Two Approaches to Valuing Some of Bicycle Facilities' Presumed Benefits: Propose a session for the 2007 National Planning Conference in the City of Brotherly Love

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA (2010, background): “Natural areas, trails, and lakes have previously been found to impact property values in the study area (Doss and Taff, 1996; Anderson and West, 2006; Krizek, 2006; Sander and Polasky, 2009).”
Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs (2013, background): “Some studies indicate that proximity to trails and bike paths reduces the value of abutting properties, due to concerns over reduced privacy and increased crime (Krizek 2006).”
Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. (2010, background): “…(Abraham et al., 2002; Akar and Clifton, in press; Antonakos, 1994; Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2004; Emond et al., 2009; Hunt and Abraham, 2007; Krizek, 2006; Landis et al., 1998; Madera, 2009; Parkin et al., 2007; Stinson and Bhat, 2003; Tilahun et al., 2007; Wardman et al., 2007).”
Promoting walking and bicycling: assessing the evidence to assist planners (2010, background): “In general many argue that the costs of SBFs outweigh the benefits, though this could be because approaches for reliably quantifying benefits are difficult to address or come by (Krizek, 2006; Krizek et al., 2007; see also Macmillen et al., this issue).”