Willingness to pay for improvements in environmental performance of residential buildings

Building and Environment

Volumn 60, Issue , 2013, Pages 225-233

  Park, Minsun ^a   Hagishima, Aya ^a   Tanimoto, Jun ^a   Chun, Chungyoon ^b  

^a KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b Yonsei University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Environmental performance; Marginal willingness to pay; Ranking method; Weight

Indexed keywords

CONJOINT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; RANKING METHODS; WEIGHT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

BUILDINGS; CARBON DIOXIDE; ELECTRIC UTILITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; STATISTICAL METHODS; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS;

ECONOMICS;

BUILDING; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; RANKING; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SEOUL [SOUTH KOREA]; SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 84872425068     PISSN: 03601323     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.10.017     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Human development annual report - fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world 2007-2008 2008, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), UNDP, New York.
2. Pittet D, Kotak T. Assessing the environmental impact of building technologies in Kutch District, Gujarat State, India. In: The EPFL/UNESCO chair international scientific conference on technologies for development, EPFL, Lausanne. 8-10 Feb 2010.
3. Cole R.J. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of alternative structural systems. Build Environ 1999, 34(3):335-348.
4. Asif M., Muneer T., Kelley R. Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build Environ 2007, 42(3):1391-1394.
5. How the energy sector can deliver on a climate agreement in Copenhagen: special early excerpt of the world energy outlook 2009 for the Bangkok UNFCCC meeting 2009, International Energy Agency, International Energy Agency.
6. A report for the domestic energy consumption 2011, Korea Energy Management Corporation, Online, Available at:, [accessed January 2012] [in Korean]. http://www.kemco.or.kr.
7. A report for the public consciousness of environmental preservation 2008, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Environment, [in Korean].
8. Monthly expenditure on a household's consumption 2006, Korea Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), Online, Available at:, [accessed May 2007] [in Korean]. http://kosis.nso.go.kr.
9. Market price of apartments 2007, Korea Ministry of Construction and Transportation, Online, Available at:, [accessed May 2007] [in Korean]. http://rt.moct.go.kr.
10. Taguchi K. System of experimental design 1991, vol. 2. Kraus International Publications, New York.
11. Robinson G.K. Practical strategies for experimenting 2000, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
12. Walker B., March A., Wardman M., Niner P. Modelling tenants' choices in the public rented sector: a stated preference approach. Urban Stud 2002, 39(4):665-688.
13. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York.
14. Hausman J., McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinominal logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52(5):1219-1240.
15. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 1927, 34(4):278-286.
16. Hausman J., Wise D. A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous references. Econometrica 1978, 46(2):403-426.
17. Greene W.H. Econometric analysis 1997, New York University: Prentice Hall. 3rd ed.
18. Reibstein D., Bateson J., Boulding W. Conjoint analysis reliability: empirical findings. Market Sci 1988, 7(3):271-286.
19. Mishra D., Min J., Dalman M. An empirical assessment of stimulus presentation mode bias in conjoint analysis. Innovative Market 2011, 7(4):108-121.
20. Orme B. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawtooth software research paper series 1998.
21. Green P.E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res 1978, 5(2):103-123.
22. Kruskal J.B. Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data. J Roy Stat Soc B Met 1965, 27(2):251-263.
23. Louviere J.J. Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preference: a review of theory, method, recent developments and external validity. J Transp Econ Policy 1988, 22(1):93-119.
24. Green P.E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Market 1990, 54(4):3-19.
25. Cheung H.D., Chung T.M. A study on subjective preference to daylit residential indoor environment using conjoint analysis. Build Environ 2008, 43(12):2101-2111.
26. Opoku R.A., Abdul-Muhmin A.G. Housing preferences and attribute among low-income consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int 2010, 34(2):219-227.
27. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 1994, 26(3):271-292.
28. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 1998, 11(3-4):413-428.
29. Roe B., Boyle K.J., Teisl M.F. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manag 1996, 31(2):145-159.
30. Wood L.L., Kenyon A.E., Desvousges W.H., Morander L.K. How much are customers willing to pay for improvements in health and environmental quality?. Electricity J 1995, 8(4):70-77.
31. Poortinga W., Steg L., Vlek C., Wiersma G. Household preferences for energy-saving measures: a conjoint analysis. J Econ Psychol 2003, 24(1):49-64.
32. Banfi S., Farsi M., Filippini M., Jakob M. Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energ Econ 2008, 30(2):503-516.
33. Chau C.K., Tse M.S., Chung K.Y. A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experiment on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Build Environ 2010, 45(11):2553-2561.
34. Kwak S.Y., Yoo S.H., Kwak S.J. Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: a choice experiment study. Energy Policy 2010, 38(1):673-677.
35. Hagishima A., Tanimoto J., Takazono H. Research on the methodology of the weight determination for holistic building rating. J Environ Eng Architect Inst Jpn 2005, 587:63-69. [in Japanese].
36. Population statistics 2005, Korea Statistical Information Service, Online, Available at:, [accessed May 2008] [in Korean]. http://www.kosis.kr.
37. Straughan R.D., Roberts J.A. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J Consum Market 1999, 16(6):588-675.
38. Ward D.O., Clark C.D., Jensen K.L., Yen S.T., Russell C.S. Factors influencing willingness-to-pay for the ENERGY STAR label. Energy Policy 2011, 39(3):1450-1458.
39. Spetic W., Kozak R., Cohen D. Willingness to pay and preferences for healthy home attributes in Canada. For Prod J 2005, 55(10):19-24.
40. Zarnikau J. Consumer demand for 'green power' and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2003, 31(15):1661-1672.
41. Dillman D., Rosa E., Dillman J. Lifestyle and home energy conservation in the United States: the poor accept lifestyle cutbacks while the wealthy invest in conservation. J Econ Psychol 1983, 3(3-4):299-315.
42. Sardianou E. Estimating energy conservation patterns of Greek households. Energy Policy 2007, 35(7):3778-3791.
43. Yeom C.W., Jung C.M. A study on the effect of ubiquitous and ecological factor to the price of apartment. Proceeding: Korea planners association in autumn 2007, 1175-1184. [in Korean].
44. Kwon D.S., Kim J.S., Lee M.H., Lee J.S., Lee C.M. Determining Factors of willing to pay for ubiquitous and ecology housing complex. Proceedings of Korea Planners Association conference in autumn 2007, 1213-1223. [in Korean].