227

Economic Evaluation of Residential Environment Change
Associated with Global Warming, Approached by
Conjoint Analysis
Eiji OHNO
Faculty of Urban Science, Meijo University
4-3-3 Nijigaoka, Kani, Gifu 509-0261, Japane-mail: ohono@urban.meijo-u.ac.jp

Abstract
In economic evaluation of the impacts of global warming on non-marketed goods or services,
generally the Hedonic Price Method, Travel Cost Method or Contingent Valuation Method are used.
However, because of the huge costs involved in applying these methods, utilization of the results ofestablished research is recommendable on the basis of consideration of benefit transfer. There is no
guarantee at all, however, of adjustability between individual values and overall values in measuring the
economic value of plural impact items, because the economic value of each impact item is measured
individually in the results of established research. This research aims to calculate a control total for
managing adjustability between individual values and overall values in each field, and attempts to classify residential environments into four large fields and sixteen sub-fields and apply a conjoint analysis
based on a questionnaire survey.
Key words: conjoint analysis, economic evaluation, global warming, non-marketed goods,
residential environment change

1. Introduction
In recent years, global warming has been recognized as an urgent international problem. It is said thatthe effects span various fields in addition to thesocio-economic and are serious enough to lead to expectations of some countries suffering obliteration. In
order to defend humanity from such a situation, wemust study the influence of global warming and frame
various mitigation and/or adaptation measures.
In this case, there will be a need to implement economic evaluations of residential environment changes
associated with global warming and the effects ofmitigation and/or adaptation measures for avoiding
the influence of global warming. This is necessary forthe same reason that economic efficiency is requiredin general public works. In order to meet this demand,
residential environment changes associated with
global warming must be evaluated in monetary terms.
In the U.K. which is tackling economic evaluationof the influence of global warming in a progressive
manner, the UKCIP (United Kingdom Climate
Impacts Programme) has received financial assistancefrom the DEFRA (Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs). In 2004 it published guidelines
Global Environmental Research
10(2)/2006: 227-233
printed in Japan

called “costing the impacts of climate change”(Metroeconomica, 2004a & 2004b) and started consulting on “prediction of damage costs of future climate change” and “cost-benefit analyses of adaptation
measures against climate change” according to thedemand of each city or corporation in the U.K. In
these guidelines, economic evaluation of impacts due
to climate change is classified in the following
manner.
1) Impacts on marketed goods or services can be valued according to changes in inputs or outputs, forinstance, using a “change in productivity” approach. For impacts on man-made assets, costbased methods, such as the “replacement cost” and“avertive expenditure” techniques, are appropriate.
2) Impacts on non-marketed goods or services can bevalued using economic techniques, such as theHPM (Hedonic Price Method), TCM (Travel Cost
Method), CVM (Contingent Valuation Method) orothers. However, because of the huge cost involved in applying these methods, utilization of theresults of established research is recommended inconsideration of benefit transfer.
These guidelines have also indicated some data©2006 AIRIES228

E. OHNObases on benefit transfer, for instance, the Green Book,
the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory andthe Environment Agency’s Register of Environmental
Values. There is no guarantee at all, however, of adjustability between individual values and overall values in measuring the economic value of plural impact
items, because the economic value of each impact
item is measured individually in the results of established research.
The present research aims to calculate a control total for managing adjustability between individual values and overall values in each field, and attempts toclassify residential environments into four large fields
and sixteen sub-fields and apply a conjoint analysis
based on a questionnaire survey.

2. Established Evaluation Methods
For economic evaluation of the environment, somemethods such as HPM, TCM, CVM and so on havebeen proposed (Ohno, 2000). In particular, CVM studies have been amassing rapidly in recent years, andguidelines have been provided by NOAA (National
Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration) (Arrow etal., 1993; NOAA, 1994).
CVM originated from the ideas of CiriacyWantrups (1947) and was initially applied to measurement of recreational benefits of the rivers in Delawarein 1958. After that, CVM was further developed in thefield of environmental economics through the definition of consumer surpluses based on the discrete
choice theory espoused by Small and Rosen (1981)
and Hanemann (1984). CVM is a method for measuring environmental values, by having people specify
their WTP (Willingness To Pay) or WTA (Willingness
To Accept compensation) for the environment, basedon definitions of ES (Equivalent Surplus) and CS(Compensating Surplus) in economics. It has been
indicated, however, that various biases are included in
the amounts expressed by people in response to thequestionnaire (Mitchell & Carson, 1989). This bias
problem means that the evaluation results differ according to the survey method, and gives CVM low
reliability.
Conjoint analysis has begun to replace CVM.
Conjoint analysis is an economic evaluation method,developed in the field of psychometrics and market
research, based on questionnaire surveys like CVM(Kuriyama, 2000). First, defining the utility functionof people in terms of the function of their policy attributes, environmental situations, policy costs, income and so on, we estimate the function from theresults of chosen behavior of people. Second, by applying definitions of ES and CS to the utility function
thus estimated, we can measure the benefits of policies that bring about environmental change. Or, bycalculating the ratio of the unit change of the policy
cost to the unit change at the environment level, we
can determine the marginal willingness to pay for theenvironment.
One characteristic of conjoint analysis is that we
can evaluate plural attributes simultaneously, whereas
CVM is limited to the evaluation of single attributes.
Furthermore, it is expected that the various biases thatare pointed out with CVM will be mitigated appreciably, because people choose “goods” or “policies” inconjoint surveys, i.e., daily behavior, rather than“amounts” as in CVM surveys. The present study has
adopted conjoint analysis as the evaluation method,
because it involves economic evaluation of residential
environment changes in many fields associated with
global warming.

3. Classification of Residential Environment
FieldsIn 1961, the WHO (World Health Organization)
defined a healthy residential environment as a fundamental human need and classified it into four fields(safety, health, convenience and amenity). In Japan,
residential environment standards were presented on
the basis of this classification in 1981, and residential
environment development became official policy inthis country (Sato & Asami, 2001). These four fields
are summarized in the following manner:
1) Safety
Safety is divided into safety in everyday life andsafety in the case of disasters. The former consists ofcrime-prevention, traffic safety and domestic environment safety. The latter indicates protection from natural disasters and/or man-made disasters.
2) Health
Health is an important condition in leading a fulfilling life. Environmental factors that influence healthare divided into the physical environment, the chemical environment, the biological environment and thesocial environment.
3) Convenience
Convenience is an important condition for efficiency of life among residents and is divided into easein carrying out daily activities, ease in using various
institutions, ease in using transportation facilities, andease in using social services.
4) Amenity
Amenity is divided into elements related to space
performance, elements related to space constitution,
elements related to coexistence with nature, elements
related to the historical significance of the area, andelements related to residing there.
Global warming exerts an influence on all residential environments classified into the above four fields.
The present study attempts to classify the residential
environment into four large fields and sixteen
sub-fields as follows.
1) Safety of residential environments
1 Fires: increase in risk of the forest fires due toEconomic Evaluation of Residential Environment Change Associated with Global Warming

drying<Countermeasures: land control, fire prevention
measures, etc.>
2 Water shortages: reduced available water resources due to decreases in precipitation<Countermeasures: evaporation and transpiration
control, development of technology that decreases losses through leakage, application ofdrainage, etc.>
3 Floods: more frequent flood disasters in coastal
areas and the river valleys due to increases in sea
level and precipitation<Countermeasures: development of embankment
facilities, adjustment of river flows, etc.>
4 Storm damage: greater frequency of damage
from typhoons and gusts<Countermeasures: development of protection
facilities against wind, etc.>
2) Health of residential environments
1 Illness due to heat: outbreaks of heat stress andheat stroke<Countermeasures: load reduction through air
conditioning and tree planting in cities, etc.>
2 Allergies: large volumes of pollen scattered as aresult of changes in the natural environment (animals and plants)<Countermeasures: information on pollen, antiallergy inoculations, etc.>
3 Infections: influence of infections on humanbody through contact and ingestion<Countermeasures: stronger quarantines, inoculation campaigns, improvement of water supply
systems, etc.>
4 Illness due to air pollution: influence of air pollution on human body through photochemical reactions<Countermeasures: reduction of greenhouse gases
and air pollutants, etc.>
3) Convenience of residential environments
1 Energy use: energy shortage due to excessive useof air conditioners<Countermeasures: controlling power demand,
providing information (electric power forecasts),etc.>
2 Automobile use: influence of abnormal weather
and photochemical smog on automobile use<Countermeasures: travel demand management,
introduction of low-pollution cars, use of bicycles, etc.>
3 Electronic device use: influence of lightning on
use of electronic devices<Countermeasures: introduction of the lightning-resistance devices, etc.>
4 Use of various facilities: influence of changing
geographical features and weather on the use ofvarious institutions<Countermeasures: management of facilities,229

