Economic Valuation of the Renewal of Urban Streets: A Choice Experiment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Analysing people’s preferences for different street attributes in urban street renewal and estimating their WTP for these attributes;
- Examining the effects of gender, age and occupation on people’s preferences; and
- Exploring the feasibility of applying the choice model method to the public opinion survey for street renewal.
2. Methods
2.1. Attributes of Street Renewal
2.2. Choice Experiment
2.3. Online Survey Design
2.4. Modeling and Calculation of WTP
3. Results
3.1. Response to the Online Survey
3.2. Model Parameters and Estimation
3.3. WTP
3.4. Analysis of Reasoning
4. Discussion
4.1. Preferences on Four Aspects of Street Renewal
4.2. Use of the Results for Decision Making
4.3. Limitations
5. Conclusions
- There are significant and different preferences for the slow traffic environment, greening and leisure and business amenities in street renewal; people have the greatest preference for adding resting facilities and the least for adding commercial facilities;
- Demographic attributes of participants, such as gender, age and whether they have professional backgrounds, significantly influenced their preferences for street renewal. Females showed greater WTP on separate bicycle lanes, street greening and leisure amenities than males; and the age of participants had a positive effect on WTP, while the participants with professional backgrounds also showed a preference for adding commercial amenities, which is a particular result in this study;
- The results of WTP are similar to the cost–benefit ratio that people pay attention to, but at the same time, they are not all accurate but served as the symbols of public vision in the renewal project, given that the alternatives of proxy variables may be affected by urban consumption. The SP method and WTP are still feasible for studying public events and products and giving evidence of public preferences, such as in street renewal in the context of China.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Orthogonal Design and a Sample of Cards
Card Number | BL-A | PW-A | NL-A | SF-A | CA-A | P-A | BL-B | PW-B | NL-B | SF-B | CA-B | P-B |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 |
2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 100 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 100 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 100 |
4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 200 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 100 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 200 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 200 |
6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 100 |
7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 200 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 200 |
8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 200 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 100 |
9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 200 |
10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 200 |
11 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 200 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
12 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 200 |
13 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 100 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 |
14 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 100 |
15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 200 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
16 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 200 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 100 |
17 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 100 |
18 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
19 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 100 |
20 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 200 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100 |
21 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
22 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 200 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 200 |
23 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 100 |
24 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100 |
25 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 200 |
26 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 200 |
27 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 200 |
Appendix B. The Attributes and Pictures illustrating Their Levels
Attribute | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Bicycle lane | | | |
not separate | separate | - | |
Pedestrian path width (accessible) | | | |
< 1.5 m | 1.5–3 m | 3–8 m | |
Green looking ratio | | | |
< 20% | 20%–35% | >35% | |
Street furniture | | | |
no | only seats for bus waiting | with other furniture (for sitting, etc.) | |
Commercial amenities | | | |
few | adequate | - | |
Monthly payment | 0 | low (100 RMB) | high (200 RMB) |
References
- Luo, X. From Urban Renewal to Urban Regeneration: Planning Concept and International Experience. Planners 2013, 5, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, S.; Wu, J. Speed and Benefit: Guangzhou “Sanjiu” Redevelopment Strategies for New Urbanization. Planners 2013, 5, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, B. Practices, Effects, and Challenges of the Inventory Development Pattern: The Assessments and Extended Thoughts of Urban Renewal Implementation in Shenzhen. City Plan. Rev. 2017, 41, 89–94. [Google Scholar]
- Krieger, A.; Saunders, W.S. Urban Design; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Battista, G.; Manaugh, K. Stores and mores: Toward socializing walkability. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 67, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dovey, K.; Pafka, E. What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Stud. 2019, 57, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Southworth, M. Designing the Walkable City. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2005, 131, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolley, R. The Greening of Urban Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Western Cities; Belhaven: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Perović, S.; Šestović, J.B. Creative Street Regeneration in the Context of Socio-Spatial Sustainability: A Case Study of a Traditional City Centre in Podgorica, Montenegro. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pena, J.C.D.C.; Martello, F.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Armitage, R.; Young, R.J.; Rodrigues, M. Street trees reduce the negative effects of urbanization on birds. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ning, M.; Wei, C.; Xingyuan, H. Structure and Ecological Benefits Evaluation of Street Trees in Shenyang Based on i-Tree (STRATUM) Model. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Computer Distributed Control and Intelligent Environmental Monitoring, IEEE, Changsha, China, 19–20 February 2011; pp. 1295–1298. [Google Scholar]
- Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.V.; Swait, J.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaparias, I.; Bell, M.; Miri, A.; Chan, C.; Mount, B. Analysing the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers to shared space. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2012, 15, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fruth, E.; Kvistad, M.; Marshall, J.; Pfeifer, L.; Rau, L.; Sagebiel, J.; Soto, D.; Tarpey, J.; Weir, J.; Winiarski, B. Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giergiczny, M.; Kronenberg, J. From valuation to governance: Using choice experiment to value street trees. Ambio 2014, 43, 492–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Van Dongen, R.P.; Timmermans, H.J. Preference for different urban greenscape designs: A choice experiment using virtual environments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 44, 126435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, H.; Zhu, W.; Wang, D. Evaluation and Improvement of Bicycle Travel Environment Based on the Cycling Route Choice Behavior. Shanghai Urban Plan. 2014, 2, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
- Atkins, Institute for Transport Studies. Valuation of Townscapes and Pedestrianisation; Department for Transport: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Sheldon, R.; Heywood, C.; Buchanan, P.; Ubaka, D.; Horrell, C. Valuing Urban Realm—Business Cases for Open Spaces. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the European Transport Conference, Leiden, The Netherlands, 17–19 October 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Nellthorp, J.; Chintakayala, P.; Wardman, M. Valuation of Townscape Improvements Using a Two-Level Stated Preference and Priority Ranking Approach. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the International Choice Modelling Conference, Oulton Hall, UK, 4–6 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Perino, G.; Andrews, B.; Kontoleon, A.; Bateman, I.J. The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2013, 57, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, S.; Palma, D. Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application. J. Choice Model. 2019, 32, 100170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Quantitative Methods for Analyzing Travel Behavior of Individuals: Some Recent Developments; Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Majumdar, S.; Deng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Pierskalla, C.D. Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: A study in Savannah, Georgia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mell, I.C.; Henneberry, J.; Hehl-Lange, S.; Keskin, B. To green or not to green: Establishing the economic value of green infrastructure investments in The Wicker, Sheffield. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.H.; Bruce, L.; Perez-Garcia, J. Valuing Biodiversity, Aesthetics, and Job Losses Associated with Ecosystem Management Using Stated Preferences. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 247–257. [Google Scholar]
- Vollmer, D.; Ryffel, A.N.; Djaja, K.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Examining demand for urban river rehabilitation in Indonesia: Insights from a spatially explicit discrete choice experiment. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 514–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindsey, G.; Knaap, G. Willingness to Pay for Urban Greenway Projects. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1999, 65, 297–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millard, T.; Nellthorp, J.; Ojeda Cabral, M. What Is the Value of Urban Realm? A Cross-Sectional Analysis in London. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the International Transportation Economics Association Conference, Hong Kong, China, 25–29 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bullock, C. Valuing Urban Green Space: Hypothetical Alternatives and the Status Quo. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2008, 51, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gao, Q.; Ao, C.; Cheng, H.; Tong, R. Spatial Differentiation Research of Non-use Value WTP Based on the Residents’Ecological Cognition—Taking the Sanjiang Plain as a Case. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2014, 34, 1851–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, B.; Ferrini, S.; Bateman, I. Good parks—Bad parks: The influence of perceptions of location on WTP and preference motives for urban parks. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2017, 6, 204–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaafsma, M.; Brouwer, R.; Rose, J. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Townscape Improvements and Pedestrianisation. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-townscapes-and-pedestrianisation (accessed on 7 June 2020).
