 9 Selection of Case Study Area ..........................................35

P Parameters for the Selection of Study Area.....................10 Parks .............................................................................21 Passive Parks .................................................................22 PCSIR-II .................................................................... 40, 54 Planning & Data Collection .............................................16 Possible difference living near or beyond park ................55

Selection of Research Topic ............................................. 8 Selection of Sample Size.................................................13 Should there be difference in prices of plots near or beyond park ..............................................................62 Social Benefits ...............................................................24 Statement of Problem ..................................................... 1 Structure of the Report ................................................... 4 Structured Talks with Officials of Housing Schemes.........48

Possible factors for high market prices ...........................59 Prices of Plots ................................................................45

T

Primary Data Collection..................................................17 Prime factors that contribute for high market price ........60

Time-line Chart of the Research .....................................18

Property Dealers Interviews ...........................................47 Purpose of the Literature Review ...................................21

W

R

Willingness to sell house ................................................63

Research Line of Action ................................................... 8 Research Process ............................................................ 5 Respondent & Family members visiting this park ............64