한국지방행정연구원

This study aims to identify key issues in the feasibility studies of urban park projects—where the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is primarily used—and to propose methodological improvements by examining current survey practices and conducting Focus Group Interviews(FGI) with citizens and experts. In doing so, the study critically assesses the limitations of the existing analytical framework for valuing urban parks, which are closely linked to residents’ quality of life due to their location within local living spheres. The study ultimately seeks to enhance the alignment between residents’ expressed needs for park creation and the results derived from feasibility studies, thereby contributing to evidence-based policymaking and fiscal accountability in local governments.
Demand for leisure, rest, and health-enhancing public spaces has grown markedly in the post-COVID-19 era, making urban parks an increasingly important policy priority for local governments. However, the economic value of urban parks continues to be underestimated in feasibility studies, particularly those using CVM, leading to a persistent gap between policy needs recognized by local governments and measured economic feasibility. This underestimation stems from CVM’s inherent limitations in capturing the complex and multifaceted nature of urban parks as public goods. Against this backdrop, the study reviews the diverse values and functions of urban parks; domestic and international valuation approaches; and methodological discussions in prior research, with the objective of
diagnosing current limitations and presenting feasible improvements.
A review of legal definitions, installation standards, functional attributes, and international cases confirms that urban parks possess strong public-good characteristics and combine social, environmental, and cultural functions. Their economic value consists of both use values—such as recreation, emotional well-being, education, and health—and non-use values, including particulate matter reduction, urban cooling, ecological conservation, landscape enhancement, and symbolic significance. Given their composite nature, urban parks should be evaluated based on the totality of their social and economic benefits. Although CVM is currently employed to incorporate non-use values into feasibility studies, its methodological constraints prevent adequate reflection of parks’ multifunctional attributes.
Domestic and international literature further shows that urban parks generate multilayered values that span ecosystem services and economic benefits. International practices, such as the United Kingdom’s Landscape Supplementary Guidance (LSG) and Green Flag Award, and the United States’ Trust for Public Land ParkScore Index, quantify parks’ social and environmental contributions across multiple dimensions. Japan has also adopted benefit categories differentiated by park type and scale. In contrast, Korea applies CVM uniformly due to the absence of sector-specific guidelines for feasibility studies. As a result, CVM is effectively the sole valuation tool, despite its limitations in fully quantifying tangible and intangible values within tight time and budget constraints. Moreover, current practices fail to consider users’ length of stay, activity patterns, and demographic differences, resulting in overly simplified valuation.
To verify these limitations, the study analyzed LIMAC’s feasibility assessments for urban parks conducted between 2017 and 2024 and conducted citizen FGIs. Findings indicate that low levels of familiarity with parks, varying levels of comprehension, and the inherent difficulty of CVM survey instruments contribute to systematically underestimated willingness-to-pay (WTP). In particular, the information presented through show cards was often insufficient or difficult for the general public to interpret, reducing response quality and distorting estimated consumer surplus. Questions designed to elicit non-use values also lacked specificity,
causing environmental, ecological, and disaster-mitigation benefits to be unrecognized or undervalued. Furthermore, CVM fails to differentiate values based on park size, facility quality, and locational characteristics, demonstrating structural limitations in capturing multifunctionality, place-specific attributes, and diverse usage patterns.
Alternative valuation methods—hedonic pricing, travel cost method, and choice experiment—were also reviewed. Each approach presents theoretical and practical constraints when applied to urban park projects. Hedonic pricing indirectly estimates park value through housing prices, which risks underestimating value in low-priced housing markets and raises questions regarding appropriate influence boundaries. The travel cost method is inappropriate for urban parks, where travel distances are short and demand estimation is infeasible. Choice experiments can incorporate non-use values but are limited by the difficulty of defining distinct, policy-relevant attributes of urban parks.
FGI conducted with citizens and experts highlighted several areas for improvement: the need for prior explanation of park functions, clearer and more visual show cards, consideration of project scale and location when estimating WTP, and incorporation of stay-time metrics. Respondents noted that current surveys fail to adequately convey parks’ diverse functions and that WTP judgments are made without sufficient understanding. Experts emphasized CVM’s structural tendency to underestimate non-market values and called for the development of value typologies based on detailed park functions.
Based on these findings, the study proposes short- and medium-term improvements. Short-term improvements involve enhancing CVM survey quality through systematic refinement of show cards, restructuring survey instruments to clarify distinctions between use and non-use values, and providing respondents with pre-information about park benefits. Medium-term measures call for reducing reliance on CVM by introducing new valuation models, including standardized guidelines for urban park
valuation, and applying survey approaches for capturing stay-time value directly.
This study confirms that the economic values of urban parks are broad
and diverse and that current valuation frameworks allow subjective interpretation and risk undervaluation due to overlapping or ambiguous classifications. Improvements to valuation methods are not merely technical adjustments intended to increase B/C ratios; rather, they are essential for ensuring that the values perceived by local residents are accurately reflected in feasibility studies. Such improvements enhance rational decision-making in project selection and support fiscal sustainability for local governments. Given the public and place-specific nature of urban park projects, improving valuation methodology is critical for incorporating their public-good characteristics and multifunctional benefits into policy decisions.
The study’s contribution lies in distinguishing methodological issues from survey design issues in the valuation process, elucidating discrepancies between citizen and expert perspectives through FGI, and proposing new standards such as time-based stated-preference approaches. These efforts help strengthen coherence between urban park development policies and feasibility assessment outcomes, offering a foundation for future methodological advancements and the development of sector-specific guidelines.