مقایسۀ اثر کالای عمومی در انتخاب مسکن، میان تمامی خانوارهای شهر و گروه درآمدی بالا نمونۀ موردی: شهر تهران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه شهرسازی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه اقتصاد، دانشکدۀ علوم اقتصادی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینا، همدان، ایران.

4 استادیار گروه مهندسی نقشه‌برداری، دانشکدۀ مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه تربیت‌دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

خانوارها برای مسکن بهتر در شهر جابه‌جا می‌شوند و کالای عمومی یکی از عوامل مهم در این جابه‌جایی است اما این کالا برای تمامی خانوارهای شهر اهمیت یکسانی ندارد و توزیع فضایی آن در شهر یکنواخت نیست. به‌منظور بررسی تقصیلی کالای عمومی به دو گروه خالص و ناخالص تفکیک شده است و هدف اصلی پژوهش سنجش تأثیر این کالا درمیان تمامی خانوارها و گروه درآمدی بالا است. روش پژوهش به‌صورت کمّی و مدل‌سازی عامل‌مبنا انجام شده است. داده‌های اولیه مدل از سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن (1395) و طرح رصد کیفیت محلات (95-1394) شهرداری تهران اخذ شدند. نتایج نشان‌داد گروه کالای عمومی ناخالص در انتخاب مسکن کلِ خانوارهای شهر مؤثر است. ازمیان متغیرهای این گروه، برای تمامی خانوارهای شهر، بیشترین تأثیر را «دسترسی به سیستم حمل‌ونقل عمومی» دارد، ولی این متغیر در انتخاب خانوارهای بادرآمد بالا تأثیرگذار نیست. متغیر «دسترسی به فضای آموزشی» نیز کمترین تأثیر را میان تمامی خانوارها دارد، ولی در گروه درآمدی بالا، این کالا بیشترین تأثیر را دارد. در گروه کالای عمومی خالص، تمامی متغیرها در انتخاب مسکن کلِ خانوارهای شهر مؤثر است و متغیر «امنیت» بیشترین میزان تأثیر را دارد. در مقام مقایسه با گروه درآمدی بالا، به‌جز «فاصله تا فضای آموزشی»، سایر متغیرها تأثیر معناداری در انتخاب مسکن ندارند که نشان از توزیع فضایی نامتوازن کالای عمومی خالص در سطح شهر و همگنی توزیع فضایی در محل سکونت خانوارهای با درآمد بالا دارد، هم‌چنین براساس پیشینۀ پژوهش، فضای آموزشی در گروه درآمدی بالا به‌عنوان معیاری از کیفیت محله مطرح است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Public Goods on Residential Mobility: Comparison all Households and High-Income Groups in Tehran, Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Asadi 1
  • Atoosa Modiri 2
  • Ali Akbar Gholizadeh 3
  • Farhad Hosseynali 4
1 PhD student of Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor of Urban Planning Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor, Mapping Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Tarbiat University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Households move in cities for better housing and access to better public goods services, but the public goods are not equally important for households and their spatial distribution is not uniform in the city. In order to investigate in detail, we divvied the public goods into two groups: net and gross and modeling the housing residential choice. The main purpose of the study is to measure the impact of this product among all households and high-income groups. Data were collected from Census (2016) and the neighborhood quality survey (2015-2016) of Tehran Municipality. We use agent-based model for investigate the behavior of households. The results showed that the gross public goods are effective in choosing the house of all households in the city. Among the variables in this group, for all households in the city, “access to the public transportation system” has the greatest impact, but this variable does not affect the choice of high-income households. The variable “access to educational space” also has the least impact among all households, but in the high-income group, this variable has the most impact. In the group of net public goods, all variables are effective in choosing the house of all households in the city, and the variable “security” has the greatest impact. Compared to the high-income group, except for “distance to educational space”, other variables do not have a significant effect on housing choice, which indicates the unbalanced spatial distribution of net public goods in the city and the homogeneity of spatial distribution in high-income households. Also, based on the research background, educational space in the high-income group is considered as a measure of neighborhoods quality.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Life-Cycle Theory
  • Public Goods
  • Agent-based Modeling
  • Residential Mobility

مراجع

- ایزدخواستی، حجت؛ عرب مازار، عباس؛ و احمدی، خلیل، (1398). «تحلیل عوامل کلان اقتصادی مؤثر بر شاخص توان‌پذیری مسکن خانوار در مناطق شهری ایران: با تأکید بر نقش دولت». فصلنامۀ مطالعات اقتصادی کاربردی ایران، 8(29)، 41-70.
