Exploring preference homogeneity and heterogeneity for proximity to urban public services

Ardeshiri, Ali; Willis, Ken; Ardeshiri, Mahyar

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.008

Cited by 40 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although previous studies show varying terminologies for UGS as shown in Table 1, such as urban park (Kim, 2018;Song et al, 2013), urban green area (Forleo et al, 2015) urban nature (Paul & Nagendra, 2017), urban open spaces (Cook et al, 2018), urban public spaces (Ardeshiri et al, 2018), waterfront open spaces (Dahal et al, 2018), and urban lake recreational area (Othman & Jafari, 2019), the settings, however, deliver similar descriptions of UGS functions as recreational and retreat areas, ecosystem services providers, and a social place. From this review, generally, there are three key factors (variables/attributes): proximity, quality, and quantity of urban green spaces (UGS).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Spatial and Non-Spatial Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Urban Green Spaces (UGS): A Review

Nordin¹,

Ling²,

Tan³

et al. 2020

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With numerous ecosystem services of urban green spaces (UGS), contributing to sustainability and a better quality of life, UGS provision is perceived as a pivotal role in urban planning. However, concern arises as to what extent local governments have effectively provided good quality and adequate quantity of UGS for the public? Provisioning those UGS aspects has been given a low priority due to insufficient resources and the limited budget allocated by local governments. As such, maintenance and management effectiveness of UGS is detrimentally affected, resulting in disused, overused spaces and thus hot spots for crimes. Therefore, public monetary contribution via taxation is suggested as an alternative to ensuring the continuity and sustainability of UGS services. This review paper is vital to identify and showcase specific factors and mediators, influencing the willingness to pay (WTP) of residents/users for UGS services. Methodologically, after conducting Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for the purpose of article screening and selection based on the two primary databases (Google Scholar and Elsevier), this paper reviewed 18 journal articles, from the year 2013 to 2020. Along with the indirect sub-factors, namely environmental behaviour/attitude and socioeconomic profiles of users, there are three main spatial and non-spatial variables (factors) identified: (i) accessibility/proximity to the nearest UGS; (ii) quantity/adequacy of UGS; and (iii) quality of UGS within a township area, influencing satisfaction and enjoyment as well as reasons and frequency of park visiting of users (mediators), which consequently affect their WTP for UGS.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Spatial and Non-Spatial Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Urban Green Spaces (UGS): A Review

Nordin¹,

Ling²,

Tan³

et al. 2020

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the SSCES for PPPs addresses the role of PPPs as a key driver for regional sustainable development from the external perspective, especially for socially sustainable development. Socially sustainable development refers to improving the living environment (Colantonio, ; Diaz‐Sarachaga et al, ; Yang et al, ), which requires an efficient public services provision (Ardeshiri et al, ). Therefore, the achievements in improving the socially desirable access to public services were chosen as the evaluation criteria of the SSCES of PPPs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluating the contribution of PPPs to regional social sustainability at the institutional level is neglected likely because there is no consensus on which criteria and perspectives should be adopted in defining the relationship between PPPs and social sustainability (Hueskes et al, ; Missimer, Robèrt, & Broman, ). Social sustainability is a series of processes for improving the quality of living environment of current and future generations (Colantonio, ; Diaz‐Sarachaga et al, ; Yang et al, ), which will put enormous pressure on public services (Ardeshiri, Willis, & Ardeshiri, Willis, & Ardeshiri, ). Public service is an intangible process or activity that constitutes the content of a physical container—infrastructures—which exists to provide appropriate conditions for general public (Rusek, Marsal‐Llacuna, Torrent Fontbona, & Colomer Llinas, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Socially sustainable development refers to improving the living environment (Colantonio, 2011;Diaz-Sarachaga et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2017), which requires an efficient public services provision (Ardeshiri et al, 2018). Therefore, the achievements in improving the socially desirable access to public services were chosen as the evaluation criteria of the SSCES of PPPs.…”

Section: Weighting the Indicator System Of The Ssces For Pppsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the regional social sustainability contribution of public‐private partnerships in China: The development of an indicator system

Yuan

Zhang

Tan

et al. 2019

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have been increasingly adopted in China. Sustainability of PPPs has become a priority for a sustainable development of PPPs. Most prior studies focus on sustainable implementation of PPP projects. Few research efforts have been done to examine the impacts of PPPs to sustainability from an external perspective and a more macro geographical scale. Meanwhile, the social aspect of the sustainability of PPPs has not been widely studied. Therefore, this study aims to propose a social sustainability contribution evaluation system (SSCES) for PPPs to evaluate PPPs' contribution to regional social sustainability at the institutional level. An indicator system of the SSCES for PPPs was developed, which included 8 requirements for socially sustainable development and 33 social sustainability indicators. The weights of indicators were determined by using the analytic hierarchy process method. The results indicate that, in the context of China, promoting peopleoriented urbanization in PPPs can help enhance regional social sustainability. This study provides a useful evaluation tool for various stakeholders to evaluate the sustainability of PPPs from an institutional level, especially for local governments to review current PPP polices and make improvements.

show abstract

“…The housing market is characterized by residents increasingly emphasizing the accessibility of public service facilities, such as educational and medical facilities and parks [1,2]. This trend in valuing livability when choosing residential locations has shaped a close spatial relationship between housing and public facilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Effects of Public Service Facilities Accessibility on Housing Prices: A Case Study of Xi’an, China

Lan

Zhou

et al. 2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The premium effect of public service facilities on the housing market is a critical determinant of housing prices, leading to the competition of different social groups in the housing market and fueling spatial inequality. Taking Xi’an, China as a case in point, this study uses Geographic Information System (GIS) to describe the spatial distribution pattern of housing prices and urban public service facilities. Using the mixed geographically weighted regression model (MGWR) and the geographical detector model (GD), this study reveals the spatial effects of these facilities’ accessibility on housing prices. The results show that commercial and leisure facilities are spatially stationary, whereas a non-stationary effect is observed among those providing educational, medical, cultural, sport, and financial services. From the urban spatial resource allocation perspective, facilities meeting people’s basic needs, such as medical care and education, constitute the basic elements of housing price differentiation. When any two of these interact, a bivariate-enhanced effect emerges. The decisive interactive elements of housing price differentiation involve the facilities meeting people’s higher-level needs, such as leisure, culture, sports, and finance. When these interactive elements interact with other facilities, a non-linear enhancement effect is induced. This research is of practical value for improving people’s living quality, optimizing the spatial distribution of public service facilities, and eliminating urban spatial inequality.

show abstract

Exploring preference homogeneity and heterogeneity for proximity to urban public services

Cited by 40 publications

References 74 publications

Spatial and Non-Spatial Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Urban Green Spaces (UGS): A Review

Spatial and Non-Spatial Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Urban Green Spaces (UGS): A Review

Evaluating the regional social sustainability contribution of public‐private partnerships in China: The development of an indicator system

Spatial Effects of Public Service Facilities Accessibility on Housing Prices: A Case Study of Xi’an, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About