Are households’ residential preferences consistent with biodiversity conservation in different urban contexts?

References

• Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Olsen, S. B. & Stenger, A. (2013) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation, Ecological Economics, 92, pp. 67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. & Williams, M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, pp. 271–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlfeldt, G. & Pietrostefani, E. (2018) Demystifying compact urban growth: Evidence from 300 studies from across the world, in: OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No. 2018/03 (Paris: OECD Publishing).
   Google Scholar
• Appleton, K. & Lovett, A. (2003) GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: Defining ‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decision-making, Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, pp. 117–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronson, M. F.J., La Sorte, F. A., Nilon, C. H., Katti, M., Goddard, M. A., Lepczyk, C. A., Warren, P. S., Williams, N. S. G., Cilliers, S., Clarkson, B., Dobbs, C., Dolan, R., Hedblom, M., Klotz, S., Kooijmans, J. L., Kühn, I., MacGregor-Fors, I., McDonnell, M., Mörtberg, U., Pyšek, P., Siebert, S., Sushinsky, J., Werner, P. & Winter, M. (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281, pp. 20133330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldock, K. C. R., Goddard, M. A., Hicks, D. M., Kunin, W. E., Mitschunas, N., Morse, H., Osgathorpe, L. M., Potts, S. G., Robertson, K. M., Scott, A. V., Staniczenko, P. P. A., Stone, G. N., Vaughan, I. P. & Memmott, J. (2019) A systems approach reveals urban pollinator hotspots and conservation opportunities, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3, pp. 363–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangura, M. & Lee, C. L. (2020) House price diffusion of housing submarkets in Greater Sydney, Housing Studies, 35, pp. 1110–1141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barroso, F. L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I. L., Surová, D. & Menezes, H. (2012) Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(3-4), 329–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N. & Hansjürgens, B. (2015) Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity, Ecological Economics, 113, pp. 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergerot, B., Fontaine, B., Renard, M., Cadi, A. & Julliard, R. (2010) Preferences for exotic flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies, Landscape and Urban Planning, 96, pp. 98–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergerot, B., Tournant, P., Moussus, J.-P., Stevens, V.-M., Julliard, R., Baguette, M. & Foltête, J.-C. (2013) Coupling inter-patch movement models and landscape graph to assess functional connectivity, Population Ecology, 55, pp. 193–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, R. B. (2001) Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United States: is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? In Biotic Homogenization, pp. 33–56 (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Blair, R. B. & Launer, A. E. (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: Species assemblages along an urban grandient, Biological Conservation, 80, pp. 113–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D., Scarpa, R. & Hutchinson, W. G. (2008) Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments, Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 1, pp. 117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Caruso, G., Hilal, M. & Thomas, I. (2017) Measuring urban forms from interbuilding distances: Combining MST graphs with local index OD spatial association, Landscape and Urban Planning, 163, pp. 80–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavailhès, J., Brossard, T., Foltête, J. C., Hilal, M., Joly, D., Tourneux, F. P., Tritz, C. & Wavresky, P. (2009) GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape, Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, pp. 571–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChoiceMetrics. (2014) Ngene 1.1.2 User Manual and Reference Guide. ChoiceMetrics.
   Google Scholar
• Denys, C. & Schmidt, H. (1998) Insect communities on experimental mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) plots along an urban gradient, Oecologia, 113, pp. 269–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, W. A. V. & Lisowski, W. (2017) Prospect theory and the decision to move or stay, PNAS, 114, pp. E7432–E7440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donovan, G. & Butry, D. (2010) Trees in city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon, Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, pp. 77–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drillet, Z., Fung, T. K., Leong, R. A. T., Sachidhanandam, U., Edwards, P. & Richards, D. (2020) Urban vegetation types are not perceived equally in providing ecosystem services and disservices, Sustainability, 12, pp. 2076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earnhart, D. (2002) Combining revealed and stated data to examine housing decisions using discrete choice analysis, Journal of Urban Economics, 51, pp. 143–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Environmental Agency. (2006) Urban Sprawl in Europe - The Ignored Challenge Technical Report EEA Report No 10/2006, Copenhagen: EEA.
