Share:


Willingness to pay for accessible elderly housing in Korea

    So Young Lee Affiliation
    ; Sung Eun Yoo Affiliation

Abstract

The demands and requirements for accessible housing of a diverse population can vary considerably, especially considering that “aging in place” is a growing trend among the elderly. In an aging society, accessibility can be a housingmarket commodity, and the demand in Korea for this commodity is expected to increase. The purpose of this study is to investigate the value of accessible housing and the consumer᾽s willingness to pay (WTP) using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). For the analysis, 700 people were interviewed based on the housing type and age group. More than half of the respondents were willing to pay more for accessible housing compared to conventional housing. The WTP amount differed considerably with the age group, gender, housing type, size of unit, and tenure type. The elderly showed a greater WTP than the younger group; higher economic status (as indicated by monthly household income), educational level, and home ownership influenced WTP. The results showed that accessible housing could be an important housing choice for the elderly and can be adopted as an affordable option. Moreover, the results can help reduce the negative perception of accessible housing, which is commonly associated with its supposed high costs.


First published online 16 October 2019

Keyword : accessible housing, willingness to pay, contingent valuation method, elderly, accessibility

How to Cite
Lee, S. Y., & Yoo, S. E. (2019). Willingness to pay for accessible elderly housing in Korea. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 24(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2019.11095
Published in Issue
Oct 16, 2019
Abstract Views
211
PDF Downloads
79
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Alonso, F. (2002). The benefits of building barrier-free: a contingent valuation of accessibility as an attribute of housing. European Journal of Housing Policy, 2(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710110120577

Bishop, R., Heberlein, T., & Kealy, M. (1983). Contingent valuation of environmental assets: comparison with a stimulated market. Natural Resources Journal, 23, 619-633.

Carson, R. (1985). Three essays on contingent valuation (welfare economics, non-market goods, water quality) (Ph.D. dissertation). Department of agricultural economics and resource economics, University of California, Berkeley.

Carson, R. T., & Hanemann, W. M. (2005). Contingent valuation. In K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics (pp. 821-936). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0099(05)02017-6

Chan, E., Yiu, C. Y., Baldwin, A., & Lee, G. (2009). Value of buildings with design features for healthy living: a contingent valuation approach. Facilities, 27(5/6), 229-249. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770910944952

Choi, S. (2003). Problems of housing polices for elderly Koreans and directions for improvement of the problems. Architecture, 47(6), 16-20.

Chollet, D. (1979). A cost-benefit analysis of accessibility. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Demirkan, H. (1991). Some criteria for designing interiors for the Turkish disabled and elderly. In 3rd Ergonomics Congress Proceedings (pp. 499-509), MPM, Ankara.

Demirkan, H. (2007). Housing for the aging population. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 4(1), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11556-007-0016-z

Dunn, P. A. (1988). The impact of housing upon the independent living outcomes of individuals with disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The F. Heller Graduate School for Advanced Studies in Social Welfare, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Fänge, A., & Iwarsson, S. (2005). Changes in ADL dependence and aspects of usability following housing adaptation − a longitudinal perspective. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59(3), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.59.3.296

Frisch, J. (1998). The benefits of accessible buildings and transport. Physical Disability Council of NSW, Sydney, NSW. Retrieved from www.pdcnsw.org.au/Access.pdf

Gaia, S. (2008). The costs of accessibility solution application in restoring old building: PALACIO LUZ − CURITIBA − BRAZIL. In Proceedings of CIB W084, International Meeting on Building comfortable and livable environments for all (pp. 168175), Georgia Tech University, Atlanta, USA.

Gibler, K. M., & Taltavull, P. (2010). Using preference for international retires housing market segmentation. Journal of Property Research, 27(3), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09599916.2010.518403

Greene, M., & Ortúzar, J. (2002). Willingness to pay for social housing attributes: a case study from Chile. International Planning Studies, 7(1), 55-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470220112607

Hanemann, M. (1985). Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 14(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0899367X00000702

Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453

Hui, E. C. M. (1999). Willingness to pay for better housing in Hong Kong: theory and evidence (of dwelling space). Urban Studies, 36(2), 289-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993619

Iwarsson, S., & Slaug, B. (2010). Housing enabler: a method for rating/screening and analysing accessibility problems in housing (2nd ed.). Lund: Veten & Skapen HB & Slaug Enabling Development.

Kealy, J., & Turner, W. (1993). A test of the equality of closedended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(2), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242916

Kim, M., Lee, K., Kim, J., & Joo, J. (2011). Willingness to pay for hospice care using the contingent valuation method. Yonsei Medicine Journal, 52(3), 510-521. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2011.52.3.510

Kriström, B. (1993). Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 3(1), 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00338320

Lawlor, D., & Thomas, M. (2008). Residential design for aging in place. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lee, S. (2014). Cost analysis on application of accessible design features for the elderly housing. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 30(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.7842/kigas.2014.18.3.53

Lien, L., Steggell, C., Slaug, B., & Iwarsson, S. (2016). Assessment and analysis of housing accessibility: adapting the environmental component of the housing enabler to United States applications. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(3), 565-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9475-0

Mandell, S., & Wilhelmsson, M. (2011). Willingness to pay for sustainable housing. Journal of Housing Research, 20(1), 35-52.

McFadden, E., & Lucio, J. (2014). Aging in (privatized) places: subsidized housing policy and seniors. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 28, 268-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2014.930364

Memken, J., & Earley, N (2007). Accessible housing availability for the growing U.S. elderly population. Housing and Society, 34(1), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2007.11430547

Pearce, D. W., & Howarth, A. (2000). Technical report on methodology: cost benefit analysis and policy responses. RIVM.

Pirkl, J. (1994). Transgenerational design: products for an aging population. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Ready, C., Buzby, J., & Hu, D. (1996) Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics, 72(3), 397-411. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147205

Ratzka, A. (1994, June). A brief survey of studies on costs and benefits of non-handicapping environments. Paper presented at the International Congress on Accessibility in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Retrieved from www.independentliving.org/cib/cibrio94access.html

Sagdic, Y., & Demirkan, H. (2000). A design decision support system model for the wet space renovation of elderly people’s residences. Architectural Science Review, 43, 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2000.9696895

Schroeder, S., & Steinfeld, E. (1979). The estimated cost of accessible buildings. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.

Simons, R., & Winson-Geideman, K. (2005). Determining market perceptions on contamination of residential property buyers using contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Real Estate Research, 27(2), 193-220.

Świeżawska-Ambroziak, K., & Perez, J. (2006). Economical benefits of the design for all (POLIS project). In POLIS International Conference Proceedings (pp. 67-72), Bruges, Belgium. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.104.6998&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Tietenberg, T. (2000). Environmental and natural resource economics. Addison-Wesley Longman.

William, S. B., Morey, E. R., & Lodder, T. S. (1998). Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighborhood’s willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped land. Urban Studies, 35(4), 715-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098984718