| Literature DB >> 34202924 |
Yonglin Zhang1, Xiao Fu1, Chencan Lv1, Shanlin Li2.
Abstract
Population agglomeration and real estate development encroach on public green spaces, threatening human settlement equity and perceptual experience. Perceived greenery is a vital interface for residents to interact with the urban eco-environment. Nevertheless, the economic premiums and spatial scale of such greenery have not been fully studied because a comprehensive quantitative framework is difficult to obtain. Here, taking advantage of big geodata and deep learning to quantify public perceived greenery, we integrate a multiscale GWR (MGWR) and a hedonic price model (HPM) and propose an analytic framework to explore the premium of perceived greenery and its spatial pattern at the neighborhood scale. Our empirical study in Beijing demonstrated that (1) MGWR-based HPM can lead to good performance and increase understanding of the spatial premium effect of perceived greenery; (2) for every 1% increase in neighborhood-level perceived greenery, economic premiums increase by 4.1% (115,862 RMB) on average; and (3) the premium of perceived greenery is spatially imbalanced and linearly decreases with location, which is caused by Beijing's monocentric development pattern. Our framework provides analytical tools for measuring and mapping the capitalization of perceived greenery. Furthermore, the empirical results can provide positive implications for establishing equitable housing policies and livable neighborhoods.Entities:
Keywords: big geodata; deep learning; hedonic price model; housing premium; multiscale GWR (MGWR); public perceived greenery
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34202924 PMCID: PMC8297180 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136809
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The Sixth Ring Road area and housing units in Beijing. Subplot (A): the location of study area. The red lines from the inside to the outside in subplot (B) are the Second to Fifth Ring Roads.
Figure 2The analytical framework.
Figure 3The location of the Guoxingjiayuan community and perceived greenery measurement examples. The vermilion circles in the enlarged map indicate points A and B adjacent to the plot and the corresponding street views used in panoptic segmentation masks.
Characteristic indicators and basic statistics.
| Category | Variables | Description | Mean | Standard Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| LNHP | Log selling price in 10,000 RMB (Chinese currency, US $1 = RMB 6.497) | 5.667 | 0.536 |
|
| AREA | Average usable area in the home (m2) | 88.450 | 46.84 |
| ORI | Dummy variable; 1 if the building windows face south | 0.783 | 0.412 | |
| FLOOR | Average number of floors in the building | 11.539 | 11.861 | |
| AGE | 2021 minus the year of construction of the building | 19.641 | 13.747 | |
| PR | Floor-area ratio | 2.524 | 1.549 | |
| GR | Green coverage rate (%) | 32.462 | 7.486 | |
| PF | Property management fee (RMB/m2/ month) | 1.764 | 1.419 | |
|
| BUS_D | Road distance to the nearest bus station (km) | 0.236 | 0.205 |
| ENT_D | Road distance to the nearest entertainment facility (km) | 0.132 | 0.215 | |
| HSP_D | Road distance to the nearest hospital (km) | 0.182 | 0.219 | |
| EDU_D | Road distance to the nearest school (km) | 0.182 | 0.239 | |
| SOP_D | Road distance to the nearest store (km) | 0.097 | 0.172 | |
| SUB_D | Road distance to the nearest subway station (km) | 1.471 | 1.334 | |
| GRE_D | Road distance to the nearest green space (km) | 0.253 | 0.245 | |
| WAT_D | Road distance to the nearest water body (km) | 0.732 | 0.503 | |
| LNPG | Logarithmic of average perceived greenery at the house level | 2.798 | 0.337 |
Figure 4The perceived greenery distribution map and statistics in Beijing. Subplot (A): the perceived greenery distribution map. Subplot (B): the histogram and statistical results of average perceived greenery. The abbreviation “RR” in subplot (C) indicates ring roads, e.g., “RR3-RR2” indicates the Third to Second Ring Road areas.
