| Literature DB >> 35004592 |
Ziliang Lai1,2, Xinghua Liu1,2, Wenxiang Li3, Ye Li1,2, Guojian Zou1,2, Meiting Tu1,2,4.
Abstract
Previous studies have paid little attention to the spatial heterogeneity of residents' marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for clean air at a city level. To fill this gap, this study adopts a geographically weighted regression (GWR) model to quantify the spatial heterogeneity of residents' MWTP for clean air in Shanghai. First, Shanghai was divided into 218 census tracts and each tract was the smallest research unit. Then, the impacts of air pollutants and other built environment variables on housing prices were chosen to reflect residents' MWTP and a GWR model was used to analyze the spatial heterogeneity of the MWTP. Finally, the total losses caused by air pollutants in Shanghai were estimated from the perspective of housing market value. Empirical results show that air pollutants have a negative impact on housing prices. Using the marginal rate of transformation between housing prices and air pollutants, the results show Shanghai residents, on average, are willing to pay 50 and 99 Yuan/m2 to reduce the mean concentration of PM2.5 and NO2 by 1 μg/m3, respectively. Moreover, residents' MWTP for clean air is higher in the suburbs and lower in the city center. This study can help city policymakers formulate regional air management policies and provide support for the green and sustainable development of the real estate market in China.Entities:
Keywords: air pollution; geographically weighted regression; housing prices; marginal willingness to pay; spatial heterogeneity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35004592 PMCID: PMC8739791 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.791575
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Research about the impact of air pollution on the real estate market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smith and Huang ( | U.S. cities | The hedonic method (MAD and OLS) | TSPs (total suspended particulates) | A decrease in TSPs of 1 μg/m3 results in a 0.05–0.10% increase in property values |
| Zabel and Kiel ( | U.S. cities | The hedonic method (OLS estimates) | TSPs | The average benefit per household from reducing TSP from 246 to 150 is $137 |
| Chay and Greenstone ( | U.S. cities | The hedonic method | TSPs | 1 μg/m3 reduction in TSPs increases the value of housing by 0.2–0.4% |
| Yusuf and Resosudarmo ( | Jakarta, Indonesia | The hedonic method (OLS estimates) | THC, SO2, and CO | Per family value of clean air in Jakarta ranges from $28 to $85 per μg/m3 |
| Le Boennec and Salladarre ( | Nantes, France | The hedonic method | NOx | Air pollution had no significant impact on the housing price |
| Chen et al. ( | Shanghai, China | The hedonic method (OLS estimates) | SO2 and PM10 | The property value would drop by 159 and 238 Yuan/m2 when the mean concentrations of SO2 and PM10 rise by 1 μg/m3 |
| Carriazo and Gomez-Mahecha ( | Bogota, Colombia | The hedonic method | PM10 | An increase of 1 μg/m3 is accompanied by a monthly average rent reduction of 0.61 % for apartments |
| Zou ( | 282 prefecture-level cities in China | Combing OLS and GWR model | PM2.5 | A 1 μg/m3 increase in the PM2.5 is associated with up to a 36 Yuan/m2 reduction in housing prices |
| Chen and Jin ( | 286 prefectural-level cities in China | The econometric model (OLS estimates) | PM2.5 | A 10% increase in PM2.5 concentrations causes a 2.4% reduction in local housing prices |
| Dong et al. ( | 282 prefecture-level cities in China | Spatial dobbin model | PM2.5 | A 1 μg/m3 increase in the PM2.5 is associated with up to a 22.7 Yuan/m2 reduction in housing prices |
Figure 1Study area.
Figure 2The annual mean concentrations of air pollutants in Shanghai, 2001–2019.
Figure 3Distribution of SO2 (μg/m3) in Shanghai.
Figure 6Distribution of PM10 (μg/m3) in Shanghai.
Figure 7Diagram of the data processing.
Variable definitions and statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Housing prices | Average housing price | Yuan | 50,090 | 24,235 | 11,061 | 111,382 |
|
| ||||||
| CO | Mean concentration of CO | μg/m3 | 0.59 | 0.04 | 0.45 | 0.71 |
| O3 | Mean concentration of O3 | μg/m3 | 53.07 | 4.93 | 42.20 | 68.67 |
| SO2 | Mean concentration of SO2 | μg/m3 | 6.67 | 0.55 | 5.23 | 8.34 |
| NO2 | Mean concentration of NO2 | μg/m3 | 42.33 | 10.02 | 10.61 | 55.48 |
| PM10 | Mean concentration of PM10 | μg/m3 | 59.19 | 2.09 | 54.23 | 64.28 |
| PM2.5 | Mean concentration of PM2.5 | μg/m3 | 43.19 | 1.37 | 38.86 | 47.84 |
|
| ||||||
| PopD | Population density | number/km2 | 15314 | 15971 | 68.06 | 68129 |
| MetroSD | Metro station density | number/km2 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0 | 1.96 |
| MetroLD | Metro line density | km/km2 | 1.00 | 1.34 | 0 | 1.96 |
| BusD | Bus stop density | number/km2 | 5.46 | 3.99 | 0.19 | 21.98 |
| RoadD | Road network density | km/km2 | 8.96 | 6.24 | 0.34 | 39.11 |
| PLD | Parking lot density | number/km2 | 29.52 | 34.78 | 0 | 150.25 |
| Edu | Percentage of educational service POIs | % | 0.32 | 0.47 | 0 | 3.63 |
| Leis | Percentage of leisure place POIs | % | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 2.17 |
| Stad | Percentage of stadium POIs | % | 0.51 | 0.42 | 0 | 2.20 |
| Med | Percentage of medical institution POIs | % | 1.26 | 0.33 | 0 | 2.37 |
| Park | Percentage of park POIs | % | 0.77 | 0.44 | 0 | 3.36 |
| Tour | Percentage of tourist attraction POIs | % | 1.28 | 0.96 | 0 | 11.31 |
| Super | Percentage of shopping mall and supermarket POIs | % | 0.51 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 1.90 |
| Tbh | Percentage of telecom business hall POIs | % | 1.01 | 0.38 | 0 | 2.58 |
| Res | Percentage of restaurant POIs | % | 0.57 | 0.36 | 0 | 2.20 |
| Landuse | Entropy index of the land use mix | – | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.95 |
| Discent | The straight-line distance from the city center | km | 19.78 | 15.70 | 0.18 | 58.64 |
A basic unit of the Chinese currency (RMB).
