Le preferenze degli operatori immobiliari per gli investimenti su beni storici architettonici: Un'indagine di Conjoint Choice sul riuso dell'Arsenale di Venezia

Aestimum

Volumn 55, Issue , 2009, Pages 1-18

  Alberini, Anna ^b,c   Massiani, Jérôme ^a   Rosato, Paolo ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRIESTE   (Italy)

^b FONDAZIONE ENI ENRICO MATTEI   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint Choice Analysis; Conservazione; Investimento immobiliare; Patrimonio storico

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856486856     PISSN: 15926117     EISSN: 17242118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.13128/Aestimum-8561     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Alberini A., Longo A. e Riganti P. (2006a). Using Surveys to Compare the Public's and Decisionmakers' Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenal. FEEM Nota di Lavoro 37
2. Alberini A., Longo A., Tonin S., Trombetta F. e Turvani M. (2006b). Developer Preferences for Brownfield Policies. In: Alberini A., Rosato P. e Turvani M. (a cura di) Valuing Complex Natural Resource Systems: The Case of the Lagoon of Venice. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing: 164-197
3. Bravi M. e Giaccaria S. (2006). La Conjoint Analysis nelle valutazioni immobiliari. Aestimum. (48): 39-59
4. Celerino R. (1998). Venezia Atlantide. L'impatto economico delle acque alte. Milano, Franco Angeli
5. Clark C. e Pinder D. (1999). Naval heritage and the revitalisation challenge: lessons from the Venetian Arsenal. Ocean and Coastal management. 42 (10): 933-956
6. Concina E. (1987). Venezia: arsenale, spazio urbano, spazio marittimo. L'età del primato e l'età del confronto. In: Concina E. (a cura di). Arsenali e città nell'Occidente europeo. Roma, La Nuova Italia Scientifica
7. de la Torre M. (2002). Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles
8. Dina A. (2005). La società Arsenale di Venezia, un esperimento riuscito? (Conferenza dell'Associazione Aree Urbane Dismesse AUDIS, La dismissione delle aree demaniali. Risorse ed opportunità di sviluppo per il territorio, Caserta)
9. Green P.E. e Srivanasan V., (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5: 103-127
10. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. e Green W.H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
11. Louviere J., (1988). Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22 (1): 93-120
12. MacFadden D.L. e Domencich T. (1975). Urban Travel Demand: a Behavioral Analysis., Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing
13. Massiani J. e Rosato P. (2008). Using conjoint analysis to investigate preferences of inhabitants for the future of a greyfield area: an application to the Old Port in Trieste., European Transport, 39: 59-81
14. Mazzanti M. (2001). Discrete Choice Models and Valuation Experiments, an Application to Cultural Heritage. (Congresso Società Italiana d'Economia Pubblica, Pavia)
15. Mazzanti M. (2002). Cultural heritage as multi-dimensional, multi-value and multi-attribute economic good: toward a new framework for economic analysis and valuation. Journal of Socio-Economics 31 (5): 529-558
16. Morey E.R. (1999). Two RUMS uncloaked: nested-logit models of site choice and nested-logit models of participation and site choice. In: Herriges, J.A. e Kling C.L. (a cura di). Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice: 65-120. Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Publishing: 65-120
17. Signorello G. e Cuccia T. (2002). Estimating and Capturing Non-market Use Value of Heritage Cities: The Case of Noto. In: Rizzo I. e Towse R. (a cura di). The Economics of Heritage: A Study in the Political Economy of Culture in Sicily., Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing