Udogodnienia miejskie – element publicznego wymiaru zasobów mieszkaniowych

Mariusz E. Sokołowicz

doi:10.18778/0208-6018.332.09

Authors

Mariusz E. Sokołowicz Uniwersytet Łódzki, Wydział Ekonomiczno‑Socjologiczny, Katedra Gospodarki Regionalnej i Środowiska

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6018.332.09

Keywords:

urban amenities, housing, neighborhood, Lodz

Abstract

The concept of urban amenities is an important but still not strongly expressed element of the discussion on the public dimension of housing. Amenities as a part of so called housing neighborhood are considered as public, because they form a source of externalities that affects the consumption utility of housing and urban living. In consequence, governing urban facilities can affect the efficiency of housing policy. From this point of view a key question is, which kind of amenities is considered as first and which as second‑tier by urban residents. Besides, in urban amenities studies, new approaches and tools identifying the interdependencies between housing stock and neighborhood, are implemented. The aim of this paper is an attempt to answer the question about the impact of urban amenities on the quality of housing stock. It attempts firstly to explain the notion of urban amenities, urban neighborhood effects, along with an identification of the key types and characteristics of these concepts. Secondly, it present the results of the study conducted in the city of Łódź, contributing to the identification of the scale of the impact of urban amenities on the level of living satisfaction reported by the respondents, as well as presenting the scale of the influence of these factors on the potential change of housing location. The results obtained are of an initial nature and may be the starting point for further in‑depth studies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alonso W. (1964), Location and Land Use, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Brown C.V., Jackson P.M. (1990), Public Sector Economics, Basic Blackwell, Oxford.
Google Scholar

Brueckner J.K., Thisse J.‑F., Zenou Y. (1999), Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor? An amenity‑based theory, „European Economic Review”, no. 43, s. 91–107.
Google Scholar

Diamond D.D., Tolley G.S. (1982), The Economic Roles of Urban Amenities, [w:] D.D. Diamond, G.S. Tolley (eds.), The Economics of Urban Amenities, Academic Press, New York.
Google Scholar

Foster S. (2011), Collective action and the urban commons, „Notre Dame Law Review”, vol. 87(1), s. 1–63.
Google Scholar

Galster G.C. (2003), Neighbourhood Dynamics and Housing Markets, [w:] T. O’Sullivan, K. Gibb (eds.), Housing Economics and Public Policy. Essays in Honour of Duncan Maclennan, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Google Scholar

Galster G.C., Killen S. (1995), The geography of metropolitan opportunity – a reconnaissance and conceptual framework, „Housing Policy Debate”, vol. 6(1), s. 7–43.
Google Scholar

Glaeser E.L., Kolko J., Saiz A. (2001), Consumer City, „Journal of Economic Geography”, vol. 1(1), s. 27–50.
Google Scholar

Gutta K., Czerepko J., Pangsy‑Kania S. (2015), Zestaw analiz i diagnoz dotyczących kryteriów wyboru miejsc zamieszkania w Łodzi, opracowanie eksperckie na potrzeby projektu „Opracowanie modelu prowadzenia rewitalizacji obszarów miejskich na wybranym obszarze w Mieście Łodzi” współfinansowanego ze środków Unii Europejskiej, Europejskiego Funduszu Regionalnego w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Pomoc Techniczna 2007–2013, Eu‑Consult, Łódź.
Google Scholar

Hirshleifer J. (1970), Investment, Interest and Capital, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs–New York.
Google Scholar

Hoyt H. (1939), The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities, Government Printing Office, Washington.
Google Scholar

Iaione C. (2012), City as commons, http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8604/Iaione_prelversion.pdf [dostęp: 29.11.2016].
Google Scholar

Kronenberg J., Bergier T. (red.) (2010), Wyzwania zrównoważonego rozwoju w Polsce, Fundacja Sendzimira, Kraków.
Google Scholar

Kucharska‑Stasiak E. (2006), Nieruchomość w gospodarce rynkowej, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa. Lancaster K. (1966), A new approach to consumer theory, „Journal of Political Economy”, no. 74, s. 132–157.
Google Scholar

Marcińczak S., Sagan I . (2011), The Socio‑spatial Restructuring of Łódź, Poland, „Urban Studies”, vol. 48(9), s. 1789–1809.
Google Scholar

Milewski R., Kwiatkowski E. (2007), Podstawy ekonomii, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

O’Brien D. (2012), Managing the urban commons. The relative influence of individual and social incentives on the treatment of public space, „Human Nature”, no. 23, s. 467–489.
Google Scholar

Olson M. (1971), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and Theory of Groups, Harvard University Press, London.
Google Scholar

Polko A. (2005), Miejski rynek mieszkaniowy i efekty sąsiedztwa, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Katowicach, Katowice.
Google Scholar

Reckfold J.T.R. (2011), Three Myths About Affordable Housing, Delivered as the John T. Dunlop Lecture, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Sokołowicz M.E. (2015), Rozwój terytorialny w świetle dorobku ekonomii instytucjonalnej. Przestrzeń – bliskość – instytucje, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
Google Scholar

Sokołowicz M.E., Zasina J. (2016), Ekonomia miasta, [w:] A. Nowakowska (red.), EkoMiasto#Gospodarka. Zrównoważony, inteligentny i partycypacyjny rozwój miasta, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
Google Scholar

Whitehead C.M.E. (2003), The Economics of Social Housing, [w:] T. O’Sullivan, K. Gibb (eds.), Housing Economics and Public Policy. Essays in Honour of Duncan Maclennan, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Google Scholar

Wróblewski W., Zasina J. (2016), Piesza dostępność udogodnień a struktura przestrzenna starzejącego się miasta, „Studia Ekonomiczne Regionu Łódzkiego”, nr 21, s. 165–176.
Google Scholar