Assessing the Qualitative Value of Parks and Green Spaces in Kalamazoo County, MI, USA

Abstract

Researchers, policy- and decision-makers, and planners have historically focused on the monetary value of parks and green spaces (either as costs or potential sale value). In this article, we argue that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers need to consider and investigate the non-economic values of parks and green spaces to more fully understand the worth of these spaces. We apply the total economic value framework (TEVF) to parks and green spaces in Kalamazoo, Michigan, to assess how use values and non-use values shape how people value local green spaces. This methodology provides a more comprehensive value of park spaces beyond the economic value which, in most cases, undervalues natural spaces. Our research indicates that, in the case of Kalamazoo, Michigan, parks and green spaces are worth more than the monetary value of their property to people. Non-use, existence, and bequest values all load strongly in our analysis, and these results indicate that people in the Kalamazoo area believe the worth of their park spaces extends well beyond the purely economic realm. We further argue that TEVF is an effective tool for park managers to incorporate diverse value systems and perceptions to quantify the importance of these values.

1. Introduction

The establishment of a nationwide system of parks and green spaces in the United States is rooted in Romanticist views of ‘wild’ spaces as untrammeled and unsullied by humans, as well as in the debate between diverging philosophies advocating ‘wise use’ or ‘preservation’ of these parks [1]. Indeed, American environmentalism and the movement for park spaces centers on the notion that parks are worthwhile simply because they exist. Narrowing our focus to urban parks portrays a more complicated history within the context of the United States. From the mid-19th century, parks have been the antithesis to city spaces where urbanites could escape the hazards of the industrial city [2]. Urban park spaces have evolved over the decades to provide more than an escape for wealthy urban dwellers, becoming essential to urban social life and serving as sites of contestation over notions of justice, access, and inclusion [3]. Parks and their surrounding communities remain intimately connected through a variety of social, economic, political, and environmental forces in these urban and peri-urban settings.

Boulton et al. [4] argue that urban parks and green spaces are crucial in supporting the link between having green spaces that are accessible to everyone and good health in those communities [5,6,7,8]. Some of these parks and green spaces might have direct and easily measurable value to their locales in the form of employment to people, recreation and tourism, and tax revenues to local government agencies, among others. Yet parks and green spaces have value beyond purely economic terms, including the mental and physical health of people who use these spaces, habitat preservation, ecosystem services, climate change mitigation and resiliency, urban heat island reduction, and many more. With two-thirds of the planet’s population projected to be urban residents by the year 2050 [9], and with 80% of the U.S. population being already urban [10], careful stewardship of urban green spaces must be taken seriously [11,12].

Parks and green spaces contribute to the sustainability of urban areas around the world. The concept of sustainability originated from development discourses where development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [13]. This same idea of sustainability impacts how environmental resources are used, with future generations in mind. To Goodland [14], environmental conservation has become a major area of concern for all, and environmental sustainability seeks to maintain the natural capital of humanity and that humans should be able to live within the confines of the biophysical environment. Sustainability as a political goal has highlighted the limited nature of the planet’s nonrenewable resources (e.g., Club of Rome) while also centering the drivers and consequences of unsustainable development [15,16,17]. Collectively, these efforts amplify discussions around sustainability that have pushed scholars, policymakers, and elected officials to incorporate social, political, and economic sustainability into their work. For parks and green spaces, this marks an aperture to consider these spaces more broadly for the services they provide to communities, accessibility and amenities, spatial justice, as well as considerations about the environmental sustainability of parks [18,19,20]. Economic development and environmental sustainability are often at odds with each other, while development has often taken precedent over preserving ecological systems to ensure the maintenance of human-life-support systems and ecological functioning. Parks and green spaces offer unique spaces to ensure that biophysical processes can still occur. However, when visitors value the role of these parks, they are potentially mindful of their activities that would endanger the continuous sustainability of these parks and green spaces.

There is a growing advocacy for adopting strategies to sustain environments in urban areas, as cities have expanded within the last few decades with major environmental implications. Green infrastructure, which is one way to measure sustainability, is mostly very poor or lacking, especially in the low-income areas of cities [21]. Areas that are generally high income insist on having parks and green spaces close to residents [22,23]. However, unregulated urbanization can lead to environmental sustainability challenges including poor health outcomes [24,25], habitat loss, species decline, water quality degradation, and deterioration of the micro-climate [26]. One way to ensure the sustainability of urban areas is to protect parks and green spaces as they play a key role in the sustainability of cities.

Placing an economic value on urban open space as it relates to public benefits is a difficult task. The value of real estate is directly proportionate to the market demand, potential use, and rights of ownership within its geographic locality. Publicly owned open spaces used for recreation do not fit into the normal private land market system. The parcel’s value as open space cannot be measured in dollars in the same way as land used for housing or improvements for a commercial venture, as the values that green spaces and parks offer extend beyond meeting society’s basic needs for shelter. However, theorizing urban areas from a solely economic perspective excludes the myriad ways in which parks and green spaces impact urban life.

As urbanization and demand for land in urban areas continue to increase across the world, we see publicly managed green spaces becoming ‘threatened’ by development for more intensive land uses. These areas provide habitat, environmental services, mitigate the urban heat island effect, improve the mental health of residents [27], increase property values for nearby properties [28], and more. Yet the overall value of these spaces is often measured imprecisely and fails to account for the fuzzy values that community members associate with parks and green spaces. Indeed, the myriad reasons these spaces can be meaningful to people often assume that parks and green spaces hold value simply by existing, without offering a more nuanced examination of those subjective feelings.