- قلی‌زاده، علی‌اکبر؛ و خاکسار، مطهره، (1396). «اثر درآمد و تحصیلات سرپرست خانوار بر نحوۀ تصرف مسکن در مناطق شهری ایران». فصلنامۀ مطالعات اقتصادی کاربردی ایران، 6 (22): 211-230.
- منکیو، گ.، (2001).  اقتصاد کلان. ترجمۀ حمیدرضا ارباب (1392). نشر نی، تهران.
- دادگر، یدا...، (1393). مبانی و اصول علم اقتصاد. مؤسسه بوستان کتاب، قم.
 
- Alonso, W., (1964). Location and Land Use. Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Andrew, M. & Meen, G., (2006). “Population Structure and Location Choice: A Study of London and South East England”. Papers in Regional Science, 85(3): 401-419.
- Bayoh, I.; Irwin, E. G. & Haab, T., (2006). “Determinants of Residential Location Choice: How Important are Local Public Goods in Attracting Homeowners to Central City Locations?”. Journal of Regional Science, 46(1): 97-120.
- Bell, W., (1958). Social Choice, Life Styles and Suburban Residence. In W. F. Dobriner (Ed.). The suburban community. New York: Putnam’s.
- Bogart, W. T. & Cromwell, B. A., (2000). ‘‘How Much is a Neighborhood School Worth?’’. Journal of Urban Economics, 47: 280–305.
- Boumeester, H. J., (2011). Traditional housing demand research. In The measurement and analysis of housing preference and choice. Springer, Dordrecht.
- Boumeester, H., (2004). Duurdere koopwoning en wooncarrière. Een modelmatige analyse van de vraagontwikkeling aan de bovenkant van de Nederlandse koopwoningmarkt. Volkshuisvestingsbeleid en woningmarkt, 35. Delft: Delft University Press.
- Boumeester, H.; Hoekstra, J.; Meesters, J. & Coolen, H., (2005). Woonwensen nader in kaart: de woonbeleving van bewoners. Voorburg: NVB.
- Chang, H. S. & Liao, C. H., (2011). “Exploring an Integrated Method for Measuring the Relative Spatial Equity in Public Facilities in the Context of Urban Parks”. Cities, 28(5): 361-371.
- Chen C.; Gong H. & Paaswell R., (2008). “Role of the Built Environment on Mode Choice Decisions: Additional Evidence on the Impact of Density”. Transportation, 35(3): 285-299.
- Chiu, R. L. H., (2004). “Socio-cultural Sustainability of Housing: A Conceptual Exploration”. Housing, Theory and Society, 21(2): 65–76.
- Clark, W. A. V. & Davies, S., (1990). “Elderly Mobility and Mobility Outcomes”. Research on Aging, 12 (4): 430–462.
- Clark, W. A. V.; Deurloo, M. C. & Dieleman, F. M., (1994). “Tenure Changes in the Context of Micro level family and Macro level Economic Shifts”. Urban Studies, 31(1): 137–154.
- Clark, W. A. V.; Deurloo, M. C. & Dielemann, F. M., (2006). “Residential Mobility and Neighborhood Outcomes”. Housing Studies, 21(3): 323–342.
- Cupchik, G. C.; Ritterfeld, U. & Levin, J., (2003). “Incidental Learning of Features from Interior Living Spaces”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2): 189–197.
- De Groot, C.; Manting, D. & Boschman, S., (2008). “Verhuiswensen en Verhuisgedrag in Nederland”. Een landsdekkend onderzoek. Den Haag: PBL.
- De Palma, A.; Kilani, M. & Lindsey, R., (2005). “Congestion pricing on a road network: A study using the dynamic equilibrium simulator METROPOLIS”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(7-9): 588-611.
- Fawcett, J. T., (1986). “Migration Psychology: New behavioral models”. Population and Environment, 8 (1 & 2): 5–14.
- Filipovic Hrast, M.; Sendi, R.; Hlebec, V. & Kerbler, B., (2018). “Moving House and Housing Preferences in Older Age in Slovenia”. Housing, Theory and Society, 1-16. 10.1080/14036096.2018.1510854.
