都市居住環境的品質為居民、城市規劃師、城市管理者和研究人員等各方關注的重要議題。過去評估都市居住環境多採特徵價格法多探討鄰里環境特徵對房價之關聯性，亦較少考量到都市計畫對於都市實質環境之影響或效益，僅能反映既有市場中的屬性與價格關係，難以評估尚未存在於市場、或具假設性之居住品質屬性對居民實質效用的價值貢獻。因此，本研究將都市計畫中主要計畫、細部計畫與通盤檢討內容中的土地使用分區、土地使用管制與都市設計審議納入討論框架，綜合評估對於都市土地使用之發展性質與發展強度、公共設施服務可及性、人行道留設與植栽景觀設計，及公共開放空間串連性等多重面向之價值與效益。本研究採用選擇試驗法（Choice Experiment, CE），將抽象的規劃效益評估為具體的市場價值，透過居住偏好得知都市居住環境品質各屬性之邊際願付金額，可得知不同屬性的相對重要性，提供居民偏好之都市居住環境實證依據，以期作為都市計畫規劃住宅區周邊環境規劃與住房政策制定之參考。
實證結果部分，由重要表現程度分析法（IPA）得知「留設足夠人行道寬度」、「增加人行道劃設，使其與其他公共開放空間串連」、「留設更寬人行道寬度與設置喬木植生帶，種植有林蔭、具視覺穿透力的樹種」具備極高之改善期盼然現況表現卻顯著不足，為台南市東區亟待優先投入資源之施政項目。再來以選擇試驗法（CE）價值評估方面，隨機參數羅吉特模型（RPL）證實受訪者多項都市居住環境屬性皆呈現顯著之正向支付意願，其中以「人行道與公共開放空間串連性」為所有屬性中願付價格最高（894 元新臺幣/戶/月），反映出受訪者對於基礎改善之人行道與公共開放空間串連性之高度重視，其次則為「住宅區允許使用類別增加」（698 元新臺幣/戶/月）與「住宅區土地使用之發展強度適度增加」（665 元新臺幣/戶/月）亦反映出受訪者偏好透過適度的增加住商混合提升生活機能的便利性，並且也偏好適度提升住宅區周邊開發強度。此外，潛在類別模型（LCM）進一步將受訪者劃分為「全面性居住環境品質重視型」與「綠色人行與公共開放空間串連導向型」兩大潛在群體，證實社經背景與居住環境現況的差異會影響其對居住環境改善之偏好異質性。最後，以願付價格結合空間分析呈現出居住環境價值地區差異，提供因地制宜與分眾化的住宅環境規劃建議，以期極大化都市整體之社會福祉與效益。

Urban environmental quality is a critical concern for residents, urban planners, and policymakers. Conventional studies predominantly rely on the hedonic price method to examine the association between neighborhood characteristics and housing prices. However, this approach rarely accounts for the impacts of urban planning mechanisms and is limited in its ability to evaluate non-market or hypothetical attributes. To address this gap, this study integrates land-use zoning, development controls, and urban design review into a comprehensive framework to evaluate the values and benefits of land-use characteristics, development intensity, public facility accessibility, sidewalk design with greening, and open space connectivity. Utilizing the Choice Experiment (CE) method, this research quantifies residents' marginal willingness-to-pay (MWTP) for environmental attributes, providing empirical insights for residential planning and housing policy formulation.
Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) indicates that "sufficient sidewalk width," "enhanced connectivity to open spaces," and "wider sidewalks with tree belts" are of high importance but low current satisfaction, identifying them as priorities for policy intervention in the East District of Tainan City. The Random Parameter Logit (RPL) model confirms positive MWTP across attributes. "Sidewalk and open space connectivity" commands the highest MWTP, followed by "increasing permissible of land use control " and "moderately increasing development intensity", signaling preferences for moderate mixed-use and density. Furthermore, the Latent Class Model (LCM) identifies two groups—"Comprehensive Residential Quality-Oriented" and "Green Sidewalk and Open Space Connectivity-Oriented"—demonstrating that socioeconomic factors significantly drive preference heterogeneity. By combining monetary valuation with spatial analysis, this study reveals geographical variations in environmental preferences, offering targeted planning strategies to maximize urban social welfare.

1. 王建國. (1996). 現代都市設計理論和方法. 地景企業股份有限公司.
