Preferences for the future of the Southport Spit: evidence from a choice experiment

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
V. Graham, Christopher M. Fleming, Fitalew Agimass, James C. R. Smart
{"title":"Preferences for the future of the Southport Spit: evidence from a choice experiment","authors":"V. Graham, Christopher M. Fleming, Fitalew Agimass, James C. R. Smart","doi":"10.1080/14486563.2020.1843193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Southport Spit, an undeveloped open space at the northern end of the Gold Coast beaches, has been subject to contentious development proposals. This study employs a choice experiment to elicit residents' preferences for the future of the Spit in terms of development focus, maximum permitted height of development and extent of developed space. From an online choice experiment survey, we estimate a latent class model that reveals two strongly opposing viewpoints and a third, more nuanced, viewpoint. A pro-conservation segment opposes development of either a cruise ship terminal or casino, prefers low-rise development and opposes any increase in the extent of developed space. In contrast, a pro-development segment favours building a cruise ship terminal, a casino, or both a cruise ship terminal and a casino, prefers medium-rise development and has no clear preferences for how much of the available footprint should be developed. This study contributes to the small body of literature employing choice experiments to elicit the land-use preferences of urban communities; findings may help to explain why, to date, so little progress has been made towards reaching consensus on the future of the Spit.","PeriodicalId":46081,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Environmental Management","volume":"27 1","pages":"396 - 414"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14486563.2020.1843193","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2020.1843193","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Southport Spit, an undeveloped open space at the northern end of the Gold Coast beaches, has been subject to contentious development proposals. This study employs a choice experiment to elicit residents' preferences for the future of the Spit in terms of development focus, maximum permitted height of development and extent of developed space. From an online choice experiment survey, we estimate a latent class model that reveals two strongly opposing viewpoints and a third, more nuanced, viewpoint. A pro-conservation segment opposes development of either a cruise ship terminal or casino, prefers low-rise development and opposes any increase in the extent of developed space. In contrast, a pro-development segment favours building a cruise ship terminal, a casino, or both a cruise ship terminal and a casino, prefers medium-rise development and has no clear preferences for how much of the available footprint should be developed. This study contributes to the small body of literature employing choice experiments to elicit the land-use preferences of urban communities; findings may help to explain why, to date, so little progress has been made towards reaching consensus on the future of the Spit.
对Southport Spit未来的偏好:来自选择实验的证据
南港沙嘴是黄金海岸海滩北端的一块未开发的开放空间,一直受到有争议的开发建议的影响。本研究采用选择实验的方法,从发展重点、最大允许发展高度和发展空间程度三个方面,询问居民对沙嘴未来的偏好。从一项在线选择实验调查中,我们估计了一个潜在的阶级模型,它揭示了两种强烈反对的观点和第三种更微妙的观点。支持环境保护的一方反对开发游轮码头或赌场,他们更喜欢低层建筑,反对扩大已开发空间的范围。相比之下,支持开发的部分倾向于建造一个游轮码头、一个赌场,或者一个游轮码头和一个赌场,他们更喜欢中层建筑,并且对于应该开发多少可用的足迹没有明确的偏好。本研究为利用选择实验引出城市社区土地利用偏好的文献提供了有益的借鉴;这些发现可能有助于解释为什么迄今为止,在就沙嘴的未来达成共识方面进展如此之少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信