IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v23y2021i1d10.1007_s10018-020-00284-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trees, ground vegetation, sidewalks, cycleways: users’ preferences and economic values for different elements of an urban street—a case study in Taipei

Author

Listed:
  • Chad M. Botes

    (University of London)

  • Alberto M. Zanni

    (University of London)

Abstract

Streets are an essential element of cities, and their design has a profound impact on their functionality to the movement of people and their well-being. This paper investigates preferences for and economic values of several street design characteristics, encompassing greenspaces (ground vegetation, trees, flowers), and walking and cycling infrastructure. A discrete choice experiment on a single case study street in Taipei, Taiwan, has revealed positive preferences for ground vegetation (and a willingness to pay—WTP—between $2.8 and $4 per year for a 1% increase in coverage), separated cycling infrastructure (with a WTP between $60 and $100 for cycleways separated from traffic), pedestrian access to road islands (WTP of $55), and the (reduced) amount of space dedicated to motor vehicles (WTP of $29 to avoid any increase). Flowers were also deemed important, but a mixed picture was obtained with respect to preference for street trees. The analysis is exploratory, on a relatively small sample of street users, but contributes to the literature on the importance of urban vegetation and walking and cycling infrastructure when designing streets and be used to draw lessons for other similarly dense urban areas in the country and wider region.

Suggested Citation

  • Chad M. Botes & Alberto M. Zanni, 2021. "Trees, ground vegetation, sidewalks, cycleways: users’ preferences and economic values for different elements of an urban street—a case study in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 145-171, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:23:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10018-020-00284-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10018-020-00284-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10018-020-00284-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10018-020-00284-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    3. Kara S. Luckey & Wesley E. Marshall & Catherine Durso & Carol Atkinson-Palombo, 2018. "Residential preferences, transit accessibility and social equity: insights from the Denver region," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 149-174, April.
    4. Veronika Liebelt & Stephan Bartke & Nina Schwarz, 2019. "Urban Green Spaces and Housing Prices: An Alternative Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    6. Matthew Carmona, 2019. "Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 1-48, January.
    7. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    8. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    9. Mabon, Leslie & Shih, Wan-Yu, 2018. "What might ‘just green enough’ urban development mean in the context of climate change adaptation? The case of urban greenspace planning in Taipei Metropolis, Taiwan," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 224-238.
    10. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    11. Sung-Kwon Hong & Ju-Mi Kim & Hyun-Kil Jo & Sang-Woo Lee, 2018. "Monetary Valuation of Urban Forest Attributes in Highly Developed Urban Environments: An Experimental Study Using a Conjoint Choice Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Belcher, Richard N. & Chisholm, Ryan A., 2018. "Tropical Vegetation and Residential Property Value: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis in Singapore," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 149-159.
    13. Kostas Mouratidis, 2018. "Rethinking how built environments influence subjective well-being: a new conceptual framework," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 24-40, January.
    14. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    15. Rachel Aldred & Bridget Elliott & James Woodcock & Anna Goodman, 2017. "Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: a systematic review exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 29-55, January.
    16. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    17. Grischa Perino & Barnaby Andrews & Andreas Kontoleon & Ian Bateman, 2014. "The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 251-272, February.
    18. Marqués, R. & Hernández-Herrador, V. & Calvo-Salazar, M. & García-Cebrián, J.A., 2015. "How infrastructure can promote cycling in cities: Lessons from Seville," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 31-44.
    19. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    20. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    21. Skov-Petersen, Hans & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Thomas Alexander, Sick Nielsen & Rask, Simon, 2017. "Effects of upgrading to cycle highways - An analysis of demand induction, use patterns and satisfaction before and after," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 203-210.
    22. Lin, Jen-Jia & Yang, Shu-Han, 2019. "Proximity to metro stations and commercial gentrification," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 79-89.
    23. Laird, James & Page, Matthew & Shen, Shujie, 2013. "The value of dedicated cyclist and pedestrian infrastructure on rural roads," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 86-96.
    24. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    25. Michael W. Mehaffy & Tigran Haas & Peter Elmlund, 2019. "Public Space in the New Urban Agenda: Research into Implementation," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 134-137.
    26. Zhang, Ying & Thomas, Tom & Brussel, Mark & van Maarseveen, Martin, 2017. "Exploring the impact of built environment factors on the use of public bikes at bike stations: Case study in Zhongshan, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 59-70.
    27. Jeremy Webb & Max Briggs & Clevo Wilson, 2018. "Breaking automotive modal lock-in: a choice modelling study of Jakarta commuters," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(1), pages 47-68, January.
    28. Dong-Hyeon Kim & Byeong-Il Ahn & Eui-Gyeong Kim, 2016. "Metropolitan Residents’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Life Zone Forest for Mitigating Heat Island Effects during Summer Season in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    29. Ralph Buehler & Jennifer Dill, 2016. "Bikeway Networks: A Review of Effects on Cycling," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 9-27, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Minho Seo & Seiyong Kim, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Utility Value Based on User Preferences for Urban Streets: The Case of Seoul, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    3. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Daziano, Ricardo A. & Achtnicht, Martin, 2014. "Accounting for uncertainty in willingness to pay for environmental benefits," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 166-177.
    6. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Zhou, Heng & Norman, Richard & Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Hughes, Brett & Kelobonye, Keone & Nikolova, Gabi & Falkmer, Torbjorn, 2020. "Analysing travel mode and airline choice using latent class modelling: A case study in Western Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 187-205.
    9. Mokas, Ilias & Lizin, Sebastien & Brijs, Tom & Witters, Nele & Malina, Robert, 2021. "Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "How to better represent preferences in choice models: The contributions to preference heterogeneity attributable to the presence of process heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 218-248.
    11. Merkert, Rico & Beck, Matthew, 2017. "Value of travel time savings and willingness to pay for regional aviation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 29-42.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    14. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    15. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Ordering effects and strategic response in discrete choice experiments," Research Reports 107743, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    16. Hanley, Nick & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley-Nickolls, Rose & Redpath, Steve, 2010. "Economic values of species management options in human-wildlife conflicts: Hen Harriers in Scotland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 107-113, November.
    17. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    18. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    19. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    20. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:23:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10018-020-00284-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.