Economic Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Quality of Buildings: The Noise Pollution Effects on Housing Prices in the City of Bari (Italy)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- The noise caused by traffic on infrastructures, in particular in urban areas, determines the highest impact on the population, both in quantitative terms and regarding the exposure.
- European and national directives consider as a first priority the analysis, the mapping, the monitoring and the mitigation of transport infrastructures: this allows for immediate and updated availability of studies and checking data.
- The “traffic” source is generated by vehicles (or trains) that move on predetermined and fixed paths (and in this way, to a certain extent, for aircraft). Therefore, this source is acoustically comparable to a linear-type source whose emission levels are directly proportional (i) to the number of vehicles in transit (i.e., vehicles/hour), (ii) to the average travel speed and (iii) to the percentage of heavy vehicles (or freight trains). Once a road axis has been acoustically characterized, it knows with good approximation the values of sound emission (and the consequent input at the receivers) by monitoring one or more correlated parameters (e.g., the number of transits).
- The “length” of a road axis can be considered as a single homogeneous “traffic” source involving multiple properties, such as in an urban area where a stretch of road defined by typical acoustic factors has a minimum length equal to one block of properties. The road stretches with almost homogeneous traffic conditions, which determine the typical sound emission, are generally much longer and cross entire neighborhoods.
- The vehicular traffic, as well as air and rail traffic, presents considerable differences in noise emissions between the day and night, allowing the influence of the exposure to noise phenomena for the residential units in the night period (where a sleep disturbance can occur) on the property market to be analyzed compared to the more relevant, but less complained about daytime disturbance.
2. Aim
3. Reference Literature
4. Case Study
Variables
- -
- the size of the property (S) in square meters of gross floor area;
- -
- the number of bathrooms in the property (B);
- -
- the floor level on which the property is located (L);
- -
- the presence of the lift in the building where the property is located (A). In the model, the factor is considered as a dummy variable, for which the presence of the service is represented by the value “one,” whereas the absence of the service is indicated with the value “zero”;
- -
- the presence of the parking space in the building where the property is situated (P);
- -
- the maintenance conditions of the property (Sc), assumed as a qualitative variable and differentiated, through a synthetic evaluation, by the scores 1, 3 and 5, respectively corresponding to the categories “to be restructured,” “fit for habitation” and “restructured.” Following the logic of the dummy variables, the score “one” is assigned to the category that defines the specific quality of each property, and the score “zero” for the remaining two categories. In particular, the “to be restructured” state refers to properties that require significant refurbishment interventions, because the functionality and the livability of the property are not good due to the inappropriate conservative state of the elements that compose it; the “good” state indicates properties whose maintenance conditions are acceptable and whose functions can be carried out without heavy refurbishment interventions. Finally, the “excellent” state refers to properties characterized by high construction and aesthetic quality, possibly affected by recent redevelopment and renovation initiatives;
- -
- the distance of the property from the Araldo di Crollalanza waterfront of the city of Bari (Dl), identified as the landmark for the local community, according to different surveys carried out. The variable is measured in kilometers it takes to walk to it;
- -
- the maintenance conditions of the public spaces adjacent to the property (Sa), assessed through a scale of scores (1, 3, 5) attributed by panels of experts (sociologists, landscape architects, etc.), where the score “1” indicates a bad maintenance condition of the public spaces, the score “3” is a good state and the score “5” is an excellent state. In particular, fixed furniture suitable for equipping public spaces, such as public lighting lamps, waste baskets, benches, planters, parking canopies, display boards for billboards, etc., are included in the category of street furniture;
- -
- the property distance from the nearest food market or grocery shop (Dm), calculated in kilometers it takes to walk to it. The category “grocery shop” includes the self-service retail shops of consumer products (supermarkets and hypermarkets) present in the municipal area;
- -
- the maintenance conditions of the building facades adjacent to the property (Sf), assessed through a scale of scores (1, 3, 5) attributed by panels of experts (sociologists, landscape architects, etc.): the score “1” indicates bad maintenance conditions of the facades’ conservative state, the score “3” is a good state and the score “5” is an excellent state.
- -
- the road private and public vehicular traffic (buses) level (T), evaluated by a team of experts (sociologists, landscapers, architects, engineers, etc.) through a scale of scores defined as follows: score “1” indicates a road characterized by high traffic intensity, score “3” indicates a medium traffic intensity, score “5” indicates a road characterized by low traffic congestion;
- -
- the property distance from the nearest public green space (Dv), calculated in the kilometers it takes to walk to it;
- -
- the property distance from the nearest highway (Dt), measured in the kilometers it takes to get there by car;
- -
- the distance of the property from the nearest railway station (Ds), measured in the kilometers it takes to walk to it;
- -
- the perceived environmental quality level of the property area (Qn), assessed by assigning a numerical score from “1” (disagreement with the item) to “5” (agreement with the item), given by a sample of users sufficiently representative of the urban area. The items considered are:
- ○
- this neighborhood is generally not polluted,
- ○
- this is a quiet neighborhood,
- ○
- residents’ health is threatened by pollution,
- ○
- the heavy traffic in this neighborhood is very annoying,
- ○
- there are green areas for relaxing,
- ○
- going to a park means travelling to other parts of the city,
- ○
- the green areas are well-equipped.
- -
- the sound level (Ld), expressed in decibels dB(A), measured on day, evening and night intervals, in the street where the residential unit is located. The data are borrowed by the Strategic Noise Map of the Bari agglomeration, published in June 2017 by the Scientific Directorate of the Regional Agency for Environmental Prevention and Protection of the Puglia Region (ARPA Puglia) and reported in Figure 6 [59]. The sound pressure level expressed in decibels are shown in the map for each city road axis and it is divided into seven classes of ratings as follows:
- (i)
- Rating 1: ≤40 dB(A);
- (ii)
- Rating 2: >40 dB(A) and ≤50 dB(A);
- (iii)
- Rating 3: >50 dB(A) and ≤55 dB(A);
- (iv)
- Rating 4: >55 dB(A) and ≤60 dB(A);
- (v)
- Rating 5: >60 dB(A) and ≤65 dB(A);
- (vi)
- Rating 6: >65 dB(A) and ≤70 dB(A);
- (vii)
- Rating 7: >70 dB(A) and ≤75 dB(A).
5. Methodology
Application of the Method
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise-Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2002, 189, 12–25. [Google Scholar]
- Ozdemir, B.; Bayramoglu, E.; Demirel, O. Noise Pollution and Human Health in Trabzon Parks. Stud. Ethno Med. 2014, 8, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Önder, S.; Akay, A. Reduction of Traffic Noise Pollution Effects by Using Vegetation, Turkey’Sample. J. Eng. Econ. Dev. 2015, 2, 23. [Google Scholar]
- Oroke, A.M.; Sarihan, E.; Ogbuene, E.B.; Ani, C. Assessment of Noise Pollution Level in Abakaliki Metropolis, Ebonyi State Nigeria. Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manag. 2020, 15, 75–83. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise: Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in Europe; World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bello, J.P.; Silva, C.; Nov, O.; DuBois, R.L.; Arora, A.; Salamon, J.; Doraiswamy, H. SONYC: A system for the monitoring, analysis and mitigation of urban noise pollution. Commun. ACM 2019, 62, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maibach, M.; Schreyer, C.; Sutter, D.; Van Essen, H.P.; Boon, B.H.; Smokers, R.; Bak, M. Report Produced within the Study Internalisation Measures and Policies for All External Cost of Transport (IMPACT). In Handbook on Estimation of External Costs in the Transport Sector; Version 1.1; European Commission DG TREN: Delft, CE, The Netherlands, 2008; Available online: http://www.europadecentraal.nl/documents/dossiers/Transport/2008_01_15_handbook_external_cost_en.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Mizutani, F.; Suzuki, Y.; Sakai, H. Estimation of Social Costs of Transport in Japan. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 3537–3559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Environment Agency Number of Europeans Exposed to Harmful Noise Pollution Expected to Increase. 2020. Available online: www.eea.europa.eu (accessed on 27 February 2020).
- World Health Organization. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. 2018. Available online: www.euro.who.int (accessed on 15 March 2020).
- UN. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 17 July 2020).
- Agenzia Delle Entrate. Available online: http://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/ (accessed on 25 January 2020).
- Jariwala, H.J.; Syed, H.S.; Pandya, M.J.; Gajera, Y.M. Noise Pollution & Human Health: A Review. Indoor Built Environ. 2017, 1–4. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hiral-Jariwala/publication/319329633_Noise_Pollution_Human_Health_A_Review/links/59a54434a6fdcc773a3b1c49/Noise-Pollution-Human-Health-A-Review.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Aluko, E.; Nna, V. Impact of Noise Pollution on Human Cardiovascular System. Int. J. Trop. Dis. Health 2015, 6, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozdenerol, E.; Huang, Y.; Javadnejad, F.; Antipova, A. The Impact of Traffic Noise on Housing Values. J. Real Estate Pract. Educ. 2015, 18, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franck, M.; Eyckmans, J.; De Jaeger, S.; Rousseau, S. Comparing the impact of road noise on property prices in two separated markets. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2015, 4, 15–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beimer, W.; Maennig, W. Noise effects and real estate prices: A simultaneous analysis of different noise sources. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 54, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Saphores, J.D. Assessing impacts of freeway truck traffic on residential property values: Southern California Case Study. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 2288, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guijarro, F. Assessing the Impact of Road Traffic Externalities on Residential Price Values: A Case Study in Madrid, Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hogan, C.M. Analysis of highway noise. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1973, 2, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swoboda, A.; Nega, T.; Timm, M. Hedonic analysis over time and space: The case of house prices and traffic noise. J. Reg. Sci. 2015, 55, 644–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mínguez, R.; Montero, J.-M.; Fernández-Avilés, G. Measuring the impact of pollution on property prices in Madrid: Objective versus subjective pollution indicators in spatial models. J. Geogr. Syst. 2013, 15, 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P. The Effects of Noise Pollution Produced by Road Traffic of Naples Beltway on Residential Real Estate Values. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 587–589, 2176–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amrusch, P. The impact of urban traffic and environmental conditions on the housing market: An analysis of Italian and Slovenian urban areas. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2005, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ottoz, E.; Pavese, P.; Sella, L. The effect of Movida on residential property prices: An example from Turin. In Proceedings of the Pedestrians, Urban Spaces and Health; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 170–174. [Google Scholar]
- D’Arcangelo, F.M.; Percoco, M. Housing rent and road pricing in Milan: Evidence from a geographical discontinuity approach. Transp. Policy 2015, 44, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco, J.C.; Flindell, I. Property prices in urban areas affected by road traffic noise. Appl. Acoust. 2011, 72, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paunović, K.; Belojević, G.; JakovljeviĆ, B. Noise annoyance is related to the presence of urban public transport. Sci. Total. Environ. 2014, 481, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, J.S.; Kim, D.-J. Hedonic estimates of rail noise in Seoul. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2013, 19, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bureau, B.; Glachant, M. Évaluation de l’impact des politiques. Econ. Prévis. 2010, 192, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA, European Environment Agency. Technical Report No 11/2010 EEA. Good Practice Guide on Noise Exposure and Potential Health Effects. 2010. Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/goodpractice-guide-on-noise (accessed on 7 February 2020).
- Brandt, S.; Maennig, W. Road noise exposure and residential property prices: Evidence from Hamburg. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2011, 16, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsenio, E.; Bristow, A.L.; Wardman, M. Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2006, 11, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bateman, I.; Day, B.; Lake, I.; Lovett, A. The Effects of Road Traffic on Residential Property Values: A Literature Review and Hedonic Pricing Study; Technical Report; University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK; Economic & Social Research Council: Swindon, UK; University College London: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Garrod, G.D.; Scarpa, R.; Willis, K.G. Estimating The Benefits of Traffic Calming on Through Routes: A Choice Experiment Approach. SSRN Electron. J. 2003, 36, 211–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Navrud, S. The economic value of noise within the European Union—A review and analysis of studies. Acústica 2004, 14–17. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.582.6811&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 26 April 2020).
