IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i10p393-d430465.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Biancamaria Torquati

    (Department of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno, 74, 06121 Perugia, Italy)

  • Giulia Giacchè

    (Research office Expert in Urban Agriculture (EXP’AU), AgroParisTech, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris, France)

  • Tiziano Tempesta

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, Agripolis - Viale dell’ Università, 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy)

Abstract

The recent decades have witnessed a significant increase in the population in peri-urban areas which led to a progressive transformation of peri-urban landscapes, and the reduced ability of agriculture to provide ecosystem services. In order to understand the complex relationships established in peri-urban areas between reference urban centre, urban services (US) and ecosystem services (ES), with particular attention to the landscape, a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was carried out in the transitional peri-urban areas of six municipalities located near the city of Perugia (Italy). The two main goals of this study are analysing the effect of the presence of US and ES on the demand for housing, and exploring the implications in terms of peri-urban land use policy. The results highlight that the availability of some ES can have a significant impact on choice of housing location.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:10:p:393-:d:430465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/10/393/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/10/393/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohammad R. Tayyaran & Ata M. Khan & Donald A. Anderson, 2003. "Impact of telecommuting and intelligent transportation systems on residential location choice," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 171-193, April.
    2. Aloys Borgers & Harry Timmermans, 1993. "Transport Facilities And Residential Choice Behavior: A Model Of Multi‐Person Choice Processes," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 45-61, January.
    3. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204, January.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Dietrich Earnhart, 2001. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 12-29.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Jan Rouwendal & Erik Meijer, 2001. "Preferences for Housing, Jobs, and Commuting: A Mixed Logit Analysis," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 475-505, August.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Federico Caprotti & Robert Cowley & Ayona Datta & Vanesa Castán Broto & Eleanor Gao & Lucien Georgeson & Clare Herrick & Nancy Odendaal & Simon Joss, 2017. "The New Urban Agenda: key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 367-378, July.
    11. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    12. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.
    13. Knut Per Hasund & Mitesh Kataria & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2011. "Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 31-53.
    14. Joan Walker & Jieping Li, 2007. "Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 77-101, April.
    15. J. D. Hunt, 2010. "Stated Preference Examination of Factors Influencing Residential Attraction," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Francesca Pagliara & John Preston & David Simmonds (ed.), Residential Location Choice, pages 21-59, Springer.
    16. 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.
    17. E Molin & H Oppewal & H Timmermans, 1999. "Group-Based versus Individual-Based Conjoint Preference Models of Residential Preferences: A Comparative Test," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(11), pages 1935-1947, November.
    18. Brian Roe & Elena G. Irwin & Hazel A. Morrow-Jones, 2004. "The Effects of Farmland, Farmland Preservation, and Other Neighborhood Amenities on Housing Values and Residential Growth," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 55-75.
    19. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    20. Edoardo Marcucci & Amanda Stathopoulos & Lucia Rotaris & Romeo Danielis, 2011. "Comparing Single and Joint Preferences: A Choice Experiment on Residential Location in Three-Member Households," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(5), pages 1209-1225, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cánovas-Molina, Almudena & Cánovas Soler, Antonio & García-Frapolli, Eduardo, 2021. "City-traditional agriculture dialogues: The ‘Huerta de Murcia’ case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Iftekhar, Md Sayed & Polyakov, Maksym & Rogers, Abbie, 2022. "Social preferences for water sensitive housing features in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    7. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    8. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    9. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    10. Hendrawan, Dienda & Musshoff, Oliver, 2024. "Smallholders' preferred attributes in a subsidy program for replanting overaged oil palm plantations in Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    11. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    13. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    14. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    15. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    17. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Howard, Gregory & Allen Klaiber, H. & Roe, Brian E., 2023. "Food choice behavior of adolescents under parent-child interaction in the context of US school lunch programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    19. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    20. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.

    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:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:10:p:393-:d:430465. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.