This paper reports findings from a choice experiment that was conducted to assess how users and non-users value greenspace. The study aimed to measure how people perceive and value greenspace for different possible uses and from different user perspectives, using a choice modelling approach. There are previous applications of choice modelling to studying park use (e.g. Hanley et al., 1998). These studies have however focussed almost exclusively on regional or national parks and other ‘non-urban’ green spaces and have not addressed the total array of possible green space ‘benefits’. We measure how residents value greenspaces and greenspace attributes in the different roles in which they engage with the greenspace in their cities, that is, as greenspace ‘consumer’, as local resident, and as citizen. In the analysis we test how these different user perspectives result in different greenspace valuations (cf. Payne et al., 2002). We also investigate how these valuations depend on actual use of greenspace and on socio-demographic characteristics (Spotts and Stynes, 1984). Choice experiments entail designing a series of hypothetical choice scenarios that describe variations on respondents’ current situation (e.g. Louviere, Hensher and Swait, 2000; cf. Louviere and Timmermans, 1990, Oppewal and Timmermans, 1999). Respondents indicated their likely response if the described changes were to occur. The method allows experimental control and allows to separate variables that otherwise would be too confounded to assess their individual impacts on valuation and choice. Results are typically analysed with logistic regression. A comprehensive list of 24 greenspace ‘benefits’ was generated from a review of literature and a series of exploratory interviews. These benefits are defined as characteristics that either apply or not apply for an urban greenspace. For example, a certain greenspace may offer pleasant views, or may not offer pleasant views, according to an individual respondent. Each respondent received several scenarios describing urban parks as could be present in a residential area like the resident’s current area. Respondents rated each described park on a set of criteria and then indicated which of the two parks was offering the greatest value for themselves, their neighbourhood, and for the larger communityThe choice experiment was conducted among a random sample of households in Brighton/Hove. 182 completed questionnaires were obtained. Analysis revealed that parks offering nice scenery are highly valued in terms of personal benefits. They are of less value to individuals personally if they have unique plants, natural areas, accommodate large events, offer food and drink facilities, or are visited by people from outside the own area. The presence of special activity areas, good maintenance, and some level of supervision add particular to the park’s value for the neighbourhood. These findings demonstrate that park attributes are valued differently depending on the perspective that the respondent takes when evaluating the park. This dependency should be taken into account when using valuations to inform greenspace planning. Methodologies as demonstrated in this paper may help decision makers to better understand and assess the trade-offs they are faced with.