- CABE. Paved with Gold: The Real Value of Good Street Design; CABE: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Jim, C.; Chen, W.Y. Recreation–amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, A.Y. The Encroachment of Value Pragmatism on Pluralism: The Practice of the Valuation of Urban Green Space Using Stated-preference Approaches. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2011, 36, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Attribute | Code | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bicycle lane | BL | not separate | separate | - |
Pedestrian path width (accessible) | PW | <1.5 m | 1.5–3 m | 3–8m |
Green looking ratio | GL | <20% | 20%–35% | >35% |
Street furniture | SF | no | only seats for bus waiting | with other furniture (for sitting, etc.) |
Commercial amenities | CA | few | adequate | - |
Monthly payment | P | 0 | low (100 RMB) | high (200 RMB) |
Category | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | female | 322 | 58.97% |
male | 224 | 41.03% | |
Age | <18 | 8 | 1.47% |
18–25 | 157 | 28.75% | |
26–30 | 169 | 30.95% | |
31–40 | 151 | 27.66% | |
41–50 | 39 | 7.14% | |
51–60 | 13 | 2.38% | |
>60 | 9 | 1.65% | |
Practitioner | no | 301 | 55.13% |
yes | 245 | 44.87% |
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coeff. | Std. Err. | t-Ratio(0) | Coeff. | Std. Err. | t-Ratio(0) | |||
main variable | ||||||||
BL | 0.414 | ** | 0.036 | 11.586 | 0.325 | ** | 0.054 | 6.03 |
PW (l2) | 0.308 | ** | 0.042 | 7.279 | 0.311 | ** | 0.042 | 7.32 |
PW (l3) | 0.233 | ** | 0.042 | 5.541 | 0.237 | ** | 0.042 | 5.61 |
GL (l2) | 0.222 | ** | 0.042 | 5.234 | 0.190 | ** | 0.062 | 3.07 |
GL (l3) | 0.278 | ** | 0.042 | 6.640 | 0.160 | ** | 0.062 | 2.60 |
SF (l2) | 0.337 | ** | 0.043 | 7.896 | 0.262 | ** | 0.063 | 4.18 |
SF (l3) | 0.494 | ** | 0.043 | 11.597 | 0.391 | ** | 0.062 | 6.29 |
CA | 0.276 | ** | 0.037 | 7.567 | 0.199 | ** | 0.0479 | 4.15 |
P | −0.00224 | ** | 0.000363 | −6.175 | −0.00237 | ** | 0.000343 | −6.89 |
interaction | ||||||||
female*BL | 0.157 | * | 0.070 | 2.254 | ||||
female*GL (l2) | 0.058 | 0.077 | 0.750 | |||||
female*GL (l3) | 0.201 | ** | 0.077 | 2.611 | ||||
female*SF (l2) | 0.130 | 0.078 | 1.665 | |||||
female*SF (l3) | 0.175 | * | 0.077 | 2.282 | ||||
practitioner*CA | 0.172 | * | 0.069 | 2.487 | ||||
-0.731 | ** | 0.155 | -4.703 |
Variable | Common WTP | Category | WTP of Given Age | |
---|---|---|---|---|
25 | 50 | |||
Bicycle lane | 184.69 | male | 117.80 | 195.52 |
female | 174.72 | 290.00 | ||
Pedestrian width (1–2) | 137.57 | 112.75 | 187.15 | |
Pedestrian width (2–3) | 104.13 | 85.89 | 142.56 | |
Pedestrian width (1–3) | 241.70 | 198.64 | 329.71 | |
Green looking ratio (1–2) | 99.12 | male | 68.92 | 114.22 |
female | 90.01 | 149.16 | ||
Green looking ratio (2–3) | 124.24 | male | 57.93 | 96.16 |
female | 130.73 | 216.98 | ||
Green looking ratio (1–3) | 223.36 | |||
Street furniture (1–2) | 150.62 | male | 94.8 | 157.36 |
female | 141.92 | 235.56 | ||
Street furniture (2–3) | 220.34 | male | 141.89 | 235.51 |
female | 205.23 | 340.64 | ||
Street furniture (1–3) | 370.97 | |||
Commercial amenities | 123.38 | practitioner | 134.31 | 222.92 |
non-practitioner | 72.13 | 119.72 |
Category | Percentage |
---|---|
The cost–benefit ratio of the scenarios | 46.78% |
Overall feeling | 21.73% |
Aspect that most need to be renewed | 18.78% |
Increment of monthly payment | 10.31% |
Aspect that did not need to be renewed | 2.39% |
Category | Percentage |
---|---|
Payment is too high | 51.24% |
The cost–benefit ratio of A and B are poor | 42.33% |
Changing makes no sense for me | 32.43% |
Aspect that does not need to be renewed | 17.82% |
Decision is too difficult to make | 10.15% |
I do not want to pay any money for street renewal | 6.19% |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shao, Y.; Xu, X.; Jiang, L.; Crastes dit Sourd, R. Economic Valuation of the Renewal of Urban Streets: A Choice Experiment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124808
Shao Y, Xu X, Jiang L, Crastes dit Sourd R. Economic Valuation of the Renewal of Urban Streets: A Choice Experiment. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):4808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124808
Chicago/Turabian StyleShao, Yuhan, Xinyu Xu, Like Jiang, and Romain Crastes dit Sourd. 2020. "Economic Valuation of the Renewal of Urban Streets: A Choice Experiment" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 4808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124808