OLS regression results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.5995 | 10.7019 | <0.000001*** | / |
| NO2 | −0.1263 | −4.2164 | <0.000001*** | 1.8592 |
| PM2.5 | −0.0769 | −2.7490 | 0.0065*** | 1.6492 |
| MetroSD | 0.3144 | 5.0672 | <0.000001*** | 2.7616 |
| RoadD | 0.7093 | 8.5758 | <0.000001*** | 3.0392 |
| PLD | 0.1198 | 2.1490 | 0.0328** | 2.1413 |
| Edu | 0.1510 | 1.9819 | 0.0489** | 2.7115 |
| Stad | 0.2023 | 2.5412 | 0.0118** | 5.2884 |
| Med | 0.1313 | 2.1091 | 0.0347** | 3.4045 |
| Park | 0.2153 | 2.4739 | 0.0240** | 1.9841 |
| Discent | −0.5095 | −12.8072 | <0.000001*** | 3.2372 |
The ***p < 0.01 and **p < 0.05 statistical significance level, respectively.
Results of Moran's I test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO2 | 0.376775 | −0.004831 | 31.485821 | <0.000001 |
| PM2.5 | 0.416511 | −0.004831 | 34.653344 | <0.000001 |
| MetroSD | 0.667202 | −0.004831 | 55.290328 | <0.000001 |
| RoadD | 0.756185 | −0.004831 | 62.687319 | <0.000001 |
| PLD | 0.494304 | −0.004831 | 41.047587 | <0.000001 |
| Edu | 0.611992 | −0.004831 | 50.968685 | <0.000001 |
| Stad | 0.814504 | −0.004831 | 67.351090 | <0.000001 |
| Med | 0.696556 | −0.004831 | 58.052220 | <0.000001 |
| Park | 0.464463 | −0.004831 | 39.658548 | <0.000001 |
| Discent | 0.727585 | −0.004831 | 60.034994 | <0.000001 |
Figure 8Observed housing prices (Yuan/m2) in Shanghai.
Figure 9Predicted housing prices (Yuan/m2) in Shanghai based on the GWR model.
OLS and GWR comparison results.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| RMSE (Yuan/m2) | 10,746 | 6,981 |
| MAE (Yuan/m2) | 8,499 | 5,029 |
| MRE | 0.233 | 0.187 |
|
| 0.803 | 0.876 |
| Adjusted | 0.793 | 0.863 |
| AICc | −313.374 | −396.005 |
GWR modeling results (the coefficients of different variables).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.4621 | 0.2258 | 0.7611 | 0.3692 | 0.4590 | 0.5418 |
| NO2 | −0.0838 | −0.2114 | −0.0086 | −0.1388 | −0.0626 | −0.0269 |
| PM2.5 | −0.0430 | −0.1407 | 0.0140 | −0.0700 | −0.0350 | −0.0085 |
| MetroSD | 0.2962 | 0.2822 | 0.3218 | 0.2868 | 0.2922 | 0.3050 |
| RoadD | 0.6182 | 0.5609 | 0.7381 | 0.5743 | 0.6006 | 0.6572 |
| PLD | 0.0856 | 0.0443 | 0.1953 | 0.0641 | 0.0738 | 0.0975 |
| Edu | 0.1412 | 0.1363 | 0.1516 | 0.1383 | 0.1401 | 0.1435 |
| Stad | 0.2004 | 0.1566 | 0.2476 | 0.1880 | 0.2001 | 0.2138 |
| Med | 0.1671 | 0.1053 | 0.1957 | 0.1527 | 0.1759 | 0.1857 |
| Park | 0.2028 | 0.1791 | 0.2534 | 0.1937 | 0.1983 | 0.2072 |
| Discent | −0.6203 | −1.5254 | −0.0896 | −0.8114 | −0.5871 | −0.3664 |
Figure 10The spatial heterogeneity of MWTP for PM2.5.
Figure 11The spatial heterogeneity of MWTP for NO2.
Figure 12The spatial heterogeneity of MWTP for metro station density.
Figure 13The spatial heterogeneity of MWTP for road network density.
Figure 14The spatial heterogeneity of MWTP for educational services.
Figure 15The spatial heterogeneity of MWTP for medical institutions.
Figure 16The spatial heterogeneity of MWTP for the distance from the city center.