IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2006.137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Alberini

    (University of Maryland)

  • Alberto Longo

    (Queen’s University Belfast)

  • Patrizia Riganti

    (The University of Nottingham)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo & Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public’s and Decisionmakers’ Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Working Papers 2006.137, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2006.137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2006-137.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine M. Chambers & Paul E. Chambers & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of Quasi-Public Goods: Validity, Reliability, and Application To Valuing a Historic Site," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 137-154, March.
    2. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    3. Douglas Noonan, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 159-176, November.
    4. 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;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 193-213, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Donggen Wang & Si-Ming Li, 2004. "Housing Preferences in a Transitional Housing System: The Case of Beijing, China," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(1), pages 69-87, January.
    9. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    12. John Whitehead & Suzanne Finney, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Submerged Maritime Cultural Resources," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 231-240, November.
    13. Richard Epstein, 2003. "The Regrettable Necessity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 259-274, November.
    14. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    15. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 2003. "Recreation Demand Models," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10211, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    16. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    17. David Throsby, 2003. "Determining the Value of Cultural Goods: How Much (or How Little) Does Contingent Valuation Tell Us?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 275-285, November.
    18. Tiziana Cuccia, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Marilena Pollicino & David Maddison, 2001. "Valuing the Benefits of Cleaning Lincoln Cathedral," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(2), pages 131-148, May.
    20. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    21. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    22. 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;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.
    23. José Sanz & Luis Herrero & Ana Bedate, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Semiparametric Methods: A Case Study of the National Museum of Sculpture in Valladolid, Spain," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 241-257, November.
    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. Paolo Rosato & Anna Alberini & Valentina Zanatta & Margaretha Breil, 2009. "Redeveloping Derelict and Underused Historical City Areas: Evidence from a Survey�of�Real�Estate�Developers," Working Papers 2009_02, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    2. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2016. "Difference in Preferences or in Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Working Papers in Economics 669, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    3. Paolo Rosato & Anna Alberini & Valentina Zanatta & Margaretha Breil, 2010. "Redeveloping derelict and underused historic city areas: evidence from a survey of real estate developers," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 257-281.
    4. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    5. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    6. Colombo, S. & Angus, A. & Morris, J. & Parsons, D.J. & Brawn, M. & Stacey, K. & Hanley, N., 2009. "A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2834-2841, September.

    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. Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto & Riganti, Patrizia, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public's and Decision-makers' Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12221, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Patrizia Riganti & Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo, 2005. "Public Preferences for Land usesÂ’ changes - valuing urban regeneration projects at the Venice Arsenale," ERSA conference papers ersa05p756, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Boter, Jaap & Rouwendal, Jan & Wedel, Michel, 2004. "Employing Travel Costs to Compare the Use Value of Competing Cultural Organizations," Serie Research Memoranda 0011, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    4. Jaap Boter & Jan Rouwendal & Michel Wedel, 2005. "Employing Travel Time to Compare the Value of Competing Cultural Organizations," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 29(1), pages 19-33, February.
    5. Hasler, Berit & Lundhede, Thomas, 2005. "Are Agricultural Measures for Groundwater Protection Beneficial When Compared to Purification of Polluted Groundwater?," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24587, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    7. Wiśniewska Aleksandra, 2019. "Quality attributes in the non-market stated-preference based valuation of cultural goods," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 6(53), pages 132-150, January.
    8. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Aleksandra Wiśniewska, 2019. "‘Quality food’ for cultural policies. Quality attributes in the non-market stated-preference based valuation of cultural goods," Working Papers 2019-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V., 2016. "Drivers of heritage value: A meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 277-284.
    11. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    13. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    14. 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).
    15. Cuccia Tiziana, 2008. "A contingent ranking study on the preferences of tourists across seasons," EBLA Working Papers 200802, University of Turin.
    16. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    18. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    19. Frateschi, Carlofilippo & Lazzaro, Elisabetta & Palma Martos, Luis, 2009. "A Comparative Econometric Analysis of Museum Attendance by Locals and Foreigners: The Cases of Padua and Seville/Un análisis econométrico comparado de las asistencias a los museos por parte del públic," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 27, pages 177-198, Abril.
    20. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Use; Decision-Making; Cleanup; Sustainable Development; Local Economic Development; Choice Experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:fem:femwpa:2006.137. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.