4.4 Review

Consumption preferences and environmental externalities: A hedonic analysis of the housing market in Guangzhou

期刊

GEOFORUM
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 414-431

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.10.002

关键词

compact city; consumption preference; hedonic pricing method; environmental externalities; green space; housing market; housing value; sustainable urban development; Guangzhou; China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The urban housing market of China has been transformed since the 1980s from a centrally-planned to a free-market system. This study aimed to (1) investigate the position of outdoor environmental quality in house-buyers' preferences; (2) assess monetary values attributed to environmental externalities by the hedonic pricing method (HPM);, and (3) test the applicability of HPM in China. The study area was Guangzhou, the major city of south China with a booming real-estate market. A questionnaire survey was conducted with households in new residences sold in 2004. The main buying motives were improving living quarters and floor area. Security concerns and a preference for high-rise buildings were somewhat unexpected. Good outdoor environment, including green space provision, proximity to parks, and views of green space and water, carried significant hedonic values. Differences between the submarkets of old and new towns were found; new town households expected apartments in high-rise blocks, exclusive residential land use, and views of green space, while old town households preferred proximity to shopping areas and workplaces, green space within the development and proximity to nearby parks. The findings could help to fine tune the developing housing market to match supply with demand in quality terms. Values accorded to environmental attributes could justify funding for urban green spaces and nature conservation. The study verified the applicability of HPM to the housing context in China. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据