IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v195y2022ics0921800922000489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social preferences for water sensitive housing features in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Iftekhar, Md Sayed
  • Polyakov, Maksym
  • Rogers, Abbie

Abstract

Without the designing and implementing of water sensitive housing designs, unplanned infill developments could have a substantial adverse effect on the natural environment. Water sensitive housing options could help meet housing demand while minimising the environmental impacts associated with typical infill development. However, whether the market will accept these designs is not known. In this paper, we assess people's preferences for different dwelling options in Adelaide and Melbourne. In both cities, infill is a dominant type of housing development. We use an economic non-market valuation approach, a discrete choice experiment, to understand owners' and renters' preferences for a set of attributes associated with a dwelling. It has been found that people have a very strong tendency to prefer their current dwelling and prefer house and townhouse dwelling types compared to apartments. Access to ‘high’ quality private outdoor space is preferred compared to a ‘minimal’ level. They also prefer covered-secured parking. However, there are low (or negative) preferences for a high level of shared amenity, except for renters in Adelaide. The results suggest that infill markets will be most successful in achieving water-sensitive outcomes if adopting detached dwelling styles with covered-secured parking with high-quality private outdoor space.

Suggested Citation

  • Iftekhar, Md Sayed & Polyakov, Maksym & Rogers, Abbie, 2022. "Social preferences for water sensitive housing features in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:195:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922000489
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922000489
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107386?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sorada Tapsuwan & Gordon Ingram & Michael Burton & Donna Brennan, 2009. "Capitalized amenity value of urban wetlands: a hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 527-545, October.
    2. Emma Mulliner & Mike Riley & Vida Maliene, 2020. "Older People’s Preferences for Housing and Environment Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-25, July.
    3. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    5. Craig Bullock & Mark Scott & Menelaos Gkartzios, 2011. "Rural residential preferences for house design and location: insights from a discrete choice experiment applied to Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 685-706.
    6. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    8. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    9. Rosemary Kennedy & Laurie Buys & Evonne Miller, 2015. "Residents’ Experiences of Privacy and Comfort in Multi-Storey Apartment Dwellings in Subtropical Brisbane," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Carlotta Balestra & Joyce Sultan, 2013. "Home Sweet Home: The Determinants of Residential Satisfaction and its Relation with Well-being," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2013/5, OECD Publishing.
    11. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    12. Joan Walker & Jieping Li, 2007. "Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 77-101, April.
    13. Felix Haifeng Liao & Steven Farber & Reid Ewing, 2015. "Compact development and preference heterogeneity in residential location choice behaviour: A latent class analysis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(2), pages 314-337, February.
    14. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    15. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    16. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    2. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    4. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    5. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    6. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    9. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    11. Biancamaria Torquati & Giulia Giacchè & Tiziano Tempesta, 2020. "Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    12. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Jo, Manseok & Shin, Jungwoo & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Impact of rebate program for energy-efficient household appliances on consumer purchasing decisions: The case of electric rice cookers in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1394-1403.
    14. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 17-31.
    16. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    17. Reithmayer, Corrina & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! – The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 298419, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    18. Marco A. Palma & Myriah D. Johnson & David P. Anderson, 2019. "The effects of experience versus description of attributes on willingness‐to‐pay for beefsteaks," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 129-137, March.
    19. Tesfaye, Abonesh & Hansen, James & Kassie, Girma Tesfahun & Radeny, Maren & Solomon, Dawit, 2019. "Estimating the economic value of climate services for strengthening resilience of smallholder farmers to climate risks in Ethiopia: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 157-168.
    20. Vincenzina Caputo, 2020. "Does information on food safety affect consumers' acceptance of new food technologies? The case of irradiated beef in South Korea under a new labelling system and across different information regimes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1003-1033, 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:eee:ecolec:v:195:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922000489. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.