IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i12p4808-d370553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Valuation of the Renewal of Urban Streets: A Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Yuhan Shao

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Xinyu Xu

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Like Jiang

    (Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Romain Crastes dit Sourd

    (Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

Examination of users’ preferences and needs can provide an additional and strong basis for decision making, which is applicable in the case of urban street renewal. In this study, a choice experiment on street renewal plans in Shanghai was conducted using an online survey (N = 546), and people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for a set of street attributes was estimated, including bicycle lane separation, pedestrian path width, green looking ratio and recreational and commercial amenities. By comparing WTPs, the results show that people had greater preferences for adding resting facilities than any other attributes in this scene, and they also give some examples of prices of street attributes in a street renewal scene. The gender, age and occupation of participants had a significant effect on WTPs. Females showed greater WTP for setting separate bicycle lanes and improving greening and amenities, and the age of street users had a positive effect on WTP through the payment for street renewal. The reasoning section of the survey indicated the concern on the cost–benefit ratio, the need to renew and overall impression when choosing, and only a few participants were unwilling to pay anything for street improvement. This kind of economic valuation can estimate the values that people place on street attributes that are otherwise not measurable in design and planning practice; it can help us understand public preferences for street renewal and support decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuhan Shao & Xinyu Xu & Like Jiang & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2020. "Economic Valuation of the Renewal of Urban Streets: A Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4808-:d:370553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4808/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4808/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Battista, Geoffrey A. & Manaugh, Kevin, 2018. "Stores and mores: Toward socializing walkability," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 53-60.
    3. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Barnaby Andrews & Silvia Ferrini & Ian Bateman, 2017. "Good parks – bad parks: the influence of perceptions of location on WTP and preference motives for urban parks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 204-224, April.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 1977. "Quantitative Methods for Analyzing Travel Behaviour of Individuals: Some Recent Developments," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 474, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. Craig Bullock, 2008. "Valuing Urban Green Space: Hypothetical Alternatives and the Status Quo," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 15-35.
    7. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    8. Svetlana K. Perović & Jelena Bajić Šestović, 2019. "Creative Street Regeneration in the Context of Socio-Spatial Sustainability: A Case Study of a Traditional City Centre in Podgorica, Montenegro," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-25, October.
    9. Fruth, Erik & Kvistad, Michele & Marshall, Joe & Pfeifer, Lena & Rau, Luisa & Sagebiel, Julian & Soto, Daniel & Tarpey, John & Weir, Jessica & Winiarski, Bradyn, 2019. "Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    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. Le Zhang & Xiaoxiao Xu & Yanlong Guo, 2022. "Comprehensive Evaluation of the Implementation Effect of Commercial Street Quality Improvement Based on AHP-Entropy Weight Method—Taking Hefei Shuanggang Old Street as an Example," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Pedro Plasencia-Lozano, 2021. "Evaluation of a New Urban Cycling Infrastructure in Caceres (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.

    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. 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.
    2. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    4. Viola Di Cori & Cristiano Franceschinis & Nicolas Robert & Davide Matteo Pettenella & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    6. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    7. Valeria M. Toledo‐Gallegos & Jed Long & Danny Campbell & Tobias Börger & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial clustering of willingness to pay for ecosystem services," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 673-697, September.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 129-132, January.
    10. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    11. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    12. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    13. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    14. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Hyunjoo Lee & Misuk Lee & Sesil Lim, 2018. "Do Consumers Care about the Energy Efficiency of Buildings? Understanding Residential Choice Based on Energy Performance Certificates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    16. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    17. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    18. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    19. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    20. Francisco Guijarro, 2018. "Economic Recovery and Effectiveness of Active Labour Market Initiatives for the Unemployed in Spain: A Gender Perspective of the Valencian Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, October.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4808-:d:370553. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.