1.5 hectares), while residents living in city centres do not seem to be influenced by this UGS characteristic. Our results suggest that strategies based on access criteria would benefit from being differentiated according to urbanization levels of cities, as the inhabitants of city centres value nearby and multiple UGSs but not necessarily large UGSs while the inhabitants of suburbs value larger UGSs, even when located farther away. urban green spaces-recreational services-urban greening policies-preference heterogeneity-choice experiment-green infrastructures"> [Qualifier la demande de renaturation urbaine pour mieux renseigner les politiques d’aménagement des villes - une expéérience de choix discrets en Ile-de-France]"> [Qualifier la demande de renaturation urbaine pour mieux renseigner les politiques d’aménagement des villes - une expéérience de choix discrets en Ile-de-France]"> 1.5 hectares), while residents living in city centres do not seem to be influenced by this UGS characteristic. Our results suggest that strategies based on access criteria would benefit from being differentiated according to urbanization levels of cities, as the inhabitants of city centres value nearby and multiple UGSs but not necessarily large UGSs while the inhabitants of suburbs value larger UGSs, even when located farther away. urban green spaces-recreational services-urban greening policies-preference heterogeneity-choice experiment-green infrastructures">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04210911.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Characterizing the Demand Side of Urban Greening to Inform Urban Planning -A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Paris Metropolitan Region
[Qualifier la demande de renaturation urbaine pour mieux renseigner les politiques d’aménagement des villes - une expéérience de choix discrets en Ile-de-France]

Author

Listed:
  • Mai-Thi Ta

    (CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Léa Tardieu

    (UMR TETIS - Territoires, Environnement, Télédétection et Information Spatiale - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - AgroParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Harold Levrel

    (CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract
As the multiple benefits from exposure to urban green spaces (UGSs) are increasingly acknowledged, urban greening policies have become an important component of the urban political agenda. Most targeting strategies of future UGS development are based on the pursuit of an equal distribution of UGSs among residents. These strategies implicitly assume that the development of any type of UGS will have the same effect on citizens' well-being, provided that their access is guaranteed. This paper questions this assumption and addresses the demand side of urban greening policies by evaluating which UGS characteristics are sought by urban dwellers. We apply a travel time-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) to capture the trade-offs between the UGS characteristics (e.g., tree cover, size, presence of water, accessibility) and the travel time that citizens are willing to spend to reach a hypothetical UGS compared to a "stay at home" option. We discover that all the respondents have a disutility in choosing the "stay at home" option instead of a scenario of UGS development, especially when the UGS contains trees. This disutility is however much higher among outer suburb inhabitants living in municipalities with relatively lower urbanization levels and rent prices. Further, the global time budget dedicated to reach a UGS is much lower for inner-city residents compared to outer-suburb inhabitants. Inhabitants living in less urbanized areas place a higher value on a large UGS (> 1.5 hectares), while residents living in city centres do not seem to be influenced by this UGS characteristic. Our results suggest that strategies based on access criteria would benefit from being differentiated according to urbanization levels of cities, as the inhabitants of city centres value nearby and multiple UGSs but not necessarily large UGSs while the inhabitants of suburbs value larger UGSs, even when located farther away. urban green spaces-recreational services-urban greening policies-preference heterogeneity-choice experiment-green infrastructures

Suggested Citation

  • Mai-Thi Ta & Léa Tardieu & Harold Levrel, 2022. "Characterizing the Demand Side of Urban Greening to Inform Urban Planning -A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Paris Metropolitan Region [Qualifier la demande de renaturation urbaine pour mieux ren," Post-Print hal-04210911, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04210911
    DOI: 10.3917/redp.326.0907
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04210911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04210911/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3917/redp.326.0907?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Hamel & A. Guerry & S. Polasky & B. Han & J. Douglass & M. Hamann & B. Janke & J. Kuiper & H. Levrel & H. Liu & E. Lonsdorf & R. Mcdonald & C. Nootenboom & Z. Ouyang & R. Remme & R. Sharp & Léa Tar, 2021. "Mapping the benefits of nature in cities with the InVEST software," Post-Print hal-03318222, HAL.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. Douglas M. Larson & Sabina L. Shaikh & DavidF. Layton, 2004. "Revealing Preferences for Leisure Time from Stated Preference Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 307-320.
    5. Cabral, Pedro & Feger, Clément & Levrel, Harold & Chambolle, Mélodie & Basque, Damien, 2016. "Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 318-327.
    6. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    7. Feather, Peter & Shaw, W. Douglass, 1999. "Estimating the Cost of Leisure Time for Recreation Demand Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 49-65, July.
    8. Raymond Palmquist & Daniel Phaneuf & V. Smith, 2010. "Short Run Constraints and the Increasing Marginal Value of Time in Recreation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 19-41, May.
    9. Craig Bullock, 2008. "Valuing Urban Green Space: Hypothetical Alternatives and the Status Quo," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 15-35.
    10. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder, 2011. "The influence of age on recreational trail preferences of urban green-space visitors: a discrete choice experiment with digitally calibrated images," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(7), pages 891-908, November.
    11. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    12. 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.
    13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    14. Picard, P.M. & Tran, T.T.H., 2021. "Small urban green areas," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    15. J. D. Snowball & K. G. Willis, 2011. "Interview versus self-completion questionnaires in discrete choice experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(16), pages 1521-1525.
    16. Font, Antoni Riera, 2000. "Mass Tourism and the Demand for Protected Natural Areas: A Travel Cost Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 97-116, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    4. Marianne Lefebvre & Pauline Laille & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers 2020.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    5. Pauline Laille & Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers hal-02867639, HAL.
    6. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2018. "Public preferences for pesticide-free urban green spaces: a socio-economic survey [Acceptation du "Zéro-pesticides" dans les espaces publics : Étude socio-économique]," Working Papers hal-02519184, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    10. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    11. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    12. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    13. 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.
    14. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    15. Agimass, Fitalew & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2011. "Low-income fishermen's willingness-to-pay for fisheries and watershed management: An application of choice experiment to Lake Tana, Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 162-170.
    16. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    17. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    19. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Tibesigwa, Byela & Ntuli, Herbert & Muta, Telvin, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Nature Restoration and Conservation in Sub-Saharan African Cities: The Case of Forests, Rivers and Coasts in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania," EfD Discussion Paper 23-7, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.

    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:hal:journl:hal-04210911. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.