2023 Volume 11 Issue 1 Pages 176-191
To promote urban regeneration, temporary or permanent public open spaces have recently been provided by many overseas cities through greening and beautification of spaces left by the removal of dilapidated buildings. Through the development of a theoretical evaluation system, the method of importance-performance analysis and non-market valuation (willing to pay) and a case study, the purpose of this study is to analyse matters of public interest and to estimate the economic value of a landscape improvement program, including removal of dilapidated and abandoned buildings, implementation of greening and beautification, and provision of temporary public open spaces. The appraisal result shows that nearby residents are pleased to welcome the temporary public open spaces program since it can improve public security and quality of life and amenity. Also, property owners in surrounding areas are willing to pay prices 4 to 5 times higher than non-estate owners. In the study case, the average amount of willingness to pay per person is NT $ 3,076. In summary, it is found that Taipei City Government’s landscape improvement program, provision of temporary open space by removing the dilapidated buildings and space greening, is highly appreciated by nearby residents and passing pedestrians. This may be a positive signal to other local governments interested in similar actions.
The beauty of the urban landscape is a positive asset. It not only enables residents to enjoy the living environment, but also the city’s image and the competitiveness of the tourism industry. On the contrary, a dilapidated urban landscape is a negative asset. Therefore, how to eliminate negative assets, or even transform them into positive assets, is a common issue for all major cities in the world in promoting urban regeneration.
The modern urban environment has reached a state of saturation, so revitalization requires strategies that diversify the development and reuse of land and space. It is hoped that, through proper planning, the space resources can be allocated in ways that give more space. Space can also be improved by changing its functions and meanings.
In the past, dilapidated buildings or unoccupied open spaces were everywhere throughout Taipei. Residents do not regard them with historical or preservation value. However, due to property rights disputes and the anticipation of development, landowners were reluctant to demolish them in advance, worrying about losing the bulk reward of urban renewal, so they lay deserted and unoccupied for many years. Over the years, these seemingly sporadic, innocuous, temporary, and dilapidated buildings, became increasingly prominent in the overall environment, degrading the urban landscape and undermining community safety. For that reason, the Taipei City Government cooperated with the 2010 Taipei International Flora Expo to promote a series of urban beautification programs. The second series encourages the demolition of dilapidated buildings and green beautification through temporary public open spaces in the community, causing a mixture of positive and negative reactions. In response to this social issue, our country greatly needs to establish a set of objective and appropriate evaluation methods for landscape improvement outcomes.
Past research has focused mainly on the aspects and types of benefits. Whether social or environmental, the benefits are rarely evaluated quantitatively, and they are often focused on a single aspect such as economic, environmental, or industrial (Huang, 2010). From such piecemeal analyses, the total benefit value cannot be obtained. There remains, therefore, the overall question of how to quantify the multiple benefits of urban landscape improvement in some way that allows them to be cohesively brought together.
There is still a lack of academic and objective analysis methods. This study seeks to establish an evaluation framework for measuring the benefits of urban landscape improvement and use Willingness to pay, Importance Performance Analysis and Post Occupancy Evaluation etc. three methods, we will evaluate the willingness to pay for environmental landscape improvement and the important performance of various aspects. Performance level and user satisfaction after use, measure and evaluate the benefits of environmental landscape improvement, and finally, demonstrates it use as an empirical case study.
The purpose of this research is to explore the following issues:
(1) What is the environmental benefit of demolishing dilapidated buildings and greening, and reusing the unoccupied open space in urban areas?
(2) How to estimate the benefits of removing dilapidated buildings and greening, reusing the unoccupied open space?
(3) Through case studies, to test the willingness-to-pay method as a means to analyse the economic value of the landscape improvement for unoccupied open space. And, what are the differences in the degree or type of benefits obtained by beneficiaries with different attributes?
