IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/chosxx/v39y2024i3p720-745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are households’ residential preferences consistent with biodiversity conservation in different urban contexts?

Author

Listed:
  • Camille Regnier
  • Gengyang Tu
  • Sophie Legras
  • Mohamed Hilal
  • Cécile Détang-Dessendre

Abstract

This article combines stated preference methods and graph-based landscape approaches to assess the possible synergy existing between households’ residential preferences and biodiversity conservation in urban areas. We start by estimating household’s residential preferences regarding different landscape attributes (i.e. green spaces and compactness of the neighbourhood) of chosen urban contexts applying the choice experiment method. Then, by integrating ecological indicators obtained by using a graph-based approach in our valuation model, we study the impact of the residential choice on biodiversity conservation. Our results suggest that the preferred neighbourhood also have landscape structure that are in favour of biodiversity conservation. The preference heterogeneity for green spaces and compactness will induce landscape-based sorting. Household’s residential location choices affect biodiversity conservation differently which depend on their socio-demographic characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Camille Regnier & Gengyang Tu & Sophie Legras & Mohamed Hilal & Cécile Détang-Dessendre, 2024. "Are households’ residential preferences consistent with biodiversity conservation in different urban contexts?," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 720-745, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:39:y:2024:i:3:p:720-745
    DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2022.2077916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02673037.2022.2077916
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02673037.2022.2077916?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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:chosxx:v:39:y:2024:i:3:p:720-745. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/chos20 .

    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.