2. 余奕儒. (2025). 產業進駐後對房價之影響 - 以台積電進駐南科臺南園區為例 [碩士論文, 國立政治大學]. https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/156074
3. 吳翊安. (2014). 由周邊地區居民角度探討都市更新對居住環境品質的影響 [碩士論文, 國立成功大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/rumdc4。
4. 李盈勳. (2001). 台北市分區規則的實質環境管制對地價之影響 [碩士論文, 國立成功大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/234jrj
5. 辛晚教. (2020). 都市及區域計劃(二版). 詹氏書局.
6. 林孟璇. (2016). 住商混合對居住環境品質影響之研究以逢甲大學社區為例 [碩士論文, 逢甲大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/bu7u44。
7. 林宜璇. (2020). 都市原住民居住品質之衡量－以台北市為例 [Housing Quality of Urban Aboriginal Households: The Case of Taipei City]. 住宅學報, 29(1), 1-24.
8. 林炎欣. (2008). 房價特徵模型之空間自我相關問題分析 [碩士論文, 國立成功大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/282a64
9. 林哲安. (2020). 政府執行土地使用管制對住宅價格之影響―以師大社區為例 [碩士論文, 國立政治大學]. http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131167
10. 林祖嘉, & 馬毓駿. (2007). 特徵方程式大量估價法在台灣不動產市場之應用 [An Application of Mass Appraisal and the Hedonic Equation in the Real Estate Market in Taiwan]. 住宅學報, 16(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.6375/jhs.200712.0001
11. 林欽榮. (1995). 都市設計在台灣. 創興出版社.
12. 倪國鈞. (2003). 台灣地區引進街走式輕軌運輸系統沿街面都市設計準則之研究－台南市輕軌計畫之初步電腦模擬 [碩士論文, 國立成功大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/js3pac
13. 徐翊庭. (2008). 高鐵通車前後台灣西部走廊旅客運具選擇行為之比較分析 [碩士論文, 國立交通大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/j9q7fv
14. 張媛婷. (2008). 都市土地使用管制對土地價格之影響－階層線性模式之應用 [碩士論文, 國立成功大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/k63qym。
15. 陳博雅. (2003). 新國土規劃理念下土地使用分區管制之研究. 內政部營建署市鄉規劃局. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=TtqzPgAACAAJ
16. 曾國雄, 顏永坤, & 陳君杰. (1993). 都市環境特性與評估之比較研究－台北都會區、東京都與漢城市為對象區域 [A Comparative Study on Urban Life-Environment for Taipei, Tokyo and Seoul]. 都市與計劃, 20(3), 263-278. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=10181067-199311-20-3-263-278-a
17. 黃紹東. (2004). 台南市東區住宅價格之空間自我迴歸分析 [碩士論文, 國立成功大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/gc9p26
18. 黃龑. (2016). 大眾捷運交通系統對住宅區房地產價格的影響 ——以臺北市大眾捷運系統為例 [碩士論文, 國立臺灣大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/y84r9q
19. 廖世璋. (1998). 都市設計應用理論與設計原理. In. 詹氏書局.
20. 劉勝勳. (2002). 台灣土地使用及開發系統回顧與檢討─都市計畫、都市設計、建築管理之定位與整合─ [碩士論文, 國立成功大學]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8pvgfm
21. 歐陽嶠暉. (2005). 都市環境學. 詹氏書局.
22. 蔡勳雄. (1997). 生活環境總體改造計畫. 環境教育季刊, 第 33 期, 8-11.
23. 衛萬明. (2012). 因應永續成長原則下之都市生活品質指標建立與規劃發展策略之研究. 科技部專題研究計畫（一般研究計畫）.
