Parks, Crime, and Neighborhoods

Very often we hear economic arguments being made against effective law enforcement. We can’t afford a law enforcement measure (police, jail space, etc.) because we should be spending that money on some other purpose (schools, parks, etc.). As a matter of common sense, it is obvious that these other worthy goals are worth a lot more if they are safe from crime and a lot less if they are not. Traci Pedersen at Psych Central reports on an empirical study that confirms what common sense has always told us.

The article describes a study published in the Journal of Public Economics. The researchers estimated the value of a park to a community by the willingness of people to pay more to live near it. Does a park being nearby raise or lower the value of a house? Past studies on that question have failed to distinguish between safe and dangerous parks. This study indicates that a safe park raises home values while a dangerous one lowers them.

Through statistical analysis, the research team was able to rule out other factors and isolate the relationship between property values and changes in crime rates within a half mile of the more than 1,300 public parks in the sample.

The researchers found that housing value increases by 5% within a half mile of a park if the area is safe. As you get further away from the park, the effect diminishes and ultimately disappears.

If crime levels are double the average rate, there is no premium value in housing prices near parks. And if crime rates are higher than that, there is a negative effect of up to 3%.

In other words, parks may make crime (already a “public bad”) worse, Christensen says. “A park can actually become a disamenity in the sense that you would pay to the live away from it.”

*      *      *

“The first implication is that policymakers need to consider the considerable potential to unlock amenity value through increased safety. The other side of this coin is that terrific parks will lose value if a neighborhood becomes unsafe. This has happened over the past several decades in a number of neighborhoods in the sample,” he noted.

A second implication is that allocating resources to reduce crime near parks through targeted efforts such as hotspot policing might be an important first use of public funds. The value of enhancing park features, such as building a new playground in a dangerous park, may be limited by the crime risk.

Skimping on public safety to fund other amenities is a misuse of resources. School, parks, and other public facilities need to be safe first. If they are crime-ridden, other things don’t matter much.