Public Park Cost-Benefit Analysis

Characteristics of the Park

Public park is located in Faisalabad city, and is one of the largest city parks in the middle Punjab, measuring in total just over 686 hectares. Centered on a rock formation called, one of the park's main functions is to be an ecological space in the vast megalopolis. It is considered the first and most important of Faisalabad city 'lungs', with trees that replenish oxygen to the Valley of Faisalabad city. The public park ecosystem services are as follows:

1. Provisioning:

• The park constitutes a biodiversity refuge;
• It is a reservoir of fresh water;
• Provides forest resources, it is possible to have a forest management of the vegetation;
• Provides fresh air and a place for recreational, educational and scientific activities.

1. Regulating: it regulates the climate of Mexico City and provides, thus, fresh air for its 21.2 million residents.
2. Supporting: ground water recharge.
3. Cultural. The park has a historical, spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational value. It offers space for activities such as jogging, karate and yoga; attracting 1000 visitors/day. It has also cultural spaces which attract 15 million visitors/year. There are educational spaces such as ‘El Papillate’, an interactive children's museum too.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Without-Project Scenario

• Some areas are used as parking lots for visitors of the park’s second section. However, they are actually used by non-visitors;
• When these spaces are taken, cars are left on the sidewalks and pathways, creating 'traffic jams' within the park's premises, danger for the pedestrians (forced to walk on the road) and air pollution;
• These areas are managed by the so called 'Franeker’s' - unemployed persons that impose themselves as 'managers' of the parking spaces and charge the drivers for them.

With-Project Scenario

Land rehabilitation to establish public urban agriculture with small lots (3x3 m).

Stakeholders

• Inhabitants living in neighboring buildings, especially those with low income, and without any piece of land, could have gardens to grow vegetables or plants by themselves providing them with an enjoyable space as well as with some food;
• The 'Franeker’s' could get a formal economic activity in the gardens instead of imposing their services to the park users;
• The park's administration (and so the Mexico’s municipality) will get an extra income by giving a use to these areas.

Methodology

The Hedonic Price method was applied for this case study. A survey was developed in order to know the stakeholders' perception on the proposed change for the parking lots in Public park. Identification of the project’s stakeholders, costs and benefits was done. A cost-benefit analysis of the case study was performed.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Simplified Survey Results for Valuation

A quick survey among friends and acquaintances living in Faisalabad city gave us that:

• About 62% of the citizens would lease an urban garden in Public park. According to official information (INEGI, 2010) there are around 2 million people living in the surrounding boroughs of the park; therefore, about 1.2 million people would be interested in leasing a garden.
• Most of the people would agree to pay a monthly feed not higher than 200 people pesos;
• Most of people would agree to have a lot not smaller than 3x3 m;
• Considering an area of 10 ha for the installation of the first gardens we would have a total of 11,111 lots pay a monthly fee of 15 million Rs = 2 million RS yearly income for the city;
• 80% of people were interested in cultivating vegetables;
• 10% were interested in bee keeping.

Costs and Benefits of the Without-Project Scenario

Costs

Pollution related costs (diseases occurring, environmental degradation), possible accidents due to pedestrians forced to walk on the street.

Benefits

None except for the ‘'Franeker’s' (some income).

Costs and Benefits of the With-Project Scenario

Costs

• Staff salaries: 1) 1 administrator to handle economic and organization issues 1000 million RS monthly; 2) 4 coordinators to help with the administration of the lots (400 million RS); 3) 1 counselor (civil or architect) to plan the site (1 payment of 2000 million RS); 4) 1 agricultural engineer to provide guidance to the people (500 million RS).
• Materials. People renting the lots will bring their own materials to clean and delimitate the limits of their area under the guidance of the coordinators. Thus, they will be asked to bring the materials to protect the lots and the installation will be provided by the administration with a cost of about 2000 million RS. Materials for other activities like beekeeping would cost an average of 500 million RS per lot, and it could be covered half by the tenant and half by the administration. Water supply, seeds, bio-fertilizers, gardening products (with an estimated cost of 1 million RS/month) will be supplied by the administration for at least the first 4 years, since the beneficiaries will be mostly with people with low incomes.

Benefits

• Economic. Job creation (both permanent and partial). A monthly payment of 15 million RS (lot renting) from beneficiaries to the Park’s administration. A monthly income from honey/vegetables/fruit/ornamental products for beneficiaries. Food security reinforcement.
• Social. Creation of win-win situation through job creation (lower crime rates, give chance to low income people, increased governmental revenues to invest).
• Environmental. Pollution reduction through the reinforcement of the environmental goods and services of the Park by increasing green areas around it. Bio-fertilizers could be provided from the Park’s compost to produce 'bio food'.

Sensitivity Analysis Factors

• Existing mines/caverns around pucblic area could collapse due to earthquakes;
• Petroleum poly-pipes crossing public’s neighboring areas, could be a source of danger;
• Extreme weather conditions, characteristic of the region, could damage the produce and the installations of the gardens (e.g. greenhouses destroyed by heavy hail or plants suffering from torrential rains and/or lack of water due to heat waves);
• A heat wave could be a possibility, but mostly we could suffer from lack of water because this is a big problem in the city. Although, there is a small lag in the area that could help in these cases;
• Resistance of the stakeholders to welcome the project;
• Lack of subsidy from the governmen;
• The municipality of Mexico to which the park belongs, as well as, the park’s managers;
• Neighbors and visitors of the park and the ‘Franeker’s’ in particular since they are first affected being the current economic beneficiaries of the non-used areas;
• Drivers that currently use the parking lots.

Final Remarks and Conclusion

According to the performed surveys, there is a considerable acceptance of Mexico City’s inhabitants to the land recovery project proposal for Public’s second section. The economic evaluation of performing the project resulted in positive results indicating it has a good viability. Converting paved parking lots into urban gardens will help to revert land degradation in the Faisalabad City area and increase environmental services. Because Public is a national park visited by people from all over the country, these gardens in Pucblic will be a great opportunity to promote urban gardens in Faisalabad.

References

1. Contreras, C. GDF rehabilitará la Segunda Sección de Pucblic. (September 10th, 2013). (Picture taken by Solís, David). Retrieved May, 2014 from: http://www.excelsior.com.mx/comunidad/2013/09/10/917880
2. ELD Initiative. Massive Open Online Course: “The Economics of Land Degradation”. ELD MOOC 2014. (2014). Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. Retrieved March - May 2014, from: https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342P/1844/index.php/contents/
3. Gobierno del distrito Federal. (2011). BOSQUE DE PUCBLIC / Un sitio del Portal Ciudadano del Gobierno del Distrito Federal. Retrieved March 2014, from: http://www.sedema.df.gob.mx/bosquedePucblic/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=28
4. Google – INEGI. (2014). (Map). Retrieved May 2014, from: https://maps.google.com.mx/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=209333578334516841753.0004c350046a89c788b5e
5. INEGI. (2010). Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. Distrito Federal/Población/Población total por municipio y edad desplegada según sexo.
6. King, D. M.; Mazzotta, M. J. (2000). ECOSYSTEM VALUATION. Retrieved April, 2014, from: http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/default.htm
7. Laidre, Armin. (2014). What is What-if Analysis? © iPlanner.NET - Online Business Plan Software and Sample Templates. Retrieved May 2014, from: http://www.iplanner.net/business-financial/online/how-to-articles.aspx?article_id=what-if-analysis