‘&& #$% !”

ASSESSING THE VALUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES
AFFECTING HOUSEHOLDS’ HOUSING CHOICES USING A CHOICE EXPERIMENT METHOD IN NAVAB NEIGHBOURHOOD

Mojtaba Rafieian, Ali Asgary Zahra Asgarizade

Assistant Prof. Urban Associate. Prof. York University- MA in Urban Planning, Tarbiat
Planning, Tarbiat Modares University. Canada. Modares University.
Rafiei_M@modares.ac.ir asgary@yorku.ca Asgarizade@gmail.com

Abstract: One technique that has been recently used to assess the value of environmental attributes is choice experiment method (CEM). CEM permits value estimates for different goods (services) sharing a common set of attributes to be pieced together using the results of a single multinomial (conditional) logic model. The CEM approach to environmental value assessment is illustrated in the context of housing choices by Naval residents in Tehran. A standard CEM questionnaire has been developed and completed in a sample of 200 residents in the Naval project neighborhood in 2008. Several log it regression models were developed in order to estimate the impacts of selected environmental attributes on households’ choices of dwellings. We have calculated the willingness to pay for environmental pollution, accessibility, security, sociability, neighborhood facilities and home facilities using house prices as a monetary value. The results show that except for the home facilities, all other environmental attributes have significant expected impacts on households’ choices. In the context of this neighborhood the results show that households would be willing to pay more for purchasing a house with less environmental pollution (noise and air pollution, more sociability, security, neighborhood facilities, and accessibility respectively. CEM is found to provide flexible and cost-effective results for estimating use and passive use values of environmental attributes in urban environment, particularly when several alternative proposals and attributes need to be considered.

!”
%” & ‘ % #$

. (CEM) ! “#$ % :: 4+ 56# 3 ,* -/01 !2$ / ‘* + & ‘ & * % ! ! $/ =/$ &* ‘* ; 8< 8!* 97 ‘#$ +: /7 ‘6 &* !2$ / ! ! “#$ !% .B;$ ‘A +$/3 >?@ ! ! &* ‘* / ; 8< IH & 6F G+ .C!D E$ 8! !3 “/$
“/$ $/ %+ &* 8 JC & 8!* ;* /$ .+$/3 >?@
.+3 E$ +3 “#$ ‘$/;$ MNO % ! (CE) ! “#$ % %% ‘A=0 % ‘K!L

/ / :
// :
Rafiei_M@modares.ac.ir .
Asgary@yorku.ca. ! “# !” #” Asgarizade@gmail.com . $ $! %&$ !” &’$
3 *+ 43 *+ , –. ,/012 ()
% !2$ ‘L 4+ ‘ ‘/ .+C!D !@ >6 / Statgraph % SPSS <C E!$
+=% TUS % ‘6 TUS 8/ R; ! D/7Q >3 P 4+ %
.C!D !@ / % % 4+ $/S !2$ , ‘ 3 !V ! $/S +=% TUS !V < ‘ ‘* 8K$ $ &!, / D/7Q 3 !V .+$ ‘3+$ 8Q ! W! % $/S +=% “#$ ! &* /A ! !K ‘< 1!L % $/S +=% “#$ ! (O/XY+R ) &* !2 R; $/ \ 8/ R; >3 W! ‘ 3 !V ! % ‘3 8Q ! ![/ % ‘* 8K$ IH .+$/ !! \!3 $/S +=% TUS $ % ! ‘6 TUS ^/ +3 T;;0 ‘< T![ ![/ % 5] 3% ‘ >7+ (CEM)! “#$
T]7 /= B;] >@ % +Q* 3% +$!D !@ T%_@ % / +] ‘* ]@/
.+3 T;;0 ! B*= ` ! !3

.8! “/$ ‘6 \ * \ ! “#$ % :
BHS 8/R ‘ g T! 8/ J@% “#$ % n!1 .[j] !* !D +$ `!K ‘<D 8/R ‘ /0 % !; ‘ !
;@ 4+ 8/i;! 3% !e 8!* ! >*
.[o] +3 ! ‘< % % $%+
&! !L /0 % % !e &
% & . % ! (WTP)7 !C 1!L ‘ >; 8< 8/ p 4+ & ‘* $Q 6F ‘$ !* %Q! ‘? TR/l/ !e ; qA RUb ‘$/D ! /H7 /b ‘ ! “#$ % ‘* 7= + ;$ !C ‘3= 1!L ‘ >; %Q! 8 /0 %
‘* +* B!C T![ ! (MWTP)
TR/l/ 6# d/$ AS$ ; &] +$/ $
./3 6 !K TRUb 8 ?$/ ! “#$ % &! T! !D +$ .[X] /0 % ‘ AS$ ‘ >; 8< B$/ ‘* + <$ 8 & 8!K
B* ;* /;R % 0#3 /1 ! !C 1!L
.[Y]
; 8< 13 ‘]7 & G+
&* \/ $/ +=% “#$ rD![
‘3rD ‘ b ‘* 8! !3 ‘C !V TU
. ‘C!D !@ !3 /$ /

7.Willingness to Pay
8.Marginal WTP
.
‘*+S JC 6# d/$ !3 c%!L % a!b % R; ] ‘6 0@ JC /= ‘$ >@ # ‘$, ‘* 7= & .+* 8 /1 <$ ‘* /3 c%!L G!F !3 +3 +Q / ] % ‘< e$ J@% . +K$ ‘A $Q ]@% JC & ‘6; .!D ;$ T/F !3 c%!L % a!b ‘ H@ .!* 3 >F= JC ‘ 8/ JC
! // >?S I@ 8!* ;f *
. !3 c%!L ‘6F= T![ >6 /% 0@ &;# ! 6# % 8!* ;* % O /;$ ‘ ‘/ .[O]
T! % >3 6* ‘ % ‘ 8/
.!* + ‘HAb (SP) g T! % (RP) /3 !D +$ BHS !h >3 /3 T! $%+ ;@ (TC)4 ! ‘< % 8/i; TRUb g T! % >H .[j] +3 (HP) % +* C l!C 4/ ‘ E! kL E,
“#$ % % (CVM6) /0 8/i; ? % >3
.+$/3 ! 7/L BHS /b ‘ /0 % ! “#$ % ‘* 7= +* 4/ T!V .[O ]+* ;$ ! % 3Q BHS /b ‘ 7/L mH

2 .Revealed Preference
3.Stated Preference
4.Travel Cost
5. Hedonic Pricing
6.Contingent Valuation Method
(D,718 9:0 5 3 %0 7 9; <-= ,;>+2 *4? 9:0 @A-B8 ,C-$2 *4 53 61

ترجيحات

ترجيحات

شهودي

ترجيحات

اظهاري

ارزيابي

تصوري

Market values
هدونيك

قيمت

روش

سفر
روش

هزينه

Avertive
behavior

تجربي

انتخاب
Open/closed
ended

Bidding game
Payment card

ترجيحات

ترجيحات

شهودي



قیمت: تومان


پاسخ دهید