Performance of OLS regression (n = 3175).
| Variables | Model 1: OLS Regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Unstandardized Coefficients | Standard Error | ||
| Constant | 4.752 ** | 0.071 | 0.000 |
|
| |||
| AREA | 0.007 ** | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| ORI | 0.012 | 0.017 | 0.484 |
| FLOOR | 0.004 ** | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| AGE | 0.001 ** | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| PR | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.248 |
| GR | 0.003 * | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| PF | 0.056 ** | 0.006 | 0.000 |
|
| |||
| BUS_DIS | 0.173 ** | 0.034 | 0.000 |
| ENT_DIS | −0.075 | 0.040 | 0.061 |
| HSP_DIS | −0.104 * | 0.040 | 0.010 |
| EDU_DIS | −0.091 * | 0.031 | 0.004 |
| SOP_DIS | −0.102 | 0.057 | 0.072 |
| SUB_DIS | −0.069 ** | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| GRE_DIS | −0.012 * | 0.028 | 0.010 |
| WAT_DIS | 0.060 ** | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| LNPG | 0.105 ** | 0.020 | 0.000 |
| R2 | 0.653 | ||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.650 | ||
| AICc | 2723 | ||
| RSS | 433 | ||
** significant at the 1% level; * significant at the 5% level.
Performance of GWR and MGWR (n = 3175).
| Model 2: GWR | Model 3: MGWR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Unstandardized Coefficients (Mean) | Standard Error | Bandwidth | Unstandardized Coefficients (Mean) | Standard Error | Bandwidth |
| Constant | 4.750 ** | 0.446 | 360 | 4.560 ** | 0.240 | 54 |
|
| ||||||
| AREA | 0.008 ** | 0.001 | - | 0.008 ** | 0.001 | 122 |
| ORI | 0.073 | 0.005 | - | 0.007 | 0.001 | 3175 |
| FLOOR | 0.002 ** | 0.005 | - | 0.004 ** | 0.000 | 3175 |
| AGE | −0.002 ** | 0.003 | - | −0.002 ** | 0.000 | 3175 |
| PR | −0.007 | 0.011 | - | −0.009 | 0.000 | 3175 |
| GR | 0.002 ** | 0.004 | - | 0.003 ** | 0.000 | 3175 |
| PF | 0.044 ** | 0.037 | - | 0.020 ** | 0.000 | 3175 |
|
| ||||||
| BUS_D | 0.034 ** | 0.117 | - | 0.031 ** | 0.004 | 3172 |
| ENT_D | 0.045 * | 0.219 | - | 0.062 * | 0.056 | 1735 |
| HSP_D | 0.035 * | 0.144 | - | 0.026 * | 0.003 | 3175 |
| EDU_D | −0.039 * | 0.173 | - | −0.028 * | 0.003 | 519 |
| SOP_D | 0.038 | 0.235 | - | 0.028 | 0.009 | 3132 |
| SUB_D | −0.016 ** | 0.052 | - | −0.019 ** | 0.001 | 3175 |
| GRE_D | −0.003 ** | 0.124 | - | −0.019 ** | 0.003 | 3175 |
| WAT_D | 0.024 ** | 0.107 | - | 0.083 ** | 0.029 | 1063 |
| LNPG | 0.019 ** | 0.121 | - | 0.041 ** | 0.000 | 3175 |
| R2 | 0.810 | 0.814 | ||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.782 | 0.802 | ||||
| AICc | 883 | 378 | ||||
| RSS | 185 | 179 | ||||
** significant at the 1% level; * significant at the 5% level (average performance).
Figure 5Spatial distribution of PG coefficients and premiums. Subplot (A) shows the distribution of PG coefficients. Subplot (B) takes Tiananmen as the center and uses an interval of 2.5 km to create a multiring buffer and show the PG premium gradient. The dotted brown line is the extension of Beijing’s east-west line. Subplot (C) is the premium gradient and the fitting line, and the solid brown line represents the reference positions of the five-ring roads, e.g., the abbreviation “RR2” represents the Second Ring Road.