In Taiwan’s current environment, buildings are often abandoned due to insufficient space, old appearance, or equipment that does not meet the needs of modernization. Coupled with improper maintenance by the original authority, it is easy for these spaces to become sources of regional chaos, a blind spot for public security, or a point of decay in the streetscape. In terms of location however, these buildings are often gathering places for residents’ activities and the focal point of the cityscape. The dilapidated buildings and unoccupied open spaces are hence an important source of corruption in the urban landscape. The above-mentioned type of open space refers to the unused space that has not been developed and used for a period of time for this study. Thus, government departments have actively promoted landscape improvement programs, hoping to improve the living environment and living quality through concepts such as “landscape improvement” and “unoccupied open space reuse”. This part of the article will focus, through prior literature, on the functions and benefits of landscape improvement for unoccupied open spaces.
Policy DimensionEnvironmental landscape improvement policy aims to improve the quality of the living environment for citizens (Peng, Z., 2003). In the early days, urban parks represented a symbol of the political power system, however countries around the world have also used urban parks and green spaces as important facilities to enhance urban image, comprehensive competitiveness, and to promote regional economic development. However, Chen, H. and Liu (2013) pointed out, in a study of urban marketing and urban image formation via large events, that the creation of urban imagery is also an indicator of living standards.
Economic and Industrial DimensionLai (2004) pointed out that reusing unoccupied open space as a development mechanism for cultural industrialization should use methods that meet local needs and that provide new opportunities and vitality for the development of local industries. Given the challenging imbalance between the urban and rural populations and the decline of traditional industries, adding new activities to the old sites through reusing unoccupied open space will not only help to increase the actual value of the land or building, but also to drive it. In consequence, active development of regional industries will improve the livelihoods of residents in depressed areas.
Ecological Environment DimensionPreserving green space can promote urban ecological balance and reduce artificial paving to reduce surface runoff (Shi, 2007). Green space can also strengthen the conservation of natural and landscape resources, and provide migration points and habitat (Xie, 2003). For human users, green space can retain or increase green coverage, and introduce buffering places between buildings (Shi, 2007). In addition, some plants also offer functions of blocking, filtering, and adsorbing soot and dust. Densely leafed trees can also absorb and reduce noise, and reduce wind speed, regulating the environment and improving the overall quality of the urban environment (Chang, Liu et al., 2009; Chen, J., 2010). Larger parks and green spaces also offer buffering capacities to prevent the spread of fire and localised disasters (Lin, Q., 2006).
Landscape DimensionUrban residents are less likely to touch, see or otherwise experience natural wilderness (Li, 2010). For them, landscape improvement can provide a beautiful and pleasant visual experience, and reducing anxiety (Chang, Liu et al., 2009; Li, 2010; Lin, Q., 2006; Shi, 2007). Plantings can soften the urban hardware and punctuate the built monotony, alleviating the visual pressure caused by dense, high-rise buildings, thus reducing the sense of crowding (Shi, 2007). Further greening can also achieve overall city beautification, attracting wildlife that, in conjunction with the plants, increases the aesthetic benefits of urban landscapes and other added values (Xie, 2003).
Social and Humanistic DimensionGreen space can provide cities with safe and attractive learning environments, increase opportunities for residents and school children to engage with nature, enhance people’s understanding of natural ecology, and entertain (Chen, J., 2010; Shi, 2007). Greening can enhance social stability because social stability is based on human health and stability. Landscape improvement can also provide places for residents to socialize, enhancing the sense of community and sense of place of urban residents, reducing interpersonal alienation, and reducing social problems experienced by pedestrians (Shi, 2007). In addition, greening strategies are based on the assumption that natural environmental protection and economic development are compatible and symbiotic, consistent with sustainable development, and it can also provide scenery to increase land value (Li, 2010).
Leisure and Recreation DimensionLi (2010) pointed out that areas with trees can promote interaction among community residents. Lin, Q. (2006) considered that attractive environments featuring parks, green spaces, and open spaces can provide more leisure and entertainment activities and make urban life more diverse. The greened environment is a living space that conforms to human nature, which can provide people with a space to relieve pressure and tension and make people feel comfortable and stable (Shi, 2007).