- Fontenla, M.; Gonzalez, F. & Navarro, J. C., (2009). “Determinants of housing expenditure in Mexico”. Applied Economics Letters, 16(17): 1731–1734.
- Friedman, J., (1981). “A Conditional Logit Model of the Role of Local Public Services in Residential Choice”. Urban Studies, 18(3): 347-358.
- Gholizadeh, A. & Khaksar, M., (2017). “Effect of Household Head’s Income & Education on Housing Tenure Choice in Iran’s Urban Areas”. Journal of Applied Economics Studies in Iran, 6(22): 211-230. doi: 10.22084/aes.2017.1891(In Persian).
- Greene, M. & Ortuzar, J., (2002). “Willingness to Pay for Social Housing Attributes: A Case Study from Chile”. International Planning Studies, 7(1): 55–87.
- Guo, J. Y. & Bhat, C. R., (2004). “Modifiable Areal Units: Problem or Perception in Modeling of Residential Location Choice?”. Transportation Research Record, 1898, 138-147.
- Habib, M. A. & Miller E. J., (2009): “Reference Dependent Residential Location Choice Model within a Relocation Context”. The 88th TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC., USA, Jan 11-15.
- Heins, S., (2002). “Rurale Woonmilieus in stad en land, plattelandsbeelden”. vraag en aanbod van rurale woonmilieus. Delft: Eburon.
- Heppenstall, A. J.; Crooks, A. T.; See, L. M. & Batty, M., (Eds.). (2012). Agent-Based Models of Geographical Systems. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Hoekstra, J., (2005). “Is there a Connection Between Welfare State Regime and Dwelling type? An Exploratory Statistical Analysis”. Housing Studies, 20(3): 475–495.
- Hofman, E.; Halman, J. I. M. & Ion, R. A., (2006). “Variation in Housing Design: Identifying Customer Preferences”. Housing Studies, 21(6): 929–943
- Hu, L. & Wang, L., (2019). “Housing Location Choices of the Poor: Does Access to Jobs Matter?”. Housing Studies, 34(10): 1721-1745.
- Huang, Q.; Parker, D. C.; Filatova, T. & Sun, S., (2014). “A Review of Urban Residential Choice Models Using Agent-Based Modeling”. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(4): 661–689.
- Huang, Q.; Parker, D.; Sun, S. & Filatova, T., (2013). “Effects of agent heterogeneity in the presence of a land-market: a systematic test in an agent-based laboratory”. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41: 188–203.
- Hurtubia, R.; Gallay, O. & Bierlaire, M., (2010). “Attributes of Households, Locations and Real-estate Markets for Land Use Modelling”. Sustain city working paper, 2.7. Lausanne: EPFL.
- Izadkhasti, H.; Arabmazar, A. & Ahmadi, K., (2019). Analysis the Effects of Macroeconomic Factors on the Housing Accessibility Index in Urban Areas of Iran: Emphasizing the Role of Government. Journal of Applied Economics Studies in Iran, 8(29): 41-71. doi: 10.22084/aes.2019.17744.2761(In Persian)
- Jabareen, Y., (2005). “Culture and Housing Preferences in a Developing City.” Environment and Behavior, 37(1): 134–146.
- Jansen, S. J. T.; Coolen, H. C. C. H., Goetgeluk, R. W., (Eds.). (2011). The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, Springer.
- Kim T.; Horner M. & Marans R., (2005). “Life Cycle and Environmental Factors in Selecting Residential and Job Locations”. Housing Studies, 20(3): 457-473.
- Kok, J., (2007). “Principles and Prospects of the Life Course Paradigm”. Annales de Démographie Historique, 1: 203–230.
- Lee, B. H. Y. & Waddell, P., (2010). “Residential Mobility and Location Choice: A Nested Logit Model with Sampling of Alternatives”. Transportation, 37(4): 587-601.
- Louviere, J. & Timmermans, H., (1990). “Stated Preference and Choice Models Applied to Recreation Research: a Review”. Leisure Sciences, 12(1): 9-32.
- Mankiw, N. G., (2016). Principles of microeconomics (8th ed.). CENGAGE Learning Custom Publishing, Translated by HamidReza Arbab (In Persian).