   Google Scholar
• Farnsworth, K. D., Adenuga, A. H. & De Groot, R. S. (2015) The complexity of biodiversity: A biological perspective on economic valuation, Ecological Economics, 120, pp. 350–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebig, D. G., Keane, M. P., Louviere, J. & Wasi, N. (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity, Marketing Science, 29, pp. 393–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foltête, J. C., Clauzel, C. & Vuidel, G. (2012) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks, Environmental Modelling & Software, 38, pp. 316–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foltête, J.-C., Girardet, X. & Clauzel, C. (2014) A methodological framework for the use of landscape graphs in land-use planning, Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, pp. 140–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frippiat, D., Marquis, N. & Wiles-Portier, E. (2010) Web surveys in the social sciences: An overview, Population (English Edition), 65, pp. 285–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galpern, P., Manseau, M. & Fall, A. (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: A guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation, Biological Conservation, 144, pp. 44–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W. & Balmford, A. (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature, Science (New York, NY), 307, pp. 550–555.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W. H., Hensher, D. A. & Rose, J. M. (2005) Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 17–33 (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Hands, D. E. & Brown, R. D. (2002) Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, pp. 57–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley, N. & Barbier, B. (2009) Pricing Nature, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Evaluation (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited).
   Google Scholar
• Hartig, T. & Staats, H. (2006) The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, pp. 215–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S. (2010) Conditional parameter estimates from mixed logit models: Distributional assumptions and a free software tool, Journal of Choice Modelling, 3, pp. 134–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S. & Hensher, D. A. (2010) Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44, pp. 781–790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilal, M., Joly, D., Roy, D. & Vuidel, G. (2018) Visual structure of landscapes seen from built environment, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 32, pp. 71–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, D. & Daniel, T. C. (2007) Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: Can information alter landscape preferences? Society & Natural Resources, 21(1), 34–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houlden, V., Porto de Albuquerque, J., Weich, S. & Jarvis, S. (2019) Does nature make us happier? A spatial error model of greenspace types and mental wellbeing, Environment and Planning B, 44, pp. 655–670.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, J. D. (2010) Stated preference examination of factors influencing residential attraction, in: F. Pagliara, J. Preston & D. Simmonds (Eds) Residential Location Choicee (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).
   Google Scholar
• Ibáñez-Álamo, J. D., Rubio, E., Benedetti, Y. & Morelli, F. (2017) Global loss of avian evolutionary uniqueness in urban areas, Global Change Biology, 23, pp. 2990–2998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ives, C. D., & Kelly, A. H. (2016) The coexistence of amenity and biodiversity in urban landscapes. Landscape Research, 41(5), 495–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux).
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, 47, pp. 263–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Pagliara, F. & Preston, J. (2005) The intention to move and residential location choice behaviour, Urban Studies, 42, pp. 1621–1636.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, L. R. (2013) Quantifying Relationships between Ecology and Aesthetics in Agricultural Landscapes, pp. 70–98 (Ann Arbor, MI: Washington State University).
   Google Scholar
• Kowarik, I. (2008) On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation, in: Urban Ecology, pp. 321–338 (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Krupnick, W. & Adamowicz, W. (2006) Supporting questions in stated choice studies, in: B. J. Kanninen (Ed) Valuing Envrironmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice, the Economics of Non-Market Goods And Services, Vol. 8 (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster, K. J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Economy, 74, pp. 132–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehdonvirta, V., Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P. & Blank, G. (2020) Social media, web, and panel surveys: Using non‐probability samples in social and policy research, Policy & Internet, 13, pp. 134–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. G. & Baldassare, M. (2010) The complexity of public attitudes toward compact development: Survey evidence from five states, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, pp. 219–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, X. P., Fan, S. X., Kühn, N., Dong, L. & Hao, P. Y. (2019) Residents’ ecological and aesthetical perceptions toward spontaneous vegetation in Urban Parks in China, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44, pp. 126397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, F. H., Farber, S. & Ewing, R. (2015) Compact development and preference heterogeneity in residential location choice behaviour: A latent class analysis, Urban Studies, 52, pp. 314–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maat, K. & De Vries, P. (2006) The influence of the residential environment on green-space travel: Testing the compensation hypothesis, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38, pp. 2111–2127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins, K. T., Gonzalez, A. & Lechowicz, M. J. (2017) Patterns of pollinator turnover and increasing diversity associated with urban habitats, Urban Ecosystems, 20, pp. 1359–1371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathews, K. E., Freeman, M. L. & Desvousges, W. H. (2006) How and how much? The role of information in stated choice questionnaires, in B. J. Kanninen (Ed) Valuing Envrironmental Amenities using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice, the Economics of Non-Market Goods and Services, Vol. 8 (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre, N. E. (2000) Ecology of urban arthropods: A review and a call to action, Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 93, pp. 825–835.2.0.CO;2]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinney, M. (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals, Urban Ecosystems, 11, pp. 161–176.