- Nelson, J.P. Highway noise and property values: A survey of recent evidence. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 1982, 16, 117–138. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, J.P. Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 2004, 38, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Andersson, H.; Jonsson, L.; Ögren, M. Property Prices and Exposure to Multiple Noise Sources: Hedonic Regression with Road and Railway Noise. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 45, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilhelmsson, M. The Impact of Traffic Noise on the Values of Single-family Houses. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2000, 43, 799–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rich, J.H.; Nielsen, O.A. Assessment of traffic noise impacts. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2004, 61, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, C.M.; Tamez, C.G. Does noise have a stationary impact on residential values? J. Eur. Real Estate Res. 2009, 2, 259–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, H.; Gui, Z.; Zhang, L.; Hui, E.C. An empirical study of the impact of vehicular traffic and floor level on property price. Habitat Int. 2020, 97, 102132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szczepańska, A.; Senetra, A.; Wasilewicz-Pszczółkowska, M. The Influence of Traffic Noise on Apartment Prices on the Example of a European Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability 2020, 12, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kuehnel, N.; Moeckel, R. Impact of simulation-based traffic noise on rent prices. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2020, 78, 102191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szopińska, K.; Krajewska, M. Prices of Apartments in Relation to Noise Level in Poland. J. Civ. Eng. Arch. 2013, 7, 1189–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ligus, M.; Peternek, P. Measuring Structural, Location and Environmental Effects: A Hedonic Analysis of Housing Market in Wroclaw, Poland. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 220, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cellmer, R. Spatial analysis of the effect of noise on the prices and value of residential real estates. Geomat. Environ. Eng. 2011, 5, 13–28. [Google Scholar]
- Iovine, A. La Revisione delle Rendite Delle Unità Immobiliari Urbane; Sistemi Editoriali: Naples, Italy, 2006; ISBN 9788851303464. [Google Scholar]
- Bourassa, S.C.; Hoesli, M.; Peng, V.S. Do housing submarkets really matter? J. Hous. Econ. 2003, 12, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grether, D.; Mieszkowski, P. Determinants of real estate values. J. Urban Econ. 1974, 1, 127–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogiazas, S.; Alexiou, C. Determinants of Housing Prices and Bubble Detection: Evidence from Seven Advanced Economies. Atl. Econ. J. 2017, 45, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Égert, B.; Mihaljek, D. Determinants of House Prices in Central and Eastern Europe. Comp. Econ. Stud. 2007, 49, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dziauddin, M.F.; Ismail, K.; Othman, Z. Analysing the local geography of the relationship between residential property prices and its determinants. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2015, 28, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zoppi, C.; Argiolas, M.; Lai, S. Factors influencing the value of houses: Estimates for the city of Cagliari, Italy. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbachu, J.I.; Lenono, N. Factors influencing market values of residential properties. In Proceedings of the Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference, QUT Research Week 2005, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 4–8 July 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, N.; Gu, H.; Shen, T.; Feng, C. The Impact of Micro-Level Influencing Factors on Home Value: A Housing Price-Rent Comparison. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bourassa, S.; Cantoni, E.; Hoesli, M. Predicting House Prices with Spatial Dependence: A Comparison of Alternative Methods. J. Real Estate Res. 2010, 32, 139–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ARPA Puglia. Available online: www.arpa.puglia.it (accessed on 14 December 2019).