- Marois, G.; Lord, S. & Morency, C., (2018). “A Mixed Logit Model Analysis of Residential Choices of the Young-elderly in the Montreal Metropolitan Area”. Journal of Housing Economics, 44 (C): 141-149.
- Mulder, C. H., (1993). Migration Dynamics: A Life Course Approach. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
- Mulliner, E. & Algrnas, M., (2018). “Preferences for Housing Attributes in Saudi Arabia: A Comparison between Consumers' and Property Practitioners' Views”. Cities, 83: 152-164.
- Nechyba, T. J. & Strauss, R. P., (1998). “Community Choice and Local Public Services: A Discrete Choice Approach”. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 28: 51–73.
- Opoku, R. & Abdul-Muhmin, A., (2010). “Housing Preferences and Attribute Importance among Low-income Consumers in Saudi Arabia”. Habitat International, 34: 219-227.
- Pagliara, F.; Preston, J. & Simmonds, D., (Eds.). (2010). Residential Location Choice: Models and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Pinjari, A. R.; Bhat, C. R. & Hensher, D. A., (2009). “Residential Self-selection Effects in an Activity Time-use Behavior Model”. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 43(7): 729-748.
- Pinjari, A. R.; Pendyala, R. M.; Bhat, C. R. & Waddell, P. A., (2011). “Modeling the Choice Continuum: An Integrated Model of Residential Location, Auto Ownership, Bicycle Ownership, and Commute Tour Mode Choice Decisions”. Transportation, 38(6): 933.
- Rosen, H. S. & Fullerton, D. J., (1977). “A Note on Local Tax Rates, Public Benefit Levels, and Property Values”. Journal of Political Economy, 85: 433–440.
- Rossi PH., (1995). Why Families Move: A Study in the Social Psychology of Urban Residential Mobility. Glencoe, IL: Free Press
- Schirmer, PM. & Axhausen KW., (2014). “Quantifying the Value of Urban form: A Hedonic Rent Price Model on Zurich”. 14th Swiss Transport Research Conference.
- Sirgy, J.; Grzeskowiak, S. & Su, C., (2005). “Explaining Housing Preference and Choice: The Role of Self-congruity and Functional Congruity”. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4): 329–34
- Tan, T. H., (2011). “Neighborhood Preferences of House Buyers: The Case of Klang Valley, Malaysia”. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 4(1): 58–69.
- Thisse, J. F., (1992). “Public Facility Location and Urban Spatial Structure-Equilibrium and Welfare Analysis”. J. Public Econ (No. info: hdl: 2078.1/50690). Université catholique de Louvain.
- Tsou, K. W.; Hung, Y. T. & Chang, Y. L., (2005). “An Accessibility-based Integrated Measure of Relative Spatial Equity in Urban Public Facilities”. Cities, 22(6): 424-435.
- Waddell, P., (2006). “Reconciling Household Residential Location Choices and Neighborhood Dynamics”. Under revision, Sociological Methods and Research.
- Wagner, P. & Wegener, M., (2007). “Urban land use, transport and environment models: e- xperiences with an integrated microscopic approach”. disP, 170: 45–56.
- Yadolah D. & Teymur R., (2014). The Fundamentals and Principles of Economics (2th ed). BOOSTAN-E-KETAB, Qom: Iran (In Persian).
- Yusuf, A. & Resosudarmo, B., (2009). “Does Clean Air Matter in Developing Countries' Megacities? A Hedonic Price Analysis of the Jakarta Housing Market, Indonesia”. Ecological Economics, 68(5): 1398–1407.
- Zabel, J. & Kiel, K., (2000). “Estimating the Demand for Air Quality in Four U.S. Cities”. Land Economics, 76: 174–194.
- Zhou, B. & Kockelman, K. M., (2008). “Self-selection in Home Choice: Use of Treatment Effects in Evaluating Relationship between Built Environment and Travel Behavior”. Transportation Research Record, 2077(1): 54-61.
- Zhou, J. & Musterd, S., (2018). “Housing Preferences and Access to Public Rental Housing among Migrants in Chongqing, China”. Habitat International, 79: 42-50.
- Zondag, B. & Pieters, M., (2005). “Influence of Accessibility on Residential Location Choice”. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transport, 1902: 63-70.
فصلنامه مطالعات اقتصادی کاربردی ایران
دوره 11، شماره 42
شهریور 1401
صفحه 219-250

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار