发帖
雷达卡
英文文献：Development Patterns and the Recreation Value of Amenities-开发模式与设施的游憩价值
英文文献作者：Kovacs, Kent F.,Larson, Douglas M.
英文文献摘要：
Public open spaces around and within urban areas have been increasingly developed due to greater population pressures. My paper investigates if land around public open spaces is likely to get developed faster since households are attracted to the recreation value as well as the environmental amenities of the public open space. There has been inadequate attention in the literature to the influence of the different sources of value of open space on housing prices. While views of open space are certainly an important source of value to households, public open space is also valued because households enjoy recreation at the open space. Adopting the monocentric city model, simulations examine how the different sources of value of public open space influence the developed area, rent gradient and the development density of an urban area. The monocentric city model has residents competing for housing around a single central business district (CBD) while developers choose the density of development from the expected prices of the homes at that location in the city. Simulations of the closed city model result in equilibrium rent gradients for land and the housing, a utility level, and a city boundary. By referencing the monocentric city model with two-dimensional coordinates, Wu and Plantinga (2003) are able to more spatially explicitly examine the influence of amenities on the equilibrium state of the city. Amenities are shown to generate leap-frog development, influence the developed area of the city, the population density, rent gradients and location of different income groups. Although different shapes and areas of amenities are examined in their paper, there is no investigation of the proper proximity of these amenities to each other. Several small amenities dispersed far apart from each other in the city may result in less total amount of developed land than if there is only a single large amenity. Another reason that the proximity of amenities to each other matters is that the net benefits from recreation are influenced by the spatial arrangement of the amenities. Consumer?s surplus from recreation trips to the amenity is the net benefit of the amenity, with the price of a recreation trip including the travel cost to the amenity. The travel costs from recreation at amenities depend on how widely dispersed the amenities are in the city. While several amenities located widely throughout a city lower the travel costs of recreation, the city tends to diffuse more too resulting in a larger developed area. On the other hand, a single centrally located amenity contracts the city resulting in a smaller developed area although the travel costs of recreation rise slightly. Simulations from the model collect information on the aggregate amount of recreation trips, recreational net benefits, and the developed area. More localized benefits of amenities like nice views and cleaner air have a stronger influence on housing prices and development densities than the less localized benefits of amenities like recreation. If the travel costs for recreation are low, then only the localized benefits of amenities influence housing prices and development densities. However, if the demand for recreation and the travel costs to reach the amenity is high, the benefits of recreation have the potential to influence the housing prices and development densities in that area of the city. There are several potential solutions to the problem of recreation benefits of the amenities leading to the unwanted development of natural or agricultural land. The simplest solution is to regulate that no recreation take place at the amenity. Of course, the nice views and cleaner air may still draw development outward, and the enforcement of no recreation is necessary. Rather than prohibit recreation, raising user fees at recreation sites is a way to generate revenue for the city while simultaneously restraining sprawl. If the cost of travel to a recreation site is high, development is more likely near the site since households want the benefit of a trip without the high cost of travel to the site. If roads to the recreation site are improved to reduce the cost of travel, households will prefer to locate close to the central business district rather than the recreation site to reduce the cost of their daily commutes.
开发模式与设施的游憩价值。由于人口压力更大，城市周围和市区内的公共开放空间日益发展。我的论文调查了公共开放空间周围的土地是否可能发展得更快，因为家庭被公共开放空间的娱乐价值和环境便利所吸引。关于开放空间价值的不同来源对房价的影响，文献中没有给予足够的关注。虽然休憩用地的景观对住户来说无疑是一个重要的价值来源，但公众休憩用地也很重要，因为住户喜欢在休憩用地上休憩。采用单中心城市模型，模拟研究不同价值来源的公共开放空间如何影响已开发区域、租金梯度和城市区域的发展密度。在单中心城市模式中，居民围绕着一个单一的中央商务区(CBD)争夺住房，而开发商则根据城市中该位置的住宅预期价格来选择开发密度。封闭城市模型的模拟结果包括土地和住房租金的均衡梯度、效用水平和城市边界。通过引用二维坐标的单中心城市模型，Wu和Plantinga(2003)能够更明确地从空间上考察便利设施对城市平衡状态的影响。研究表明，城市设施会产生跨越式发展，影响城市的发达区域、人口密度、租金梯度和不同收入群体的位置。尽管在他们的论文中研究了不同形状和区域的设施，但没有调查这些设施之间的适当接近。在城市中分散开来的几个小设施可能会比只有一个大型设施的情况下开发的土地总量少。便利设施之间的邻近关系的另一个原因是，娱乐的净收益受到便利设施的空间安排的影响。消费者从娱乐旅行到舒适的剩余是舒适的净收益，其中娱乐旅行的价格包括到舒适的旅行成本。娱乐设施的旅行费用取决于娱乐设施在城市中的分布有多广。虽然城市中分布广泛的一些娱乐设施降低了娱乐的旅行成本，但城市往往分散得更大，从而形成更大的发达地区。另一方面，一个单一的中心设施承包城市，导致一个较小的发达地区，尽管旅行的娱乐费用略有上升。该模型的模拟收集了娱乐旅行总量、娱乐净收益和发达地区的信息。较局部性的福利设施，如美丽的风景和清洁的空气，对房价和开发密度的影响要大于较不局部性的福利设施，如娱乐设施。如果娱乐的旅行成本较低，那么只有设施的局部效益才会影响房价和开发密度。然而，如果娱乐的需求和达到舒适的旅行成本很高，娱乐的好处有可能影响该地区的住房价格和发展密度。有几个潜在的解决问题的娱乐设施的利益导致不必要的发展自然或农业土地。最简单的解决办法是规定在娱乐场所不进行娱乐活动。当然，优美的景色和清新的空气仍可能吸引人们向外发展，强制禁止娱乐活动是必要的。提高娱乐场所的使用费不是禁止娱乐，而是为城市创造收入的一种方式，同时抑制spra
京公网安备 11010802022788号