- Giustolisi, O.; Savic, D. Advances in data-driven analyses and modelling using EPR-MOGA. J. Hydroinform. 2009, 11, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezania, M.; Javadi, A.A.; Giustolisi, O. An evolutionary-based data mining technique for assessment of civil engineering systems. Eng. Comput. 2008, 25, 500–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morano, P.; Tajani, F.; Di Liddo, F.; Anelli, D. A Feasibility Analysis of The Refurbishment Investments in The Italian Residential Market. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tajani, F.; Morano, P.; Torre, C.M.; Di Liddo, F. An Analysis of the Influence of Property Tax on Housing Prices in the Apulia Region (Italy). Buildings 2017, 7, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morano, P.; Rosato, P.; Tajani, F.; Manganelli, B.; Di Liddo, F. Contextualized Property Market Models vs. Generalized Mass Appraisals: An Innovative Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cassel, E.; Mendelsohn, R. The choice of functional forms for hedonic price equations: Comment. J. Urban Econ. 1985, 18, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, A.K.; Rasmussen, D.W. Proximity, Neighbourhood and the Efficacy of Exclusion. Urban Stud. 2004, 41, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malpezzi, S.; Chun, G.H.; Green, R.K. New Place-to-Place Housing Price Indexes for U.S. Metropolitan Areas, and Their Determinants. Real Estate Econ. 1998, 26, 235–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selim, H. Determinants of house prices in Turkey: Hedonic regression versus artificial neural network. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 2843–2852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Kang, J.; Luo, T.; Behm, H.; Coppack, T. Spatiotemporal variability of soundscapes in a multiple functional urban area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 115, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarini, M.R.; D’Addabbo, N.; Morano, P.; Tajani, F. Multi-Criteria Analysis in Compound Decision Processes: The AHP and the Architectural Competition for the Chamber of Deputies in Rome (Italy). Buildings 2017, 7, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morano, P.; Tajani, F. The Transfer of Development Rights for the Regeneration of Brownfield Sites. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 409–410, 971–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morano, P.; Tajani, F. Break Even Analysis for the Financial Verification of Urban Regeneration Projects. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 438–439, 1830–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mak, C.M.; Leung, W.; Jiang, G. Measurement and prediction of road traffic noise at different building floor levels in Hong Kong. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2010, 31, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Acronym | Typology | Measurement Unit |
---|---|---|---|
Total selling price | Pr | Cardinal | € |
Size | S | Cardinal | m2 |
Bathroom number | B | Cardinal | number |
Floor level on which the property is located | L | Cardinal | number |
Presence of the lift in the building where the property is located | A | Dummy | 1—presence, 0—absence |
Presence of the parking space in the building where the property is located | P | Dummy | 1—presence, 0—absence |
Quality of the property maintenance conditions | Sc | Discrete | 1—”to be restructured” property, 3—“fit for habitation” property, 5—“restructured” property. |
Property distance from the Araldo di Crollalanza waterfront of the city of Bari | Dl | Cardinal | kilometers by walking |
Maintenance conditions of the public spaces adjacent to the property | Sa | Discrete | 1—bad maintenance, 3—good state, 5—excellent state. |
Property distance from the nearest food market or grocery shop | Dm | Cardinal | Kilometers by walking |
Maintenance conditions of the building facades adjacent to the property | Sf | Discrete | 1—bad maintenance, 3—good state, 5—excellent state. |
Road, private and public vehicular traffic (buses) level of the building area | T | Discrete | 1—high traffic intensity, 3—medium traffic intensity, 5—low traffic congestion |
Property distance from the nearest public green space | Dv | Cardinal | Kilometers by walking |
Distance from the nearest highway | Dt | Cardinal | Kilometers by car |
Distance from the nearest railway station | Ds | Cardinal | Kilometers by walking |
Perceived environmental quality level of the property area | Qn | Discrete | Scores scale from 1—disagreement with the item to 5—agreement with the item |
Sound level in the street where the property is located | Ld | Discrete | Rating 1: ≤40 dB(A); Rating 2: >40 dB(A) and ≤50 dB(A); Rating 3: >50 dB(A) and ≤55 dB(A); Rating 4: >55 dB(A) and ≤60 dB(A); Rating 5: >60 dB(A) and ≤65 dB(A); Rating 6: >65 dB(A) and ≤70 dB(A); Rating 7: >70 dB(A) and ≤75 dB(A). |
Municipal OMI Area | Model | COD (%) |
---|---|---|
Central | − 2.1364 · Dl0.5 + 2.0268 · Sc · Dl0.5 · Ld + 3.2642 · A · Ds + + 1.555 · L0.5 + 4.4836 · S0.5 − 6.9297 · S0.5 · L0.5 · Ds0.5 · Ld0.5 + 9.4094 | 86.73 |