Expanding our view to the country level paints a challenging picture for parks and green spaces in the United States. The contiguous United States lost over 1.4 million hectares of natural spaces in urban areas between 1990 and 2000 [29]. This is mostly a result of population growth coupled with reduced funding for the conservation of these spaces [4,29]. The reduction in funding for conservation, for the most part, seems to be due to the ever-increasing demand for scarce land and financial resources. This situation is compounded for policy- and decision-makers by inadequate information on the value of these urban parks and green spaces. This paper explores other very important values which could be studied and assessed using qualitative metrics from the total economic value framework (TEVF), as suggested by Adger et al. [30]. These values, over the years, have proven to be far greater than direct monetary values [31].

There are various acceptable methods to determine an economic valuation of non-commodity goods or services [32,33]. The contingency valuation method establishes a simulated monetary value for non-market goods [34,35], and it can produce problematic results through hypothetical bias [36,37]. While these varied approaches (i.e., market price, choice modeling, contingent valuation, travel cost, hedonic pricing, and benefit transfer) [38,39,40] offer a variety of analytical perspectives to establish the value of difficult-to-quantify commodities, we focus our analysis on the qualitative components of the TEVF as an attempt to capture the ‘values’ that are often subsumed within valuation methodologies as secondary variables or excluded because their values are hard to infer reliably. We argue that these non-monetary values are crucial components of why parks and green spaces are important, and these values must be accounted for in valuation methods. Scholars and policymakers have struggled to effectively determine the value of nature and ecosystem services [41]. Assigning monetary values to naturally occurring processes is inherently difficult, challenging researchers to develop complex equations to estimate monetary value [42]. Scholars continue to evaluate ‘value’ by attaching a monetary value to biophysical processes [43,44], and little research has focused on the fuzzy and subjective feelings that inform peoples’ relationships with parks and green spaces. Indeed, we suggest that parks are more valuable than a simple price per unit of land, and the qualitative component within the TEVF provides us with a productive tool to examine those values.

We situate our research within the larger context of increasing demand for land, dwindling public resources to manage and steward these spaces, and an uncertain climate future. Kalamazoo, Michigan, like many areas within the former manufacturing core of the United States, faces a confluence of challenges. Population levels have remained relatively steady in the metropolitan area, tax revenues have fluctuated significantly (and have finally recovered from the Great Recession) while governmental costs and expenditures continue to increase. Public services continue to vie for a share of an increasingly smaller pie of resources. In this paper, we investigate the applicability of TEVF to examine how community members, parkgoers, and passersby perceive and value green spaces in Kalamazoo, Michigan. We focus on the qualitative and subjective values that our respondents associate with parks and green spaces in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. To that end, we employ a modified contingent ranking approach within the total economic value framework [45], and we complement that approach with an exploratory principal component analysis to help us make sense of our respondents’ responses. The next section examines the total economic value framework and justifies its application in this case study. Next, we introduce the study area and its significance as a case study. Lastly, we discuss the results of our analysis of county parks in Kalamazoo, Michigan. We discuss a more productive and inclusive analytical framework in the next section.

2. Total Economic Value Framework (TEVF)

The total economic value framework offers a comprehensive approach to assessing the full worth of parks and green spaces in urban environments. By encompassing both use and non-use values, TEVF provides a more holistic view than traditional economic assessments, which often focus solely on monetary values. This framework enables city planners, researchers, and policymakers to quantify the multifaceted benefits of green spaces [29,30,31,32]. TEVF approaches to establishing value can include tangible aspects like recreational value and ecosystem services, as well as intangible elements such as existence value and cultural significance [35,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,44]. By capturing these diverse values, TEVF can justify investment in urban green spaces, inform land-use decisions, and highlight the long-term benefits of preservation. This approach is particularly valuable in urban areas like Kalamazoo, where competing land uses often threaten green spaces, as it can demonstrate their full societal and environmental value beyond immediate economic returns. Ultimately, the TEVF framework enables more informed and sustainable urban planning decisions that balance economic development with the preservation of vital green infrastructure.

According to Goodland [14], mainstream economists attempt to value phenomena and the material world in monetary terms, and this poses major problems when it comes to valuing natural capital, intangible, intergenerational, and common access resources (i.e., air and water). The challenge of economic valuation of natural resources is an ongoing task for researchers. Improving human wellbeing is the primary reason people seek environmental sustainability. Human life depends on natural resources for food, shelter, and a myriad of ecosystem services that provide us with breathable air, plant pollination, waste assimilation, and other environmental life-support services. The instrumental value of nonhuman species to humans is grossly undervalued by economics [26]. Nonhuman species of no apparent value to humans have intrinsic worth, but this consideration is almost entirely excluded in monetary valuation. This has triggered efforts to value these resources and has resulted in several valuation techniques like the contingent valuation technique [46,47] and the travel cost approach [48,49], both of which have been modified in many ways to evaluate these natural areas. However, these methods have not been able to provide a comprehensive value assessment of these parks. In 1991, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) proposed the total economic value framework (TEVF, Figure 1) as an analytical approach that enables a more comprehensive assessment of the value of natural resources which can be adapted to evaluate parks [50].

The total economic value framework was developed to capture the economic valuations that might be missed by classical approaches, and TEVF has since been established as a method to capture the full range of monetary and non-monetary values that can be attached to a resource [51]. TEVF aggregates the direct use value, indirect use value, option value, bequest value, and existence value of a resource to provide a more comprehensive assessment of its worth, as well as the value it holds for those who consider it significant. The valuation of various services that demonstrate the value of a resource to society and economy in monetary terms then provides vital information for regional ecosystem management and sustainable resource management [52]. The framework provides insights into whether people derive immediate use from these resources, labeled as use values, or whether they do not use them immediately but still value them in other ways, labeled as non-use values. Use values generally point to the easily identifiable benefits that the park gives to the residents, and the use values of these parks could be direct or indirect. The direct use values relate to activities that can be measured and quantified like recreation, while the indirect uses relate to the environmental amenities provided by the parks (examples include temperature regulation of the surrounding area, plant and animal viewing, and carbon sequestration, among others). Non-use values can also relate to perceived benefits for future generations. These values could be existence, option, and bequest values or even philanthropic. TEVF pushes back against narrow conceptualizations of value that simply understand value as replacement cost or sale cost because, in most cases, these undervalue natural spaces [53].