In addition, Raymond, Frantzeskaki et al. (2017) pointed out that a developed framework together with a seven-stage co-benefit assessment process represented a valuable tool for guiding thinking and identifying the multiple values of nature-based solutions (NBS) implementation. Wagale and Singh (2021) pointed out that a set of indicators would be identified, covering five different dimensions, to deal with sustainability in the transport system for the rural population using a unique and novel combination of geographical information system (GIS) and principal component analysis (PCA)-based multidimensional analysis. Wagale and Singh (2021) suggested a unique mixed-method approach to integrate multivariate techniques under a multi-criteria fuzzy framework. The results of the analysis presented in this study would benefit the respective State Governments to achieve sustainable rural development.
In summary, both the spatial environment and land play important roles in urban development. They not only provide the industrial amenity, but also provide for public activities, rest, and social activities. Kivell (1993) pointed out that, as far as the scale of land is concerned, the value of land and the environment comes from itself, which includes the normal fixed supply and the location, scale, surface configuration, and geographical conditions that cannot be created out of anything. It is fixed, with permanent characteristics. Secondly, its own value comes from user benefits, usage status, demand, restricted usage, government subsidies, and the value of environmental education constructed by it.
This study seeks to establish an evaluation framework for measuring the benefits of urban landscape improvement and use Willingness to pay, Importance Performance Analysis and Post Occupancy Evaluation etc. three methods, we will evaluate the willingness to pay for environmental landscape improvement and the important performance of various aspects. Performance level and user satisfaction after use, measure and evaluate the benefits of environmental landscape improvement (see Figure 1).
The main focus of this research is to evaluate the economic value of landscape improvement to unoccupied open space in the city. The total economic benefit will be measured through the non-market property value evaluation method, and user satisfaction before and after the landscape improvement will be evaluated for its users. In addition, the performance analysis of landscape demand and satisfaction will be done through direct-use objects and potential-use objects to further analyse whether the performance of various aspects of the environment after the landscape improvement meets the expectations of the beneficiaries.
Our first step is to use the willingness-to-pay price analysis of non-market goods value to estimate the value of the environmental landscape renovation of unoccupied spaces in the city through an open-ended questionnaire survey; second, we will use the importance–performance analysis method to understand the benefits obtained by the beneficiaries. Finally, through a post-use evaluation method, we can understand the types of value and satisfaction provided by the various attributes to the landscape renovation of idle space.
The Value of Non-Market Goods (Willingness to Pay)Krutilla (1967) pointed out that natural resources and environmental landscapes are as valuable as market goods. Although their values cannot be known from consumers’ consumption behaviour in the market, they can be deduced through consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for maintaining environmental quality. The landscape’s economic value consists in non-market goods, in the sense that they do not actually exist in the market, so it needs to be measured by the non-market valuation method (Lin, S., 2007).
Generally speaking, the value of non-market goods can be divided into use value and non-use value (Chen, K. and Wu, 2003). The use value refers to the actual use of the goods or the value generated in response to the function of the goods. Usually, the former refers to a kind of “direct use value”, and the latter to in “indirect use value”. In a broad sense, use value includes the value of choice reserved for future use. More narrowly, it refers to the expected satisfaction of others or of future generations using the resource, and thus combines both the bequest or legacy value and the existence value that reflects pure care for the resource itself. These values are combined as follows (Lin, S., 2007):
Total value = use value + non-use value
Non-use value = choice value + legacy value + existence value
The first method to evaluate non-market environmental resources was proposed in the 1960s, and there were not many applications until the early 1970s (Lin, S., 2007). Environmental resource benefits are divided into use-value and non-use value, which belong to the category of non-market goods value evaluation. Among them, non-market goods value evaluation methods mainly include the Travel Cost Method (TCM), the Hedonic Price Method (HPM), and Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). CVM is a narrative preference, which can be used to measure use value and non-use value, compared to travel cost method and characteristic price method that is the displayed price, and the price evaluated by CVM is the narrative price. In addition, many related studies have used conditional evaluation methods to evaluate the economic benefits of landscape improvement (Lin, S., 2007). Therefore, this study will adopt the CVM method as the economic benefit evaluation method of landscape improvement.
Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA)The importance–performance analysis (IPA) examines consumers’ perceptions of the importance and performance of a supplier’s products and services. It prioritizes related attributes by their “importance” to consumers or users, and their “performance” according to the consumers or users’ judgement (Sampson and Showalter, 1999).
The IPA analyses variable factors into four quadrants (Martilla and James, 1977):
(1) Quadrant I: Keep Up the Good Work
Variable factors fall into in this area when the user attaches both importance and satisfaction to them. Variable factors in this area indicate consumer satisfaction and a source of competitive advantage for managers. Therefore, the performance level of these variables should be maintained.
(2) Quadrant II: Concentrate Here
Users think these variables are very important, but regard their performance as merely normal or unsatisfactory. Managers should regard these variables priorities for improvement.
(3) Quadrant III: Low Priority
Variable factors within this range reflect both low user interest, and low user satisfaction. The reason may be limited investment in these items, or simply their absence. Managerial intervention should focus on improving the effective use of resources.
(4) Quadrant IV: Possible Overkill
Users do not assign much importance to these variables, but their satisfaction is high, indicating that the service variable factors in this area have little overall effect, so resources are being overinvested here.
Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE)Post-occupancy evaluation was originally applied to evaluate built environments with high functionality. Its background involves various disciplines such as sociology, behavior, psychology, and environmental psychology. Its scope of application was in the early days of architecture. Painting was its main focus, and it then gradually expanded to urban planning, landscape design, and other fields (Chen, H., 1995). Chen, H. (1995) shows that POE can also be applied to the post-occupancy evaluation of urban neighborhood parks. Researchers point out that the most important factors affecting the users of neighborhood parks include the users’ background attributes and needs; relevant attributes generally include gender, age, occupation, income, family status, education, residence, and leisure style (Chen, Z., 1996; Luo, 2008; Peng, Y., 1995; Tian, 1996). Because a neighborhood park is an open space, external conditions such as distance, location conditions, social status, and community groups will also affect the performance and needs of the park. This research will be based on past POE-related research, and evaluate the satisfaction of unoccupied open space in the city through landscape improvement.
Preiser, White et al. (1988) proposed dividing the post-occupancy evaluation levels into three categories: Indicative POE is mainly used to identify problems, point out the advantages and disadvantages, success and failure; it is suitable for short-term evaluation, often based on data collection methods, including evaluation of implementation results, field surveys and interviews. An Investigative POE is mainly carried out when more detailed information is required, using set evaluation criteria. The Diagnostic POE combines multiple methods, and the evaluation and investigation are extremely delicate. The depth and breadth of the operation method will depend on the degree of post-occupancy evaluation. Therefore, the evaluation level should be determined first. Selecting the POE evaluation level requires a rough understanding of the entire evaluation task and the status of the base, and, in accordance, with the communication and coordination with the owner, analysing its feasibility, defining the depth and breadth of its evaluation, and understanding the limitations of the base. As a result, the level of POE can be determined.
Evaluation indicators for Landscape Improvement BenefitsLiterature indicates that the functional benefits of landscape improvement and the functional benefits of unoccupied open space reuse overlap and complement each other. Therefore, this study summarizes the types of benefits and values and considers the site’s environmental characteristics to establish evaluation indicators on which to base research into the overall benefit value of the landscape improvement for unoccupied open space (see Table 1).
| Value orientation | Function types |
|---|---|
| Policy value |
Enhance international visibility Improve the quality of national life Create city image |
| Economic and industry value |
Improve the efficiency of property and resource utilization Provide opportunities to improve the regional economy Promote coordination mechanisms between the public and private sectors |
| Social and humanistic value |
Provide environmental education function Enhancing emotional communication among neighbors Reduce social problems/increase social stability Enhance land value Continue carrying unique historical significance Establish a public participation mechanism |
| Leisure and recreation value |
Relieve physical and mental stress Provide multiple leisure activities |
| Landscape value |
Promote physical and mental pleasure Reduce anxiety Soften the urban appearance contour/reduce visual pressure Reduce the sense of crowded city Green environment Beautify the city |
| Ecological value |
Increase ecological diversity Purify the air Block/reduce noise Dust retention effect Reduce artificial hard paving With disaster prevention/protection function Water reuse |
This research screens candidate factors for the various environmental conditions and characteristics to establish evaluation indicators that meet the purpose and content of this research. In addition, the following will further discuss the objects of the forecasts in this study to facilitate the implementation of the following studies (see Table 2).
| Value types | Beneficiary | Evaluation dimension | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nearby residents |
Taipei citizens |
Building owner | Citizens of other counties | |||
| Now use value | Direct use value |
Social and humanistic value Leisure and recreation value |
— |
Social and humanistic value Leisure and recreation value |
— |
Social and humanistic Leisure and recreation Landscape Ecological |
| Indirect use value |
Landscape value Ecological value |
— |
Landscape value Ecological value |
— | — | |
| Future use value | Choice value | Economic and industry value |
Economic and industry value Landscape value Ecological value |
Economic and industry value | Economic and industry value |
Economic and industry Landscape Ecological |
| Non-use value | Existence value | Policy value |
Policy value Leisure and recreation value Social and humanistic value |
Policy value |
Policy value Landscape value Ecological value |
Policy Economic and industry Landscape Ecological Leisure and recreation Social and humanistic |
| Legacy value |
Policy value Economic and industry value Landscape value Ecological value Leisure and recreation value Social and humanistic value |
Policy value Economic and industry value Landscape value Ecological value |
Policy value Economic and industry value Landscape value Ecological value Leisure and recreation value Social and humanistic value |
Policy value Economic and industry value Landscape value Ecological value |
||
Based on the above various reviews, analyses and discussions, this research develops a theoretical evaluation framework (see Figure 2). As summarised above, the literature shows that the physical environment provides various functions for users and potential users (which are measured by the degree of demand), and it produces various dimensions of value in the process of use (which is measured by satisfaction). In addition, the various environmental functions provided by transforming unused spaces have non-use values, which may be intrinsic or indirect. Therefore, landscape improvement of unoccupied open space provides various functions. Regardless of whether these functions are actual or insubstantial functions, they can provide active users, indirect users, and potential users with use-, non-use, and indirect-use value. Therefore, a framework for benefit evaluation must include three factors—beneficiaries, environmental functions, and values—in a strong mutual relationship.
In addition, generated value will also be affected by the site’s characteristic factors, intensity, or type: the total benefit will be bound by context. The benefit composition factor is thus constituted by the mutual restraint of various substantive and non-substantial environmental factors that vary between regions and locations.
Based on the review, this study found that the demolition of dilapidated buildings with no historical value can not only eliminate landscape tumours but also release more temporary green spaces for use by citizens (such as Figure 3). Therefore, if we analyse the entire process of landscape improvement for unoccupied open space, we can get the benefit of the first layer only after the dilapidated buildings are demolished, and the benefit of the second layer after the remediation of the environment and landscape. Beautification results in deeper meaning through the increased space for activities, etc., that enable users to obtain the third level of use benefits. Finding the sum of these layered benefits is the purpose of this research.
To prepare for the 2010 Taipei International Flora Exposition, the Taipei City Government promoted a series of actions, the so-called “Taipei Beautiful Program”, to improve city landscape. Among various actions, serious 2 provided incentives to encourage landowners to remove dilapidated buildings and to serve as temporary open space through greening and beautification. Four temporary grasslands located on Roosevelt Road in Taipei are included for the case study.
Questionnaire surveys were conducted over weekends, on April 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, and 22. A total of 275 responses were obtained, of which 270 were valid. These comprised 66 valid questionnaires for site 1, 67 for site 2, 69 for site 3, and 68 for site 4.
Survey responses include the respondents’ background attributes, frequency of use, motivation, main behaviors, functions of the landscape improvement, demand for various environmental factors, satisfaction, and the different degrees of landscape improvement for non-market value evaluation (willingness to pay) to estimate the price. The detailed description is as follows:
Importance–Satisfaction AnalysesThis study takes demand as an item in the importance dimension, and satisfaction as an item in the performance dimension. The quadrants formed by the intersection of these axes are used to classify the factors of each project in terms of the users’ demands and satisfaction. In this study, the coordinate axis setting intersects the average values of demand and satisfaction with 3.5 as the threshold (the value is 1 to 5) , which avoids the average value of the questionnaire result being 3 (normal), which causes difficulties in analyzing the survey results, and also improves the standard review performance of various environmental factors.
As a whole, the analyses reveal a set of high-demand, high-satisfaction factors can continue to improve the current situation. These include the site’s ability to improve the quality of life of the people, provide environmental education functions, reduce social problems, and improve the price of surrounding land, etc. such as price, greening the environment, relieving physical and mental stress, promoting physical and mental pleasure, beautifying the city, and increasing ecological diversity.
Low-demand, low-satisfaction factors should be removed or diminished, including factors that promote government and private coordination mechanisms and continued unique historical significance.
High-demand, low-satisfaction factors should be the focus of improvement. These include sites that can provide more opportunities for community participation and provide multiple venues for activities, air purification, water purification, and water reuse, and should be included in the future reference basis.
In addition, factors with low demand but high satisfaction indicate excessive investment. The results of the evaluation found no environmental factors that fall into this quadrant, so it can be inferred that there is no over-investment in the four sites studied (see Table 3 and Figure 4).
| Evaluation indicators |
Demand level |
Satisfaction level | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| A | Improve the quality of national life | 4.8 | 0.5 | 4.1 | 0.8 |
| B | Promote government and private coordination mechanisms | 3.3 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 0.7 |
| C | Provide environmental education function | 4.1 | 0.5 | 4.2 | 0.6 |
| D | Reduce social problems | 4.9 | 0.4 | 4.4 | 0.8 |
| E | Increase the price of surrounding land | 4.2 | 0.6 | 3.8 | 0.8 |
| F | Greening the environment | 4.6 | 0.5 | 4.4 | 0.5 |
| G | Continuation of unique historical significance | 3.4 | 1.0 | 3 | 1.1 |
| H | Provide more opportunities for community participation | 4.5 | 0.8 | 2.6 | 1.0 |
| I | Relieve physical and mental stress | 4.3 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.7 |
| J | Promote physical and mental pleasure | 4.4 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.7 |
| K | Provide multiple venues for activities | 4.7 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 0.9 |
| L | Beautify the city | 4.6 | 0.5 | 4.3 | 0.6 |
| M | Purifying air | 4.5 | 0.5 | 3.2 | 0.8 |
| N | Water reuse | 3.8 | 0.7 | 3.4 | 1.1 |
| O | Increase ecological diversity | 4.1 | 0.4 | 4.1 | 0.5 |
| Note: 1.M means average value, SD means standard deviation; 2.「1」means very dissatisfied, 「5」 means very satisfied. | |||||
According to the statistical results (see Table 4 for details), the total of the one-time willingness-to-pay prices is NT$140,350, and the average price is NT$519.81. The total willingness-to-pay price for secondary benefit is NT$246,920, with the average being NT$914.51. The total willingness-to-pay price for all three benefits is NT$443,200, and the average price is NT$1,641.48. The total benefit is NT$830,470; the average price is NT$3,075.80. It can be seen that the willingness to pay for the third-layer benefits is much greater than for the first- and second-layer benefits, and the willingness to pay for the third-layer benefits is also proportional to the value of the benefits.
Among the various levels of benefits reflected by WTP at the four sites, the WTP for the third layers is the highest, followed by the second- and first-layer benefits, in that order. The third layer's benefits are all about 1.7 to 2 times the second layer’s benefits, and the second layer’s benefits are all about 1.8 to 2 times the first layer’s benefits. It can be seen that the WTP approximately doubles with each additional layer of benefits.
| NT$ | Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First layer benefit | T | $ 19,080 | $ 35,010 | $ 58,160 | $ 28,100 | $ 140,350 |
| A | $ 289.09 | $ 522.53 | $ 842.89 | $ 413.23 | $ 519.81 | |
| Second layer benefits | T | $ 36,510 | $ 69,100 | $ 93,100 | $ 48,210 | $ 246,920 |
| A | $ 553.18 | $ 1,031.34 | $ 1,349.28 | $ 708.97 | $ 914.51 | |
| Third layer benefits | T | $ 68,050 | $ 110,350 | $ 177,700 | $ 87,100 | $ 443,200 |
| A | $ 1,031.06 | $ 1,647.01 | $ 2,575.36 | $ 1,280.88 | $ 1,641.48 | |
| Total benefits | T | $ 123,640 | $ 214,460 | $ 328,960 | $ 163,410 | $ 830,470 |
| A | $ 1,873.33 | $ 3,200.88 | $ 4,767.53 | $ 2,403.08 | $ 3,075.80 | |
| Note: T means total; A means average. | ||||||
This study establishes an evaluation framework for measuring the benefits of urban landscape improvement and finds methods suitable for measuring and evaluating the benefits of environmental landscape improvement, and finally uses that framework to estimate the value of landscape improvement through a four-site case study.
Through literature review and observing the characteristics, this study summarizes the environmental functions of the demolition and green beautification of poor buildings in the city along six major dimensions, through 15 evaluation indicators:
According to the demand–satisfaction analysis of the various environmental factors, interviewees generally believe that environmental renovation of the unoccupied open spaces can improve quality of life, provide environmental education functions, reduce social problems, increase the surrounding land values, green the environment, relieve physical and mental stress, promote physical and mental pleasure, beautify the city, and increase ecological diversity. Performance and satisfaction ratings indicated that the renovated environments perform well in these categories, and these outcomes should be maintained.
Regarding the low-performance factors—that the renovation should increase opportunities for community participation, provide multiple activity venues, purify the air, and reuse water resources, etc.—interviewees see room for improvement. In addition, the promotion of government and private coordination mechanisms and the continuation of the unique historical significance of these two factors fall into the quadrant recommended for removal. After on-site interviews, interviewees generally indicated that these factors were of low importance.
Among the overall benefits of the four spaces considered, willingness-to-pay valuations of benefits ranged from an average of NT$519.81 for first-layer benefits to NT$1,641.48 for third-layer benefits, with second-layer benefits valued in-between at NT$914.51. It can be seen that the willingness to pay for the third-layer benefits is much greater than the first and second-layer benefits, and the willingness to pay for the third-layer benefits is also proportional to the value of the benefits.
Studies have shown that the third-layer benefits for public use are the highest, followed by the second-layer benefits (greening and beautification) and the first-layer benefits (demolition of shabby buildings). The third-layer benefits of the four sites are all about 1.7 to 2 times the second-layer benefits, and the second-layer benefits are all about 1.8 to 2 times the first-layer benefits. It can be seen that the willingness to pay approximately doubles with each additional layer of benefits. As the benefit level increases, its price increases accordingly, reflecting the respondents’ support for it. In addition to eliminating the malignant tumours of the landscape, the public also expects and values the greening of the environment and provisions for public use.
The study was written by L.-L.K. and reviewed by J.-T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
We would like to thank Scholar Proof for English language editing.