Semi-central | + 33.7673 · Sc0.5 · Dl2 · Ds0.5 · Qn2 + 0.34205 · P0.5 · Sf0.5 – + 28.409 · P0.5 · Dl2 · Dv0.5 · Qn2 · Ld0.5 + 2.0779 · L0.5 – + 2.0641 · L · Ld0.5 + 0.56217 · B0.5 · A2 · Sc2 · T0.5 + 3.6085 · S0.5 – + 4.9704 · S2 · B · Sc · Dl0.5 · Dt0.5 + 9.2473 | 83.15 |
Peripheral | + 2.2214 · Dv0.5 · Ds · Qn + 0.54754 · Sc0.5 · Sa0.5 + 0.83222 · P0.5 · · Ds + 0.18301 · A0.5 + 4.5316 · L0.5 · Sf0.5 · Dt0.5 · Qn · Ld2 – + 2.5508 · L0.5 · P0.5 · Sf0.5 · Dt + 5.2405 · S0.5 − 2.0766 · S · Ld + 8.6718 | 83.14 |
Suburban | + 1.6114 · Dl0.5 + 2.1545 · Dl · Dv + 1.8803 · Sc · Dv + 0.19514 · A0.5 + 8.3442 · S0.5 − 5.2521 · S + 7.5065 | 81.71 |
Variable Denomination | Variable Acronym | Functional Correlation | Average Percentage Variation (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Distance from the waterfront | Dl | negative | −3.56 |
Maintenance conditions | Sc | direct | 20.22 |
Sound level in the street where the property is located | Ld | negative | −3.31 |
Lift | A | direct | 30.95 |
Distance from the nearest railway station | Ds | negative | −3.01 |
Floor level | L | direct | 2.67 |
Size | S | direct | 22.80 |
Variable Denomination | Variable Acronym | Functional Correlation | Average Percentage Variation (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Maintenance conditions | Sc | direct | 19.49 |
Distance from the waterfront | Dl | direct | 0.63 |
Distance from the nearest railway station | Ds | direct | 2.48 |
Perceived environmental quality level | Qn | direct | 0.52 |
Presence of parking | P | direct | 4.3 |
Maintenance conditions of the building facades adjacent to the property | Sf | direct | 9.01 |
Distance from the nearest public green space | Dv | negative | −1.14 |
Sound level in the street where the property is located | Ld | negative | −3.46 |
Floor level | L | parabolic | 0.77 |
Bathroom number | B | direct | 0.09 |
Lift | A | direct | 8.85 |
Road private and public vehicular traffic level | T | direct | 3.08 |
Size | S | direct | 19.91 |
Distance from the nearest highway | Dt | negative | −1.77 |
Variable Denomination | Variables Acronym | Functional Correlation | Average Percentage Variation (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Distance from the nearest public green space | Dv | direct | 3.73 |
Distance from the nearest railway station | Ds | direct | 7.11 |
Perceived environmental quality level | Qn | direct | 4.73 |
Maintenance conditions | Sc | direct | 8.69 |
Maintenance conditions of the public spaces adjacent to the property | Sa | direct | 11.26 |
Presence of the parking | P | direct | 3.59 |
Lift | A | direct | 16.72 |
Floor level | L | direct | 1.38 |
Maintenance conditions of the building facades adjacent to the property | Sf | direct | 2.52 |
Distance from the nearest highway | Dt | parabolic | −2.85 |
Sound level in the street where the property is located | Ld | negative | −2.47 |
Size | S | direct | 21.57 |
Variable Denomination | Variables Acronym | Functional Correlation | Average Percentage Variation (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Distance from the waterfront | Dl | direct | 5.52 |
Distance from the nearest public green space | Dv | direct | 1.2 |
Maintenance conditions | Sc | direct | 17.74 |
Lift | A | direct | 17.73 |
Size | S | direct | 0.88 |
Municipal OMI Area | Average Percentage Variation from Rating 1 to Rating 7 (%) |
---|---|
Central | −21.50 |
Semi-central | −22.56 |
Peripheral | −15.67 |
Suburban | - |
Municipal OMI Area | Average Unitary Contribution of Ld (%) |
---|---|
Central | −0.56 |
Semi-central | −0.58 |
Peripheral | −0.42 |
Suburban | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Morano, P.; Tajani, F.; Di Liddo, F.; Darò, M. Economic Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Quality of Buildings: The Noise Pollution Effects on Housing Prices in the City of Bari (Italy). Buildings 2021, 11, 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11050213
Morano P, Tajani F, Di Liddo F, Darò M. Economic Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Quality of Buildings: The Noise Pollution Effects on Housing Prices in the City of Bari (Italy). Buildings. 2021; 11(5):213. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11050213
Chicago/Turabian StyleMorano, Pierluigi, Francesco Tajani, Felicia Di Liddo, and Michele Darò. 2021. "Economic Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Quality of Buildings: The Noise Pollution Effects on Housing Prices in the City of Bari (Italy)" Buildings 11, no. 5: 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11050213
APA StyleMorano, P., Tajani, F., Di Liddo, F., & Darò, M. (2021). Economic Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Quality of Buildings: The Noise Pollution Effects on Housing Prices in the City of Bari (Italy). Buildings, 11(5), 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11050213