The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport Infrastructures
The importance of transport infrastructure for individual well-being and regional economic development and growth, but also its adverse side-effects, make a comprehensive assessment of the general appropriateness of new construction and rebuild indispensable. Assessments, however, often lack certain...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-04-01
|
Series: | Sustainability |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4977 |
id |
doaj-11707d09f8f846e6a3b4a97f5b2e8568 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-11707d09f8f846e6a3b4a97f5b2e85682021-04-29T23:01:13ZengMDPI AGSustainability2071-10502021-04-01134977497710.3390/su13094977The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport InfrastructuresChristos Evangelinos0Stefan Tscharaktschiew1Department Aviation Management, IU International University of Applied Sciences, 10247 Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Transport & Economics, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, GermanyThe importance of transport infrastructure for individual well-being and regional economic development and growth, but also its adverse side-effects, make a comprehensive assessment of the general appropriateness of new construction and rebuild indispensable. Assessments, however, often lack certain issues. For instance, aesthetic aspects are usually not part of the (economic) evaluation of large infrastructure projects, albeit individuals may be (positively or negatively) affected by the aesthetic ‘value’ of infrastructures. This paper proposes the aesthetic index developed by Birkhoff as a method to quantify the aesthetic impact of buildings/facilities in urban areas. To test the basic applicability of the index for transport infrastructure facilities, we apply it at first to airport terminals in Germany. We also test the suitability of the index to derive the willingness to pay for aesthetic exterior design—since market prices are easy to obtain with respect to hotel room rates—using hotel architecture as the first example. Regression results of a hedonic price model indicate a significant relationship, suggesting the basic suitability of the index to uncover consumers’ willingness to pay for an aesthetic outward appearance. We suggest further research to test the suitability of Birkhoff’s index for general urban transport infrastructures in order to derive utility-based welfare measures toward aesthetic issues. For highly controversial urban (overground) infrastructures, we propose the inclusion of an aesthetic component in cost–benefit analysis.https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4977aestheticsaesthetic measurementBirkhoff indexhedonic price analysis |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Christos Evangelinos Stefan Tscharaktschiew |
spellingShingle |
Christos Evangelinos Stefan Tscharaktschiew The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport Infrastructures Sustainability aesthetics aesthetic measurement Birkhoff index hedonic price analysis |
author_facet |
Christos Evangelinos Stefan Tscharaktschiew |
author_sort |
Christos Evangelinos |
title |
The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport Infrastructures |
title_short |
The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport Infrastructures |
title_full |
The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport Infrastructures |
title_fullStr |
The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport Infrastructures |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences and Consequences for Urban Transport Infrastructures |
title_sort |
valuation of aesthetic preferences and consequences for urban transport infrastructures |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Sustainability |
issn |
2071-1050 |
publishDate |
2021-04-01 |
description |
The importance of transport infrastructure for individual well-being and regional economic development and growth, but also its adverse side-effects, make a comprehensive assessment of the general appropriateness of new construction and rebuild indispensable. Assessments, however, often lack certain issues. For instance, aesthetic aspects are usually not part of the (economic) evaluation of large infrastructure projects, albeit individuals may be (positively or negatively) affected by the aesthetic ‘value’ of infrastructures. This paper proposes the aesthetic index developed by Birkhoff as a method to quantify the aesthetic impact of buildings/facilities in urban areas. To test the basic applicability of the index for transport infrastructure facilities, we apply it at first to airport terminals in Germany. We also test the suitability of the index to derive the willingness to pay for aesthetic exterior design—since market prices are easy to obtain with respect to hotel room rates—using hotel architecture as the first example. Regression results of a hedonic price model indicate a significant relationship, suggesting the basic suitability of the index to uncover consumers’ willingness to pay for an aesthetic outward appearance. We suggest further research to test the suitability of Birkhoff’s index for general urban transport infrastructures in order to derive utility-based welfare measures toward aesthetic issues. For highly controversial urban (overground) infrastructures, we propose the inclusion of an aesthetic component in cost–benefit analysis. |
topic |
aesthetics aesthetic measurement Birkhoff index hedonic price analysis |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4977 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT christosevangelinos thevaluationofaestheticpreferencesandconsequencesforurbantransportinfrastructures AT stefantscharaktschiew thevaluationofaestheticpreferencesandconsequencesforurbantransportinfrastructures AT christosevangelinos valuationofaestheticpreferencesandconsequencesforurbantransportinfrastructures AT stefantscharaktschiew valuationofaestheticpreferencesandconsequencesforurbantransportinfrastructures |
_version_ |
1721500156898050048 |