   Google Scholar
• Minor, E. S. & Urban, D. L. (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning, Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 22, pp. 297–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modai-Snir, T. & Plaut, P. (2019) The analysis of residential sorting trends: Measuring disparities in socio-spatial mobility, Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 56, pp. 288–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, P. S. & Clark, W. A. V. (2016) Loss aversion and duration of residence, Demographic Research, 35, pp. 1079–1100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natori, Y. & Chenoweth, R. (2008) Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 250–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunes, P. A. & van den Bergh, J. C. (2001) Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics, 39, pp. 203–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opit, S., Witten, K. & Kearns, R. (2020) Housing pathways, aspirations and preferences of young adults within increasing urban density, Housing Studies, 35, pp. 123–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagliara, F., Preston, J. & Simmonds, D. (2010) Residential Location Choice, Models and Applications (London: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Penone, C., Machon, N., Julliard, R. & Le Viol, I. (2012). Do railway edges provide functional connectivity for plant communities in an urban context? Biological Conservation, 148, pp. 126–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, A. S., Ekroos, J., Olsson, P. & Smith, H. G. (2020) Wild bees and hoverflies respond differently to urbanisation, human population density and urban form, Landscape and Urban Planning, 204, pp. 103901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phaneuf, D. J., Taylor, L. O. & Braden, J. B. (2013) Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate preferences for residental amenities: A GMM approch, Land Economics, 89, pp. 30–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prashker, J., Shiftan, Y. & Hershkovitch-Sarusi, P. (2008) residential choice location, gender and the commute trip to work in Tel Aviv, Journal of Transport Geography, 16, pp. 332–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racey, G. & Euler, D. (1982) Small mammal and habitat response to shoreline cottage development in Central Ontario, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 60, pp. 865–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rall, L., Niemela, J., Pauleit, S., Pintar, M., Lafortezza, R., Santos, A., Strohbach, M., Vierikko, K. & Železnikar, Š. (2015) A Typology of Urban Green Spaces, Eco-System Services Provisioning Services and Demands, Report D3.1, Seventh Framework Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Régnier, C. (2020) Open space preservation in an urbanization context, Journal of Regional Science, 60, pp. 443–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sander, H., Polasky, S. & Haight, R. (2010) The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA, Ecological Economics, 8, pp. 1646–1656.
   Google Scholar
• Saura, S. & Pascual-Hortal, L. (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, pp. 91–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmeller, D. S., Mihoub, J.-B., Bowser, A., Arvanitidis, C., Costello, M. J., Fernandez, M., Geller, G. N., Hobern, D., Kissling, W. D., Regan, E., Saarenmaa, H., Turak, E. & Isaac, N. J. B. (2017) An operational definition of essential biodiversity variables, Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, pp. 2967–2972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serret, H., Raymond, R., Foltête, J. C., Clergeau, P., Simon, L. & Machon, N. (2014) Potential contributions of green spaces at business sites to the ecological network in an urban agglomeration: The case of the Ile-de-France region, France, Landscape and Urban Planning, 131, pp. 27–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shr, Y. H. J., Ready, R., Orland, B. & Echols, S. (2019) How do visual representations influence survey responses? Evidence from a choice experiment on landscape attributes of green infrastructure, Ecological Economics, 156, pp. 375–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soga, M., Yamaura, Y., Koike, S. & Gaston, K. J. (2014) Land sharing vs. land sparing: does the compact city reconcile urban development and biodiversity conservation?. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(5), 1378–1386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stott, I., Soga, M., Inger, R. & Gaston, K. J. (2015) Land sparing is crucial for urban ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(7), 387–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, K. (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Train, K. & Weeks, M. (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness- To-pay space, in R. Scarpa & A. Albertini (Eds) Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (Dordrecht: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Tratalos, J., Fuller, R. A., Evans, K. L., Davies, R. G., Newson, S. E., Greenwood, J. J. & Gaston, K. J. (2007) Bird densities are associated with household densities, Global Change Biology, 13, pp. 1685–1695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu, G., Abildtrup, J. & Garcia, S. (2016) preferences for urban green spaces and peri- urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices, Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, pp. 120–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L. & Miettinen, A. (2000) Property prices and urban forest amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, pp. 205–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Kolehmainen, O. (2003) Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1(3), 135–149.
   Google Scholar
• Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J. & James, P. (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, pp. 167–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban, D. & Keitt, T. (2001) Landscape connectivity: A graph-theoretic perspective [Database], Ecology, 82, pp. 1205–1218.2.0.CO;2]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, M., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B. & Depledge, M. (2013) Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data, Psychological Science, 24, pp. 920–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar