대한건축학회논문집:계획계 (Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Planning & Design)

  • 제36권3호
  • /
  • Pages.13-20
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1226-9093(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-177X(eISSN)
대한건축학회 (Architectural Institute of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

건축미의 경제적 가치 퍼지패턴 분석

Fuzzy Patterns of Economic Valuating on the Architectural Aesthetic - Case Study of Applying the Fuzzy-Contingent Valuation Method to the Dongdaemoon Design Plaza -

  • 이동주 (연세대학교 심바이오틱라이프텍연구원) ;
  • 고은형 (계명문화대학교 건축인테리어과)
  • 투고 : 2019.12.03
  • 심사 : 2020.02.24
  • 발행 : 2020.03.30
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The purpose of this study is to analyze the fuzzy pattern that is reflected on the inside of the value evaluator in measuring the economic value of architectural aesthetic using the fuzzy-contingent valuation method. The main results of analyzing the relationship between architectural aesthetic and fuzzy patterns by typing 307 fuzzy patterns collected from visitors at Dongdaemun Design Plaza are as follows: First, low levels of architectural aesthetic can be a primary cause of extreme refusal of payment. However, it was confirmed that the extreme refusal of payment could partially involve mentality of free-ride on public goods or mentality that would not give value to past events that are not future. Second, if the architectural aesthetic score is 77.5, the most perfect form of fuzzy pattern is formed. It is confirmed that the fuzzy form, which is the standard in the relationship between architectural aesthetic and money value, is made at 77.5 points. This means that it is most efficient to have 77.5 points of architectural aesthetic to secure balanced data by membership in the study of architectural aesthetic value measurement through fuzzy pattern. Third, according to the architectural aesthetic score, respondents can be interpreted as follows: no monetary willingness arises before or after 52.4, starts to respond to the amount before and after 65.6, severe conflict over payments around 70.6~71.7, stronger willingness to pay around 77.6, want to pay for sure around 80.0.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : 한국연구재단

이 논문은 2017년도 정부(교육부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 기초연구사업임(NRF-2017R1D1A1B03035577)

참고문헌

  1. Davis, R. K. (1963). The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the Maine Woods, Ph.D dissertation, Harvard university
  2. Kapper, T. (2004). Bring beauty to account in the environmental impact statement: The contingent valuation of landscape aesthetics, Environmental practice, 6(4), 302-304 https://doi.org/10.1017/S146604660400047X
  3. Kim, H. (1999). The Study of Fuzzy Decision Makings Based on the Comparison of Fuzzy Linear Regression and Classical Linear Regression, Korean Journal of Business Administration, 13(6), 57-71
  4. Lee, D. (2009a). A study on the effects of the architecture aesthetic on the potential use value, Ph.D. Dissertation, Kyungpook National University.
  5. Lee, D., & Ko, E. (2009b). A study on the effect of exterior design of buildings on choice of shopping malls, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, Planning and Design Section, 25(10), 57-66.
  6. Lee, D., & Ko, E. (2012). A Methodological Approach on Economic Valuation of the Phenomenal Architectural Aesthetic by Integrating the Fuzzy Theory with Contingent Valuation, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, Planning and Design Section, 28(3), 63-72.
  7. Lee, D., & Ko, E. (2018). Attractiveness Valuation of Phenomenal Architectural Aesthetic by Mixing the Fuzzy Logic with Contingent Valuation Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, Planning and Design Section, 34(5), 3-10.
  8. Lee, I., Moon, Y., & Shin, S. (2008). An Analysis of the Effects of Aesthetic Design Factors on Apartment Price, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, Planning and Design Section, 24(2), 121-128.
  9. Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure, Review of economics and statistics, 36, 387-389 https://doi.org/10.2307/1925895
  10. Shabman, L., & Stephenson, K. (2000). Environmental valuation and its economics critics, Journal of water resources planning and management, 126(6).
  11. Richard T. Carson(1997). Contingent valuation : Theoretical advance and empirical tests since the NoAA Panel, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(5)
  12. Oluwoye, J, O(1996). Function : An approach to obtain value, Unpublished, Research and graduate program, FDAB, University of technology, Sydney, Australia.