| Literature DB >> 35206346 |
Haiyun Xu1, Fan Fu1, Meng Miao2.
Abstract
Cultural greenway projects (CGPs) are widely regarded as an urban planning approach which connects open green spaces and sites of sociocultural value to provide access to living, working and recreational spaces and enhance local social well-being. This paper examines the impact of such CGPs on public living desire before and after a given project is completed through analyzing housing prices in the surrounding area. We deployed a hedonic pricing model (HPM) and differences in differences (DID) model to analyze and record any changes in housing market trends that may have been caused by such a cultural greenway project. Via analysis of single-family home sale transactions in central Beijing from 2013 to 2017, we found substantial evidence that proximity to a cultural greenway project is positively linked with rising property prices. Once complete, CGPs were similarly associated with positive increases per HPM and DID modeling. Our results revealed that the distance to greenway contributed significantly positive impact on the housing market after the cultural greenway project completed. Moreover, our result indicated that once a CGP was open to the public, it increased the price of properties within 1 km by 13.3%. Seller and buyer expectations of the development of local, green public infrastructure also began to factor into housing prices prior to the greenway opening to the public. Post-completion, the positive trend in property pricing due to local CGPs indicates that the public still have an increasing desire to live near the greenway. These results will help policymakers better understand how cultural greenways affect neighborhoods in high-density urban contexts, and will support the development of urban greenway policies for cities in China that reap the maximum economic benefit.Entities:
Keywords: cultural greenway; housing condition; housing market; public living desire; urban green space; urban planning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206346 PMCID: PMC8872203 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location map of the Huanerhuan cultural greenway project that displays the distribution of recorded property sites in nearby housing markets in the capital core area of Beijing.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average sale prices (10,000 RMB) | 503.985 | 900.336 | 1 | 19,000 |
| Nature Environment | ||||
| Distance to greenway (km) | 2.741 | 35.625 | 0.003 | 13.678 |
| Location | ||||
| Distance to subway station (km) | 2.108 | 34.113 | 0.031 | 13.642 |
| Distance to heritage sites (km) | 1.841 | 34.106 | 7.922 | 13.499 |
| Distance to shopping center (km) | 1.862 | 33.170 | 0.027 | 13.069 |
| School estate level (0 = normal school, 1 = district-level key elementary school, 2 = city-level key elementary school) | 0.108 | 0.310 | 0 | 2 |
| Structural characteristics | ||||
| Scale of house (m2) | 74.482 | 45.649 | 6.900 | 628.721 |
| Number of bedrooms | 1.942 | 0.769 | 0 | 9 |
| Floor | 12.415 | 6.887 | 1 | 31 |
| Construction Year (AD1600–AD2017) | 1994.349 | 10.217 | 1960 | 2016 |
| Elevator status (yes = 1, no = 0) | 0.578 | 0.493 | 0 | 1 |
| Binary:1 = sale at year 2013 | 0.078 | 0.267 | 0 | 1 |
| Binary:1 = sale at year 2014 | 0.106 | 0.307 | 0 | 1 |
| Binary:1 = sale at year 2015 | 0.262 | 0.439 | 0 | 1 |
| Binary:1 = sale at year 2016 | 0.368 | 0.482 | 0 | 1 |
| Binary:1 = sale at year 2017 | 0.185 | 0.388 | 0 | 1 |
Pre-completed and post-completed hedonic price model results.
| Variables | Pre-Completed (2013–2015) | Post-Completed (2016–2017) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Robust Std. Err | Coefficient | Robust Std. Err | |
| Distance to greenway | 0.042 *** | (0.000) | −0.053 *** | (0.000) |
| Distance to subway station | −0.053 *** | (0.001) | −0.102 *** | (0.001) |
| Distance to heritage site | −0.002 | (0.001) | −0.084 *** | (0.001) |
| Distance to shopping mall | −0.028 | (0.018) | −0.031 | (0.019) |
| School estate | 1.061 *** | (0.294) | 1.550 *** | (0.385) |
| Scales | 0.053 *** | (0.004) | 0.067 *** | (0.005) |
| Numbers of bedrooms | 0.032 * | (0.018) | 0.097 *** | (0.023) |
| Floors | −0.078 *** | (0.023) | −0.087 *** | (0.028) |
| Construction year | 0.007 *** | (0.001) | 0.007 *** | (0.001) |
| Elevator or not | 0.220 *** | (0.031) | 0.260 *** | (0.039) |
| Observations | 20615 | 28222 | ||
| R-squared | 0.682 | 0.660 | ||
* means p < 0.1 and *** means p < 0.01.
Differences in differences (DID) regression results.
| Variable | Coefficient | Robust Std. Err |
|---|---|---|
| Impact_pre-level (2013–2015) | −0.032 | (0.044) |
| Impact_post-level (2016–2017) | 0.133 *** | (0.053) |
| Impact_pre_trend (2013–2015) | 0.014 | (0.038) |
| Impact_post_trend (2016–2017) | 0.013 | (0.036) |
| Distance to subway | −0.050 *** | (0.010) |
| Distance to heritage | −0.050 *** | (0.010) |
| Distance to shopping center | −0.028 | (0.018) |
| School estate | 1.342 *** | (2.585) |
| Scale | 0.062 *** | (0.004) |
| Numbers of bedrooms | 0.013 *** | (0.002) |
| Floors | −0.077 *** | (0.020) |
| Construction years | 0.003 *** | (0.001) |
| Elevator or not | 0.038 *** | (0.027) |
*** means p < 0.01.