24. 衛萬明, & 張紀涵. (2003). 都市設計實質環境規劃之專家評估系統建立 [A Physical Environment Planning Expert System of Urban Design]. 設計學報, 8(2), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.6381/JD.200309.0103
25. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Williams, M. (1994). Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3), 271-292. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1017
26. Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: a residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(3), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-007-9082-9
27. Andersson, D. E., Shyr, O. F., & Fu, J. (2010). Does high-speed rail accessibility influence residential property prices? Hedonic estimates from southern Taiwan. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.10.012
28. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models (Vol. 4). SpringerLink. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7799-1
29. Aragonés, J. I., Amérigo, M., & Pérez-López, R. (2017). Residential Satisfaction and Quality of Life. In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, & O. Navarro (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research (pp. 311-328). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31416-7_17
30. Ayoola, A. B., Oyetunji, A. K., Amaechi, C. V., Olukolajo, M. A., Ullah, S., & Kemiki, O. A. (2023). Determining Residential Location Choice along the Coastline in Victoria Island, Nigeria Using a Factor Analytical Approach. Buildings, 13(6), 1513. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/6/1513
31. Azzopardi, E., & Nash, R. (2013). A critical evaluation of importance–performance analysis. Tourism Management, 35, 222-233. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.007
32. Banzhaf, H. S. (2010). Economics at the fringe: Non-market valuation studies and their role in land use plans in the United States. Journal of environmental management, 91(3), 592-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.003
33. Bertram, C., Meyerhoff, J., Rehdanz, K., & Wüstemann, H. (2017). Differences in the recreational value of urban parks between weekdays and weekends: A discrete choice analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.006
34. Bi, J.-W., Liu, Y., Fan, Z.-P., & Zhang, J. (2019). Wisdom of crowds: Conducting importance-performance analysis (IPA) through online reviews. Tourism Management, 70, 460-478. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.010
35. Bockstael, N., & McConnell, K. (2007). Environmental and Resource Valuation with Revealed Preferences: A Theoretical Guide to Empirical Models. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5318-4
36. Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment [Article]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0138
37. Bose, A., Basak, D., Roy, S., Chowdhury, I. R., Abdo, H. G., Aldagheiri, M., & Almohamad, H. (2023). Evaluation of Urban Sustainability through Perceived Importance, Performance, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Integrated IPA–SEM-Based Modelling Approach. Sustainability, 15(12), 9788. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/12/9788
38. Brander, L. M., & Koetse, M. J. (2011). The value of urban open space: Meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. Journal of environmental management, 92(10), 2763-2773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019
39. Brécard, D., Le Boennec, R., & Salladarré, F. (2018). Accessibility, Local Pollution and Housing Prices. Evidence from Nantes Mtropole, France. Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, 500-501-502. https://doi.org/10.24187/ecostat.2018.500t.1947
40. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation.
41. Cao, X. (2016). How does neighborhood design affect life satisfaction? Evidence from Twin Cities. Travel Behaviour and Society, 5, 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2015.07.001
42. Chen, Y., Jiao, J., & Farahi, A. (2023). Disparities in affecting factors of housing price: A machine learning approach to the effects of housing status, public transit, and density factors on single-family housing price. Cities, 140, 104432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104432
43. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
44. Chriqui, J. F., Leider, J., Thrun, E., Nicholson, L. M., & Slater, S. (2016). Communities on the Move: Pedestrian-Oriented Zoning as a Facilitator of Adult Active Travel to Work in the United States [Original Research]. Frontiers in Public Health, Volume 4 - 2016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00071
45. Clapp, J. M., Nanda, A., & Ross, S. L. (2008). Which school attributes matter? The influence of school district performance and demographic composition on property values. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(2), 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2007.03.004
46. Clark, W. A. V., Deurloo, M. C., & Dieleman, F. M. (2006). Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes [Article]. Housing Studies, 21(3), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030600585946
47. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
48. Crompton, J. L. (2001). Parks and economic development. American Planning Association.
49. Debrezion, G., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2011). The impact of rail transport on real estate prices: an empirical analysis of the Dutch housing market. Urban Studies, 48(5), 997-1015.
50. Duan, L., Niu, X., & Wang, B. (2024). The Urban Park Green Spaces Landscape Premium Functional Value Accounting System: Construction and Application. Sustainability, 16(23), 10612. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10612
51. Earnhart, D. (2002). Combining Revealed and Stated Data to Examine Housing Decisions Using Discrete Choice Analysis. Journal of Urban Economics, 51(1), 143-169. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2241
52. Emami, A., & Sadeghlou, S. (2021). Residential Satisfaction: A Narrative Literature Review Towards Identification of Core Determinants and Indicators [Review]. Housing, Theory and Society, 38(4), 512-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1844795
53. European Commission. (1990). Green paper on the urban environment: Communication from the Commission to the Council and Parliament (COM(90) 218 final). (Commission of the European Communities, Issue. P. O. o. t. E. Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0e4b169c-91b8-4de0-9fed-ead286a4efb7/language-en?utm_source=chatgpt.com
54. Frankhauser, P., & Ansel, D. (2016). Deciding Where to Live: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Residential Choice in its Social Context. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15542-1
55. Freeman III, A. M., Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (2014). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315780917
56. Galster, G. (2001). On the Nature of Neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2111-2124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120087072
57. Glaesener, M.-L., & Caruso, G. (2015). Neighborhood green and services diversity effects on land prices: Evidence from a multilevel hedonic analysis in Luxembourg. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.008
58. Goodman, J. L. (1978). Causes and indicators of housing quality. Social indicators research, 5(1), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352929
59. Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation research. Part B: methodological, 37(8), 681-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2
60. Güngör, M. K., & Terzi, F. (2024). Residential satisfaction and quality of urban life: examining diverse housing environments. Archnet-Ijar International Journal of Architectural Research, 18(1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/arch-01-2022-0014
61. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Adamowicz, V. (1998). Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11(3), 413-428.
62. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Koop, G. (2002). Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing in Scotland [Article]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22(3), 449-466. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016077425039
63. Holmes, T. P., Adamowicz, W. L., & Carlsson, F. (2017). Choice Experiments. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (pp. 133-186). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_5
64. Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable housing: Exploring future mobility among Dublin central city residents. Cities, 26(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2008.10.001
65. Hsu, K.-C. (2020). House Prices in the Peripheries of Mass Rapid Transit Stations Using the Contingent Valuation Method. Sustainability, 12(20), 8701. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8701
66. Huang, Y., Lieske, S. N., Wang, S., & Liu, Y. (2023). How does heterogeneity in dwelling type preferences relate to housing and built environment characteristics? International Journal of Digital Earth, 16(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2022.2163713
67. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, S. S. (2003). Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(3), 95-116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00244-X
68. Kamp, I. v., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & Hollander, A. d. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00232-3
69. Kang, Y., Zhang, F., Peng, W., Gao, S., Rao, J., Duarte, F., & Ratti, C. (2021). Understanding house price appreciation using multi-source big geo-data and machine learning. Land Use Policy, 111, 104919. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104919
70. Kim, J. H., Pagliara, F., & Preston, J. (2005). The intention to move and residential location choice behaviour [Article]. Urban Studies, 42(9), 1621-1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500185611
71. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
72. Lee, S. M., Conway, T. L., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Cain, K. L., & Sallis, J. F. (2016). The Relation of Perceived and Objective Environment Attributes to Neighborhood Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 136-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515623823
73. Li, J., Auchincloss, A. H., Rodriguez, D. A., Moore, K. A., Diez Roux, A. V., & Sánchez, B. N. (2020). Determinants of Residential Preferences Related to Built and Social Environments and Concordance between Neighborhood Characteristics and Preferences. Journal of Urban Health, 97(1), 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-019-00397-7
74. Li, J., Ossokina, I., & Arentze, T. (2024). The spatial planning of housing and urban green space: A combined stated choice experiment and land-use modeling approach. Land Use Policy, 145, 107252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107252
75. Li, J., Ossokina, I. V., & Arentze, T. A. (2025). Planning for preference heterogeneity, the case of housing and urban green space. Cities, 167, 106344. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106344
76. Li, Y., Li, M., Xu, Y., & Tao, J. (2024). “Interface-element-perception” model to evaluation of urban sidewalk visual landscape in the core area of Beijing. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 13(5), 960-977. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.12.006
77. Liao, F. H., Farber, S., & Ewing, R. (2015). Compact development and preference heterogeneity in residential location choice behaviour: A latent class analysis [Article]. Urban Studies, 52(2), 314-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014527138
78. Louviere, J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(350-36). http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151440
79. Louviere, J. J. (1992). Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview. Journal of Business Research, 24(2), 89-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(92)90054-F
80. Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.04.010
81. Ma, L. (2018). Use of Property Values and Location Decisions for Environmental Valuation. In: Oxford University Press.
82. Marans, R. W. (2012). Quality of Urban Life Studies: An Overview and Implications for Environment-Behaviour Research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.058
83. Marans, R. W., & Stimson, R. J. (2011). Investigating Quality of Urban Life : Theory, Methods, and Empirical Research (Vol. 45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8
84. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
85. McCrea, R., Shyy, T. K., & Stimson, R. J. (2014). Satisfied Residents in Different Types of Local Areas: Measuring What's Most Important. Social indicators research, 118(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0406-8
86. McFadden, D. (1972). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior.
87. McFcdden, D. a. T., K. (2000). Mixed MNL Model for Discrete Response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(2000), 447-470.
88. Mokhtarian, P. L., & Cao, X. (2008). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(3), 204-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.07.006
89. Morrow‐Jones, H. A., Irwin, E. G., & Roe, B. (2004). Consumer Preference for Neotraditional Neighborhood Characteristics. Housing Policy Debate, 15(1), 171-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2004.9521498
90. OECD. (2023). Built Environment through a Well-being Lens (OECD Publishing, Issue. https://doi.org/10.1787/1b5bebf4-en
91. Olitsky, M., Lerman, Y., & Avineri, E. (2020). Stated preferences for housing within walking distance to shopping areas. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 174(3), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmuen.19.00015
92. Olitsky, M., Lerman, Y., & Avineri, E. (2021). Stated preferences for housing within walking distance to shopping areas. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 174(3), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmuen.19.00015
93. Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00234-7
94. Patterson, Z., Darbani, J. M., Rezaei, A., Zacharias, J., & Yazdizadeh, A. (2017). Comparing text-only and virtual reality discrete choice experiments of neighbourhood choice. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.024
95. Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R. M., & Wills, G. B. (2019). Importance-Performance Analysis based SWOT analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 194-203. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.009
96. Phaneuf, D. J., Taylor, L. O., & Braden, J. B. (2013). Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate preferences for residential amenities: A gmm approach [Article]. Land Economics, 89(1), 30-52. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.1.30
97. Prashker, J., Shiftan, Y., & Hershkovitch-Sarusi, P. (2008). Residential choice location, gender and the commute trip to work in Tel Aviv. Journal of Transport Geography, 16(5), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.02.001
98. Rid, W., Haider, W., Ryffel, A., & Beardmore, B. (2018). Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives. Ecological Economics, 146, 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.019
99. Rid, W., & Profeta, A. (2011). Stated preferences for sustainable housing development in germany-a latent class analysis [Article]. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X10393952
100. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34-55.
101. Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social indicators research, 59(1), 79-114.
102. Skalicky, V., & Čerpes, I. (2019). Comprehensive assessment methodology for liveable residential environment. Cities, 94, 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.020
103. Soltani, A., Heydari, M., Aghaei, F., & Pettit, C. J. (2022). Housing price prediction incorporating spatio-temporal dependency into machine learning algorithms. Cities, 131, 103941. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103941
104. Srinivas, H. (2003). The ecosystems approach to urban environmental management: Operationalizing the Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems (CASE) initiative.
105. Tan, Z., Wang, A., Morakinyo, T. E., Yung, E. H. K., & Chan, E. H. W. (2022). Assessing the mitigation performance of building setback from street and the combination with roadside tree planting. Building and Environment, 212, 108814. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108814
106. Timmermans, H., Borgers, A., van Dijk, J., & Oppewal, H. (1992). Residential Choice Behaviour of Dual Earner Households: A Decompositional Joint Choice Model. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 24(4), 517-533. https://doi.org/10.1068/a240517
107. Timmermans, H. J. P., Molin, E., & Noortwijk, L. (1994). Housing choice processes: Stated versus revealed modelling approaches. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 9, 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496997
108. Tolley, G. S., & Fabian, R. G. (1998). Issues in improvement of the valuation of non-market goods. Resource and Energy Economics, 20(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00041-9
109. Torres, I., Greene, M., & Ortúzar, J. d. D. (2013). Valuation of housing and neighbourhood attributes for city centre location: A case study in Santiago. Habitat International, 39, 62-74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.007
110. Tu, G., Abildtrup, J., & Garcia, S. (2016). Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.013
111. Tu, K.-J., & Lin, L.-T. (2008). Evaluative structure of perceived residential environment quality in high-density and mixed-use urban settings: An exploratory study on Taipei City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(3), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.05.009
112. Turkoglu, H. (2015). Sustainable Development and Quality of Urban Life. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.203
113. Türkoğlu, H., Terzi, F., Salihoğlu, T., Bölen, F., & Okumuş, G. (2019). Residential satisfaction in formal and informal neighborhoods: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 13(1), 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/arch-12-2018-0030
114. Vasanen, A. (2012). Beyond stated and revealed preferences: the relationship between residential preferences and housing choices in the urban region of Turku, Finland. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9267-8
115. Wu, N., & Zhao, S. (2015). Impact of Transportation Convenience, Housing Affordability, Location, and Schooling in Residence Choice Decisions. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(4), 05014028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000258
116. Youssoufi, S. (2011). Satisfaction résidentielle et configurations spatiales en milieu périurbain Université de Franche-Comté].
117. Zhu, J., Pawson, H., Han, H., & Li, B. (2022). How can spatial planning influence housing market dynamics in a pro-growth planning regime? A case study of Shanghai. Land Use Policy, 116, 106066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106066