Interestingly, a look through studies on the total economic value of resources provides very little insights into parks and green spaces in their assessments. A 2016 study examined the total economic value of the United States National Park System, valued it at USD 92 billion, and highlighted significant ‘non-use’ and ‘existence’ values [54]. The inability to clearly articulate the overall value of parks and green spaces has been a major reason why these parks continue to face development pressures, competing with other projects for the same space and limited resources [55]. These issues are the motivation behind this study, aiming to make these values more visible when development decisions are made, allowing for strategic efforts to ensure the integrity of these spaces. A TEVF approach enables us to more completely understand the value of parks to their surrounding areas. We deploy TEVF as a research typology to understand parks and green spaces within Kalamazoo, Michigan, through several categories that broadly fall into use and non-use values. We focus on the non-monetary and qualitative values within this framework to examine indirect use, non-use, existence, bequest, and option values.

Use values, which are the first component in the TEVF, are split into direct use and indirect use values. Figure 1 illustrates the TEVF and its constituent parts. Direct use values are the clearly defined, and sometimes economically measurable, benefits that people derive from these natural resources. Direct values could include activities like hiking, bird watching, and swimming, among other recreational activities, some of which are paid for before they are enjoyed. These payments have cascading effects on the economy. Indirect uses include the natural functions of the resource, and these benefits are enjoyed by the entire area where the resource is located. Instances of indirect use values include habitat for some species of plants and animals, watershed protection, and influencing of the hydrological cycle of the area.

According to Adger et al. [30], the option value is the expected value of the information about the benefits of an asset, contingent upon its preservation. The central idea behind the option value of a resource is that the community protects the resource, and that resource will be utilized by future generations. The bequest value, a type of non-use value, on the other hand, relates to the satisfaction derived from the effort to protect the resource for posterity. The bequest value is also about the willingness to pay for the knowledge and satisfaction derived from endowing future generations with the resources. Willingness to pay (WTP) is an approach to valuation that asks participants what they would be willing to pay to access a resource to determine its theoretical value [56,57].

Walsh et al. [58] describe existence values as the willingness to pay for the knowledge and satisfaction that a natural space is preserved even though no immediate use is contemplated. This is directly linked to environmental sustainability literacy and people who pay more to have their homes close to these resources even though they might not directly benefit from those resources. According to Harnik and Crompton [59], the real estate market has consistently demonstrated that many people are willing to pay more for property located close to a park than for a home that does not offer this feature.

Some researchers have employed TEVF to evaluate various resources over the years, as this tool goes beyond the econometric values of the resources [60,61]. Adger et al. [30] used TEVF to assess the value of forests in Mexico and categorized various use and non-use values using different models. Eagles et al. [62] also estimated the values of parks and protected areas in the USA and Canada, investigating the tourism values associated with these parks. These studies demonstrate the effectiveness of this method in determining values, especially the non-economic ones which are more inherent in these resources. However, researchers have yet to apply TEVF to estimate the value of parks and green spaces.

Importantly, TEVF offers a framework that enables us to examine the subjective beliefs and feelings that constitute a significant component of why communities value parks. This complex constellation of values, feelings, and thoughts about green spaces and parks matter to individuals and, we argue, should matter to those who are in charge of managing these park spaces. We position our research within this discussion, and we use Kalamazoo County, Michigan, to measure the ‘values’ of its county parks more completely.

3. Study Area

Figure 2 contextualizes Kalamazoo County, which is located in the southwestern region of the state of Michigan. The United States Census Bureau estimates that the total population of the county was 261,670 as of 2020 [63]. The county seat is the city of Kalamazoo. The county covers an area of about 576 square miles and has 16 townships, each approximately 36 square miles in size. Rivers, streams, and 418 lakes and ponds greater than one acre in size cover 3.2% of the surface area in this county [64]. Gull Lake (1880 acres) and Austin Lake (1050 acres) are the largest lakes in the county. The Kalamazoo River crosses the county from near Augusta on its eastern border to Cooper in the north and is the largest waterway [64]. The urban core of the county is the city of Kalamazoo. It is a small regional city that continues its transition from a manufacturing base to a post-industrial city with a service and information economy. The county is young (with a median age of 34.9 years) and highly educated (with 42.6% of the population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher), as it is home to large medical corporations, universities, and hospitals that demand highly skilled labor [63]. The county’s employment rate was 64.5% in 2023, while the poverty rate was 12.9%, with a state average of 13.5%. However, there are significant sociospatial inequalities across the county, with significant numbers of unhoused and underserved communities concentrated within the city of Kalamazoo [63].

Parks across Kalamazoo County are categorized into state parks, county parks, city parks, as well as public and private nature preserves. The majority of these parks are run by local government agencies. Most of these parks have no direct entrance fees to enter and participate in any recreational activity. This brings the question of what constitutes the main motives for running these parks and what is the value of these parks in the communities in which they are situated. These questions have been the focus of research works in other parts of the USA and internationally, with a focus on the value of national parks. However, that question has not been asked about the value of the recreational parks in Kalamazoo. Figure 3 shows the various park categories in the county.

Within Kalamazoo County, these green spaces consist of a patchwork of city and municipal, county, and state lands as well as public nature preserves that are not uniformly distributed. These parks and green spaces do not offer universal amenities at each location, and many of these green spaces have been created to satisfy disparate community needs. For example, the Al Sabo Nature Preserve was established to protect the aquifer recharge zones that supply the area’s drinking water and wellfield. The Southwestern Michigan Land Conservancy preserves habitat for wildlife and plants, protects wetlands and floodplains, ensures clean water supplies, and the natural reserves are networked together through migration corridors, so that flora and fauna can more effectively move in the face of climate change. The City of Kalamazoo’s public park system provides green space and play areas for residents and visitors free of charge. Collectively, these green spaces provide residents and visitors with places to rest and relax, habitat for flora and fauna, environmental services (such as excess precipitation retention), and more. However, these disparate parks and green spaces are not accessible to all of Kalamazoo. The Trust for Public Land’s Green Community Mapping Project examined the significance of green spaces in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Their work found that nearly 7000 children within the city of Kalamazoo and more than 28,000 outside the city limits live more than a ten-minute walk from the nearest publicly accessible play areas [65].

This research focuses on the five county parks in Kalamazoo County and their value from the perspective of participants. Kalamazoo County in Michigan represents an interesting case study for us for two primary reasons. First, it is located squarely within the North American Rust Belt where municipal resources are limited, and local governments struggle to fund services that meet their communities’ diverse needs. Second, the Kalamazoo metropolitan region represents a medium-sized city which remains underexamined within the literature, which has often studied these impacts in large urban areas (i.e., Detroit, Michigan and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). We selected these parks as our study area due to their proximity to Kalamazoo, the variety of amenities they offer, and the diversity of landscapes they represent. We also chose these parks because we were able to secure permission from the Kalamazoo County Parks to conduct this research in their five parks. The Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) [66] data suggest more than 100 different parks in the county. The CARL data combines all the different types of parks into one data layer. Our target population, therefore, is based on the CARL data, and we manually reorganized the parks into state parks, county parks, city parks, golf courses, and privately owned parks (Figure 3). Based on the huge number of parks in the county, county parks were purposely selected to design the survey. This is because of the similar characteristics of these county parks to get a uniform set of parks for the survey. The following parks were selected for the survey—Cold Brook Park, Markin Glen Park, River Oaks Park, Scotts Mill Park, and River Valley Trail Park. These parks are home to a variety of recreational amenities, such as camping, event facilities, sports fields, and beaches, and are connected to local multiuse pedestrian and cycling trails.

4. Methodology and Research Design

The target population in our study included all adult residents above 18 years who live in Kalamazoo County. Respondents were selected using the convenience sampling technique [67,68]. Participants were approached and the purpose of the study introduced to them. Respondents were then given the choice to participate or decline participation in accordance with the Institutional Review Board-approved protocol. The convenience sampling procedure was the best option for the target population because it enabled the researcher to sample views from different people who were willing to provide the needed information. This sampling technique allowed for the targeting of those perceived to have some important information about the value of parks in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. The researcher approached parkgoers and passersby to present the research project and ask for their participation based on the approved research design. Any respondent who agreed to participate was provided with a link to the electronic survey instrument, and the researcher then allowed the respondents to complete the survey by themselves.

We structured the instrument to collect the data using anonymous online surveys through the web-based Qualtrics software, and we administered paper-based surveys in addition to the online survey. Paper-based surveys complemented the online survey in the sense that it provided flexibility for people who wanted to fill out the survey on paper. Primary data were collected from June 2022 to September 2022, both online and in person. Some events were specifically designed to interact with potential participants that may be willing to participate. Events like the Kalamazoo County Fair, local sporting events (such as recreation league softball), and movie nights in the park, among others, were attended for this purpose. Self-administered survey questionnaires were distributed to a representative sample of adult respondents during the period at various locations with the option of completing the online survey or the paper-based survey. A challenge with the in-person survey is the interruption of the participants’ activities [69]. This discomfort was minimized by sharing the survey links and quick reference (QR) codes with willing participants to respond at their convenience. Participants were also contacted through social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp, among others, to reach as many respondents as possible for this survey. The surveys captured perceptions of visitors on direct, indirect, option, existence, and bequest values of parks. A major theme of the survey was the value typologies which were adapted and modified from similar studies [70]. The Likert scale analysis structure was used to ascertain the level to which participants agreed or disagreed with various statements related to these value typologies.

Survey Data Analysis

The questionnaire was organized into three separate sections. The first section asked respondents about their general knowledge of parks and green spaces within Kalamazoo and Michigan, as well as how often they utilize these spaces. The second section contained a series of statements based on the categories established within the total economic framework. Respondents were asked to rank these statements using the Likert scale responses. The third section of the questionnaire gathered general demographic information about the respondents.

The survey questions (variables) were first coded into IBM SPSS Statistics Pre-mium version 28 (IBM SPSS: 28.0.0.0) for analysis. Online survey data were first exported as numerical data into Microsoft Excel, and the data were cleaned to remove all incomplete entries as well as all the extra information provided by Qualtrics. We retained 115 responses for further analysis. We ran descriptive statistical tests to analyze the perception data (Likert scale). We used exploratory factor analysis, specifically principal component analysis, to assess how the variables related to direct use, indirect use, option, existence, and bequest values. Combining principal component analysis with TEVF created meaningful groupings of subjective values for our analysis and provided us with valuable insights into the intensity and directionality of these relationships. The combination of these two analytical techniques contributes a new methodological approach to valuing parks and green spaces.

We employed a modified contingent ranking approach to examine how our respondents value their park and green spaces [71,72,73]. The contingent ranking approach provides significant flexibility to researchers, and it enabled us to test the value of parks without establishing a theoretical market price. We recognize the limitations this approach creates, with potentially inconsistent responses [74] and challenges to validity [75]. Respondents were given a list of statements representative of potential indirect and non-use values of parks and green spaces that they were asked to rank using Likert scale responses. We employed this approach to draw out the non-monetary values of parks. We then analyzed these results by utilizing a principal component analysis to derive statistically significant and meaningful groupings of responses. These results indicate that intangible and subjective values of parks and green spaces are significant and important from the perspective of parkgoers and passersby.

We first assessed the appropriateness of the sample by using Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin’s (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. According to Haidari and Karakuş [76], KMO must be greater than 0.5 and Bartlett’s test must also be statistically significant to proceed with running principal component analysis. Both KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity met their requirements to proceed (KMO was equal to 0.6, and Bartlett’s test was statistically significant at 0.001). We used SPSS to obtain five components based on eigenvalues and scree plots. These five components corresponded to the five major values analyzed in this study. A varimax rotation matrix was used, and insignificant values (values below 0.5) were suppressed to reveal only one loading across all five components. A few of the components, however, had more than one significant loading; in such cases, we chose the most appropriate loading.

We also conducted a post-test reliability analysis of these results to examine the internal consistency. For this, we used Cronbach’s alpha. Vaske [77] argues that, for results to be reliable, the alpha should be between 0.65 and 0.80, and all the variables of interest met this requirement.

5. Results

5.1. Knowledge of Parks and Green Spaces

We begin this section by examining the descriptive statistics based on participant responses, followed by the results of the principal component analysis. Respondents were asked if they knew about any county parks and were asked to list them. About 49% of the respondents indicated that they knew of parks and about 13% were not sure (

Table 1. Knowledge of parks.

Response	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	44	48.9%
No	34	37.8%
Not sure	12	13.3%
Total	90	100.0%

). Respondents were also asked to respond to several prompts examining the potential use- and non-use values of these parks. These values included the following: unique views and landforms; unique or special animals; wisdom, traditions, and my way of life; use by children and generations to come; special values for their own sake; education and ability to teach others about natural history; walking, kite flying, picnicking; hiking, biking, surfing, kayaking, etc.; family and social life; tourism industry; uniquely wild and pristine; pet-friendly; and amenities.

Table 1 and

Table 2. Parks breakdown.

County Parks	Frequency	Percentage
Cold Brook	20	28.2%
Markin Glen	14	19.7%
Scotts Mill	14	19.7%
River Valley	16	22.5%
River Oaks	7	9.9%
No response	19	20.9%
Total	90	100.0%

explore specific county parks and respondents’ awareness levels. The results indicated that the most popular park was Cold Brook County Park, accounting for 28% of the total responses, followed by Markin Glen and Scotts Mill County Parks, each accounting for 14%. These percentages are the minimum values for each of these county parks, as some respondents indicated more than one county park that they knew about. The discrepancy between the totals in Table 1 and Table 2 emphasizes a key concept in this study. Respondents’ knowledge of parks is reported in Table 1. However, 19 respondents did not specify the parks they knew about, as shown in Table 2. The data led us to believe that these 19 respondents may be more inclined toward the existence and bequest values of these spaces and that they do not attach as much importance to specific parks in the survey.

These descriptive statistics point to an interesting issue in the study area. Within our survey, 51.1% of the respondents were unaware of or unsure about any county parks in Kalamazoo County. This represents a large segment of respondents who seemed not to know that county parks exist in Kalamazoo, and that is more striking because all respondents were surveyed at a county park or saw the QR code to complete the survey near a county park and decided to complete the survey. The results in Table 1 and Table 2 are incongruous. When provided with a list of the county parks by name, 71 respondents (79.1%) indicated that they were aware of the five county parks. It appears that our respondents knew about the existence of these parks, but they were unaware these parks were part of the county park system in the study area. They were aware that they were visiting a public park or green space for recreation or relaxation. This could also impact their knowledge of the parks, since we limited specific survey questions to only county parks for this study.

5.2. General Activities at Parks

General activities at these parks and green spaces are worth examining, as they provide the reasoning behind why people would value places in one way or another. Activities and transport modes reflected value categories that were important to respondents. People who were more interested in non-use values of resources were potentially concerned about sustaining the environment and would most likely employ modes of transportation that are easy on the environment and engage in environmentally friendly activities at these parks.

Table 3. General activities.

	Frequency	Percent
Means of transport
I do not visit	8	7.8%
Bus	16	15.5%
Car	28	27.2%
Bicycle	46	44.7%
Walk	4	3.9%
Others	1	1.0%
Total	103	100.0%
Reason for visit
For specific events	30	34.1%
Other activities	58	65.9%
Total	88	100.0%
Distance from home
I do not visit	29	34.5%
Less than 4 miles	11	13.1%
4 to 7 miles	22	26.2%
7 to 11 miles	11	13.1%
11–14 miles	2	2.4%
More than 14 miles	9	10.7%
Total	84	100.0%

indicates that 45% of respondents used bicycles as a means of transport to the parks, followed by cars at 27%. Buses came third at about 16%, though not all parks are accessible by bus. The use of bicycles as a dominant means of transport reflects the county parks that are located adjacent to multiuse trails, which both cyclists and pedestrians utilize. The high proportion of respondents using bicycles could also be due to the presence of biking trails in some of these spaces, such as River Oaks Park and River Valley Trail. We acknowledge that this result may vary by season, as this survey was conducted in summer when conditions were conducive for bicycle riding. This may change significantly in the winter when conditions would not allow people to ride bicycles.

A total of 16% of the participants also chose to ride buses to the parks and green spaces, a decision that also suggests burning fewer fossil fuels—an indication that the respondents may be thinking about sustaining the environment. This presents a task for the transit system in the county to ensure that parks are made more accessible by bus to satisfy this group of people.

Table 4. Means of transportation and distance of parks from homes.

		How Far Is Your Home from This Place?						Total
		I Do Not Visit	Less than 4 Miles	4 to 7 Miles	7 to 11 Miles	11–14 Miles	More than 14 Miles
How do you usually go to this place?	I do not visit	2	1	0	0	0	1	4
	Bus	6	1	4	1	0	0	12
	Car	5	2	9	3	0	2	21
	Bicycle	10	7	8	6	2	6	39
	Walk	2	0	0	1	0	0	3
	Others	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Total		29	11	22	11	2	9	84

further breaks down transport modes and the distance of parks from their homes. It shows that eight out of the 39 respondents in the bicycle category ride between 4 and 7 miles to the parks. Again, this is subject to change with seasons; however, these results may be an indication that environmentally conscious participants represent the majority of parkgoers based on the participants’ means of transport. This could also be due to the many biking trails in Kalamazoo County, a factor that encourages people to use this means of transport when convenient.

Most participants (66%) indicated that they visit parks for other reasons, that is, environmentally friendly activities such as relaxation, birdwatching, hiking, and simply admiring nature. These participants were more interested in the non-monetary values of these spaces. The other group of participants were individuals who go to these parks for specific events like organized games, sporting events, and festivals, among others. These events mostly have large numbers of people in attendance and negatively impact the integrity of these spaces in the long run. High-volume visitation to parks and green spaces can lead to significant degradation of these areas over time due to several interconnected factors. Soil compaction from heavy foot traffic reduces water infiltration and hinders plant growth, while trampling damages vegetation, affecting biodiversity and ecosystem health. Increased erosion on trails and popular areas leads to landscape changes and potential safety hazards. The accumulation of litter and waste strains management systems and can harm wildlife, whose habitats and breeding patterns are already disturbed by noise and human presence. Facilities like benches, playgrounds, and restrooms deteriorate faster under heavy use, increasing maintenance costs. Large crowds may inadvertently introduce invasive species and contribute to air and water pollution through increased vehicle traffic and human activities. Collectively, these impacts diminish the overall aesthetic value and natural character of the space, potentially compromising its long-term ecological value and recreational quality. Therefore, measures should be put in place to manage the impacts of these events on resources in these parks. Most participants noted that parks and green spaces are within four to seven miles from their homes, and this explains why many people choose to ride bikes to the parks.

5.3. Principal Component Analysis

In support of the appropriateness of the sample for this analysis, a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of 0.6 and a statistically significant (at 0.001) Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed that the sample was appropriate for runningrun these analyses. According to Haidari and Karakuş [46], the KMO must be greater than 0.5 and the Bartlett’s test must also be statistically significant. Based on the results in

Table 5. KMO and Bartlett’s test.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.639
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	205.507
	df	78
	Sig.	<0.001

, the sample satisfied the conditions for running a principal component analysis. For communalities (

Table 6. Communalities.

Variable	Initial	Extraction
Unique views and landforms	1.000	0.638
Unique or special animals	1.000	0.761
Wisdom, traditions, and my way of life	1.000	0.780
Use by children and generations to come	1.000	0.650
Special values for their own sake	1.000	0.694
Education and ability to teach others about natural history	1.000	0.786
Walking, kite flying, and picnicking	1.000	0.825
Hiking, biking, surfing, kayaking, etc.	1.000	0.790
Family and social life	1.000	0.775
Tourism industry	1.000	0.756
Uniquely wild and pristine	1.000	0.712
Pet-friendly	1.000	0.615
Amenities	1.000	0.684

), all thirteen variables loaded strongly, accounting for at least 60% of the variance that can be explained by the factors, a finding that indicates that all factors were well represented in the principal component analysis.

The total variance explained (

Table 7. Total variance explained.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings			Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	%Var	Cum %	Total	% Var	Cum%	Total	% Var	Cum%
1	4.169	32.071	32.071	4.169	32.071	32.071	2.424	18.645	18.645
2	1.579	12.149	44.220	1.579	12.149	44.220	1.968	15.138	33.783
3	1.488	11.447	55.668	1.488	11.447	55.668	1.761	13.547	47.330
4	1.196	9.202	64.870	1.196	9.202	64.870	1.683	12.944	60.274
5	1.033	7.947	72.816	1.033	7.947	72.816	1.631	12.543	72.816
6	0.825	6.342	79.159
7	0.617	4.746	83.905
8	0.568	4.366	88.271
9	0.470	3.616	91.887
10	0.386	2.970	94.857
11	0.306	2.353	97.210
12	0.239	1.836	99.046
13	0.124	0.954	100.00

) shows five components that should be maintained based on the eigenvalues greater than 1, with the last component having an eigenvalue of 1.03. This is also presented graphically in the scree plot (Figure 4), with the inflection point being slightly above 1. These five components align with the value typologies analyzed, validating the contribution of all thirteen variables to these five major values.

5.3.1. Rotated Component Matrix of Values

We performed a principal component analysis on the responses from research participants to determine the combined impact of these factors on the respondents’ perceptions of the park spaces. From

Table 8. Rotated component matrix.

	Component
	1 Direct	2 Bequest	3 Indirect	4 Option	5 Existence
Walking, kite flying, and picnicking	0.883	0.133	0.049	0.146	0.066
Hiking, biking, surfing, kayaking, kite boarding, etc.	0.785	−0.081	0.141	0.231	0.037
Amenities	0.766	0.272	0.114	−0.043	0.087
Family and social life	0.094	0.834	0.176	0.060	0.190
Use by my children and future generations	0.129	0.787	0.022	−0.036	−0.111
Pet-friendly	0.488	0.526	0.062	0.303	0.062
Uniquely wild or pristine character	0.212	−0.051	0.801	−0.100	0.118
Unique or special plants and animals	−0.098	0.373	0.749	0.180	0.136
Views and unique landforms	0.180	0.069	0.632	0.447	0.033
Wisdom, traditions, and spiritual importance	0.113	−0.109	0.238	0.832	0.080
Supporting the tourism industry	0.181	0.342	−0.103	0.712	0.298
Teach others about natural history, ecology	0.119	0.022	0.033	0.259	0.839
Special value for its own sake	0.174	0.052	0.145	−0.005	0.800

Note: all results shaded in light gray were statistically insignificant and excluded from components.

, it can be seen that four variables loaded strongly into the direct use value component, with the highest loading being the statement relating to “walking, kite flying, and picnicking” (0.88). All activities in this category were non-extractive use values. Picnicking activities could contribute to the protection of the flora and fauna in these parks and green spaces. These light, non-extractive uses are sustainable and they, potentially, promote a deeper connection between people and these green spaces. Sitting down and sharing a meal in nature creates opportunities for people to be present in nature and appreciate it more deeply.

The second category in the direct use component was also related to “hiking, surfing, and kayaking” activities, with a loading of 0.79. This category was also non-extractive in nature and good for the environment. All activities in the first two categories are physical activities (except picnics). This result demonstrated the importance of these spaces for the physical health of the residents, in agreement with other studies where access to green spaces has been linked to positive health outcomes [78,79]. The last variable was about “amenities” and exhibited the lowest loading in the direct use values, with a loading of 0.77. This suggested that participants are concerned about their comfort when they visit these spaces. It is important, therefore, that those managing these spaces ensure that basic amenities are provided in a sustainable manner.

The data also indicate that people value these parks because they are undeveloped spaces that present a unique opportunity for people to be in nature. For the indirect use value component, the “uniquely wild and pristine” (0.8) and “special plants and animals” (0.7) components showed strong factor loadings. These two components relate to biodiversity and the roles that these plants and animals play in the environment, both representing indirect use values. Biodiversity is important for air purification, protection of water bodies, regulation of climatic and weather variables, and carbon sequestration, all of which are indicators of the indirect use values of these plants and animals in parks and green spaces.

Option values had three variables: “unique views and landforms” (0.4), “wisdom and tradition” (0.8), and “tourism” (0.7). The “unique landforms and views” variable had a low factor loading but was related to touristic activities, as they can become pull factors for tourists who are interested in scenic views and nature-based touristic activities. Therefore, these views and landforms have the potential to become nature-based tourist sites. The component “wisdom and traditions” loaded strongly, as it presented the potential for passing down knowledge about resources in these parks and green spaces. Our respondents believed that parks in Kalamazoo offer opportunities to learn from the past and generate intergenerational learning.

Non-use values, specifically bequest and existence values, had very strong loadings in the rotated component matrix, demonstrating the high premium that residents placed on these parks and green spaces. For bequest values, the variable about family and social life had a loading of 0.83, being one of the few values to load above 0.8. This showed the importance attached to the bequest values of these resources for both present and future families. Additionally, respondents attached high value to the statement relating to the “use by future generations”, which had a factor loading of 0.78. These two closely related statements, with their high factor loadings, indicate the strong value placed on these spaces by the respondents and suggest that our respondents want parks to exist for future generations to enjoy.

The second closely related non-use value was the existence value of these parks and green spaces. Two variables associated with this value had loadings greater than 0.8, indicating the high value placed on them. The statement relating to teaching about natural history and similar topics had a loading of 0.84, and this was related to environmental sustainability literacy. Respondents viewed these parks and green spaces as places that provided the opportunity to teach about how to live sustainably and protect environmental resources. The variable relating to the places having special values for their own sake also showed a high factor loading of 0.8. Respondents placed significant value on the idea that these resources in parks and green spaces have inherent worth beyond human uses.

Taken together, these results indicate that respondents value parks for many non-monetary reasons. We would like to highlight the non-use values that our respondents indicated were more important to them. Bequest values loaded highly, with a preference for family and social life as well as maintaining these park spaces for future generations to enjoy. Indirect values loaded highest with the factors that related to the spaces’ diverse and unique natural features. The option value loaded highly in relation to nature-based tourism opportunities for the park facilities. Finally, the existence option had strong positive relationships with the notion that these spaces had inherent value to exist. This indicates that people believe parks are worth more than their potential sale price. Indeed, parks offer numerous non-use values to people. They create opportunities to connect with nature, be part of a community with friends and family, and their simple existence is meaningful to our respondents.

5.3.2. Reliability of Results

In order to examine the reliability and internal consistency of the results, Cronbach’s alpha was used to check the five categories of values analyzed in Table 8. Cronbach’s alpha is presented in

Table 9. Reliability of the results based on Cronbach’s alpha.

Values	Cronbach’s Alpha	Number of Items
Direct use	0.791	3
Indirect use	0.615	2
Option	0.54	3
Existence	0.647	2
Bequest	0.631	2

. By convention, an alpha of 0.65–0.80 is often accepted for a scale used in perception research [77,80,81]. All value categories satisfied Cronbach’s alpha (except for the option value), implying stable internal consistency within the responses. The low alpha value for the option value could be due to the inconsistency in results, as presented in Table 9, where the “unique views and landforms” seemed to be loading strongly under the indirect use values as well. This inconsistency confirmed the lack of consensus in the literature on whether the option value should be treated as a separate value or as part of non-use values.

6. Discussion

One key finding from this study relates to how respondents know about parks and green spaces. About half of the respondents had some knowledge of their local parks. However, they did not know the different categories such as county parks, state parks, and city parks. It points toward an attachment to parks and green spaces. What they knew was that these parks existed, and they were unaware of specific classifications. This indifference was reflected in a follow-up question where participants were asked to identify any of the names of parks they knew about. The response rate was much lower than their responses on knowledge of parks and green spaces. This indifference to specific parks pointed to participants’ focus on the existence of these spaces rather than specific details. It could also be a limitation created by the research design, since we focused on surveying people in primarily peri-urban parks that surround a small city in the Midwestern United States. This is an important finding, as one objective of this study was to examine the perceived use values of where existence values belong.

Access to parks and green spaces presents major impediments within Kalamazoo County, we see multimodal access to these spaces as central to their value. This supports previous research on the unevenness of children’s access to parks in Kalamazoo [65]. Kalamazoo’s county parks are located on the urban periphery, and accessing these spaces is challenging for people without a personal vehicle. Many of these parks are not accessible by public bus, even though some people indicated that they utilize public transportation to access the county parks that we examined in our research. The use of bicycles dominated transportation to these parks and green spaces. Bicycles, as means of transportation, are easy on the environment, and cycling as an activity may have health benefits. The presence of biking trails is also a key contributor to the dominance of bicycles being used for transportation.

It is worth noting that pay-for-use county parks may have limited appeal within a larger context. People in Kalamazoo County enjoy free access to a variety of local nature preserves, urban parks, and multiuse trails, as well as a collection of nearby pay-for-use state parks. Most participants indicated that they do not pay for county and state park passes—an indication that not all respondents in this study have been paying for these parks, and this addressed any form of bias that may arise. The proportion of people who purchased state park passes was higher than those who purchased county park passes, probably due to differences in rates of these two types of parks. Moreover, state park passes can be easily purchased when registering vehicles in the State of Michigan. This could also explain the higher proportion of respondents who purchased state park passes.

Our approach to examining the value of parks and green spaces focused on the qualitative aspects within the TEVF. This analysis complements previous research findings that emphasize the non-use values of parks [30,51,58,59,60,61]. Our findings indicate TEVF is a valuable tool to analyze subjective feelings, values, and beliefs about parks and green spaces, despite its traditional focus on generating monetary values. It effectively captures the ill-defined non-use values that are important to community members. There are some important methodological limitations to the TEVF approach that future researchers and practitioners should consider when investigating parks. The TEVF incorporates non-monetary values among our respondents, and we employed principal component analysis to examine the relationship among these factors. It opens theoretical and methodological spaces for researchers to examine notions of value broadly. We place the difficult-to-quantify subjective values on equal footing with other important aspects in any valuation efforts, and we argue that practitioners and researchers must fully consider these in their assessments of parks and green spaces. We were limited by the patchwork of parks and green spaces in the Kalamazoo area which appeared to produce confusion among our respondents. Importantly, the locations and accessibility of parks have limited the scope of our analysis and likely excluded a number of respondents who had diverging views on the value of parks. Lastly, there is seasonality in park usage in the mid-latitude regions, and this would affect who would be available to respond to any surveys. We gathered data during the peak summer months when park usage is highest.

We further found the TEVF to be insightful when combined with an exploratory data analysis approach. Results generated by the principal component analysis provided five components that aligned with the purpose of this study. Preliminary tests on the appropriateness of the sample for this analysis satisfied the basic requirements for the principal component analysis. All variables that loaded under “use values” were non-extractive in nature and important for environmental conservation. All variables in under “use values” have health benefits as most of them involved some form of physical activity. Unsurprisingly, non-use values had variables that had some of the highest factor loadings, reemphasizing the premium that respondents attached to non-use values.

This study emphasizes the importance of use values, especially non-extractive use and indirect use values, for parks and green spaces. These non-extractive use values, in conjunction with indirect use values, are key to supporting ecosystem services in urban settings. This is very important in determining whether to develop spaces that have these values in favor of other projects that may have monetary benefits. Long-term problems that eventually will befall cities would be very difficult to solve with money obtained from those developments.

Non-use values (existence and bequest), even though with very few variables loading under them, had some of the strongest loadings. Participants showed such concern for these values that these results cannot be overlooked. Environmental ethics and concern for the conservation of nature are key components in non-use values, and results like this give credence to ensuring the continuous existence of these parks and green spaces with all their resources for citizens and future generations. Our respondents demonstrated a strong connection to these park spaces [82]. There is, however, room to connect more people to green spaces and parks in the Kalamazoo area. Decision makers should make it a point to consider these values and how citizens feel about these spaces before deciding on whether to develop these spaces or not.

This study relied exclusively on participants who were above 18 years of age. It would be interesting to investigate value perceptions of participants below 18 years of age to get an all-inclusive perspective of these values. Similarly, an investigation into the accessibility of these parks specifically for people who are physically challenged would provide valuable insights into the relationship between disability and park spaces. Since this survey was conducted in summer, further surveys need to be conducted during the other seasons or year-round to investigate the patterns that emerge with regard to value perceptions of parks and green spaces. This will provide a year-round perspective on the values of these parks and green spaces. The scale of this study can be expanded to the state and national levels to provide a general assessment of the value of parks and green spaces from a broader geographic scope. Moreover, future studies should complement surveys with interviews. There could be interviews with decision-makers, park managers, and other key informants to gather their perspectives on these issues and possible ways to ensure the continuous protection of these spaces.

7. Conclusions and Applications

We examined public perceptions of green spaces and parks in the Kalamazoo, Michigan, area in this research project. We employed the total economic value framework to assess what factors informed peoples’ perceptions of the values of green spaces and motivated uses of public parks. We found that non-use values (i.e., bequest, indirect, option, and existence variables) were meaningful to the participants in our study, and these non-use values impacted our participants’ opinions of green spaces in the study area. According to our participants, parks and green spaces are worth more than the potential monetary value of their property to people. Scholars, decision-makers, and practitioners should recognize these diverse viewpoints and incorporate them into their long-term management plans to protect park spaces from the pressures of development and budget cuts. We argue that the qualitative values people ascribe to parks and green spaces are significant, and that local park managers should account for the non-monetary values of parks and green spaces as they consider how to best assess community perceptions of these spaces. Our research indicates these difficult-to-quantify values are valuable. Park managers should maintain diverse spaces, features, and amenities in their green spaces, and they should work with local governments to increase park accessibility to multimodal transportation networks. Finally, we found that the qualitative components within TEVF offer a productive tool to more fully assess community value perceptions of public spaces. This framework creates room for people to express why and how they value parks and provides important feedback to community decision-makers and policymakers who ultimately control these spaces.