Open space may provide a variety of environmental services, such as flood control, prevention of soil erosion, storage and recycling of wastes, and scenic views, which do not have traditional market values. This study assesses the value of these amenities in Dakota County, Minnesota, by estimating the marginal price of open space proximity to housing, with the hedonic property price method. Utilizing residential housing and open space data, a property's structural, neighborhood, regional, and environmental characteristics are related to its sale price. Key environmental characteristics are distances between a property and particular types of natural areas and farmland. The marginal price of proximity to open space was estimated with three models that illustrate the relationship between open space proximity and property price. The estimation results suggest that Dakota County homeowners pay, ceteris paribus, a higher property price (115)tolive100feetclosertoanytypeofopenspace.Uponcategorizationofopenspaceintonaturalareasandfarmland,aninterestingdistinctionwasdiscovered:homebuyerspaidmore(111) to live 100 feet closer to natural areas and less (-53)tolivethesamedistanceclosertofarmland.Furtherclassificationofopenspaceintopubliclands,forests,prairies,wetlands,andwaterbodies,yieldedvaryingmarginalpricesforproximitytothesefeatures.Proximitytopubliclandsandforestshadapositiverelationshipwithpropertyprice(80 and 70respectively),whilethemarginalpriceforproximitytofarmlandremainednegative(β66). Living marginally closer to prairies also had a negative association with property price (-48),whilenearnesstowetlandsandwaterdidnothaveastatisticallysignificanteffect.Theselastthreemarginalpricesareunreliableduetothepresenceofmulticollinearity.Finally,splittingtheobservationsintourbanandruralβurbanfringezonesshowedregionaldistinctionsintherelationshipofopenspaceproximitytopropertyprice.Inurbanareas,proximitytopubliclyownednaturalspacesandforestsyieldedapositivemarginalprice(127 and 62respectively).Intheruralβurbanfringe,proximitytoforestsandwaterfeaturesyieldedpositivemarginalprices(91 and 66respectively).Whileproximitytofarmland,prairiesandwetlandswasconsideredundesirableintheurbanzone(withmarginalpricesβ102, -55,β63), nearness to these same features in the rural-urban fringe has a statistically insignificant relationship to property price