This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Using Surveys to Compare the Public’s and Decisionmakers’ Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Anna Alberini (University of Maryland)
Alberto Longo (Queen’s University Belfast)
Patrizia Riganti (The University of Nottingham)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

In this paper, we illustrate how surveys can be used to elicit the preferences of the public and of policymakers and city officials for regeneration projects at urban sites. Our methodology uses rating exercises, coupled with conjoint-choice stated preferences for the general public and with ranking exercises for the public officials and other stakeholders, and is then applied to investigate alternative reuses of the Venice Arsenale, Italy, and their economic, environmental and social impacts. One interesting feature of the conjoint choice questions for members of the public is that the responses to these questions can be used to estimate the social benefits of regeneration projects, i.e., how much people are willing to pay for these urban transformations. Another advantage of our approach is that it can be used seek and foster broader public participation into urban decisionmaking processes.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/BE62ED3F-FD62-45A8-9D71-E5775B47D86C/2178/13706.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in its series Working Papers with number 2006.137.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Nov 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2006.137

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Corso Magenta, 63 - 20123 Milan
Phone: 0039-2-52036934
Fax: 0039-2-52036946
Email:
Web page: http://www.feem.it/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (barbara racah).

Related research
Keywords: Land Use; Decision-Making; Cleanup; Sustainable Development; Local Economic Development; Choice Experiments;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
R14 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Marilena Pollicino & David Maddison, 2001. "Valuing the Benefits of Cleaning Lincoln Cathedral," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 131-148, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Catherine M. Chambers & Paul E. Chambers & John C. Whitehead, . "Contingent Valuation of Quasi-Public Goods: Validity, Reliability, and Application to Valuing a Historic Site," Working Papers 9614, East Carolina University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  6. Richard Epstein, 2003. "The Regrettable Necessity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 259-274, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Douglas Noonan, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 159-176, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, March. [Downloadable!]
  11. David Throsby, 2003. "Determining the Value of Cultural Goods: How Much (or How Little) Does Contingent Valuation Tell Us?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 275-285, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Earnhart, Dietrich, 2002. "Combining Revealed and Stated Data to Examine Housing Decisions Using Discrete Choice Analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 143-169, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Anna Alberini & Patrizia Riganti & Alberto Longo, 2003. "Can People Value the Aesthetic and Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 193-213, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. John Whitehead & Suzanne Finney, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Submerged Maritime Cultural Resources," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 231-240, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Paolo Rosato & Anna Alberini & Valentina Zanatta & Margaretha Breil, 2008. "Redeveloping Derelict and Underused Historic City Areas: Evidence from a Survey of Real Estate Developers," Working Papers 2008.60, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The yearly budget of IDEAS is exactly $0: it relies entirely on volunteer work.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-3.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.