snowfall measures in winter, etc.>
4) Amenity of residential environments
1 Culture: influence on scenery, food, customs, etc.
<Countermeasures: preservation and transmission of unique cultural items, etc.>
2 Natural symbiosis: influence on local climatesand natural environments<Countermeasures: land control, management ofscenery, use of materials compatible with living
things, etc.>
3 Living behavior: influence on the timing and actions of human behavior<Countermeasures: increase in exercise time forhealth control, introduction of labor standards
that consider influences on health, etc.>
4 Food: influence of climate change and insect
pest outbreaks on agricultural products<Countermeasures: changing importation partnercountries, regulation of price fluctuations, etc.>

4. Data Collection
4.1 Questionnaire survey
In 2006 March, a questionnaire survey of adultmen and women in Japan was carried out using theInternet. Three types of models (open style, closed
style and semi-closed style) were used in the Internet
survey for quantitative analysis (Japan Marketing
Organization, 2000). The survey this time was theclosed style. Because the respondents were membersof the general public who had registered in an Internet
survey company, we could get a picture of various
private attributes and it was easy to predict a numberof respondents. Furthermore, it was highly likely thateven people with little interest in this field would reply,
because the survey company paid compensation topeople who responded.
In this survey, 1,077 replies were obtained. It took
about 43 hours 15 minutes to get all the replies. At
that time, I controlled the survey by computer program so that none of the votes would be spoiled. In
other words, when there was a lack or contradiction ina reply, the respondent would see a warning sentencedisplayed on the screen and be unable to advance tothe next screen. Therefore, all of the 1,077 replies
were effective. Also, the questionnaires were distributed so as to avoid biases in respondent attributes, andtheir responses were received. The attribute distributions (sex, age, job, annual income) were as follows.
<Sex>
Male: 54.7%,
Female: 45.3%.
<Age>
20-29: 18.2%, 30-39: 19.0%,
40-49: 19.7%, 50-59: 20.0%,
60 or over: 23.1%.

230

E. OHNO<Job>
Wage earner: 43.9%,
Family-operated business: 9.4%,
Liberal profession: 4.2%,
Housekeeping spouse: 23.7%,
Student: 3.8%,
Jobless: 11.8%,
Others: 3.2%.
<Annual income>Less than 2 million yen: 7.6%,
2 - 3.99 million yen: 19.2%,
4 - 5.99 million yen: 23.5%,
6 - 7.99 million yen: 15.0%,
8 - 9.99 million yen: 10.8%,
10 million yen and more: 10.6%
Unknown: 13.3%.
4.2 Contents of the questionnaire survey
The title of the survey was the “Questionnaire survey regarding the influence of global warming,” andthe contents of survey sheet were as follows.
Questions 1 and 2 were positioned as the introduction to this survey, and asked about the respondent’s
interest in the global warming issue. Question 1 was aquestion on the global warming issue overall. Question 2 focused in particular on the sea-level-rise issue.
<Question 1>
In recent years, global warming has advanced rapidly, andsome concerns have been raised accordingly; the occurrenceof abnormal weather, destruction of forest ecosystems, increases in vector-borne infections and heat disorders, expanding areas of affected food production, sea-level-rise,etc. Are you interested in such problems of global warming?
Regarding your degree of interest, please choose the closest
matching level from the following six levels (0 points=noconcern, 20 points, 40 points, 60 points, 80 points, 100
points=highest concern).
1.
0 points
2. 20 points
3. 40 points
4. 60 points
5. 80 points
6. 100 points(Average: 69.6 points)<Question 2>
The IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change)
predicts about 88 cm of sea-level-rise globally within 100
years from now. According to circumstances, industries andpopulations in coastal area may inevitably need to move toother areas, and industrial structures and population distributions might change, even in Japan. Specifically, if the sea
level goes up 1 m, in Japan, 861 km2 of land and 150 trillion
yen of property will disappear and 17.3 million people will
be influenced. Are you interested in such problems of
sea-level-rise? Regarding your degree of interest, pleasechoose the closest matching level from the following six
levels (0 points=no concern, 20 points, 40 points, 60 points,
80 points, 100 points=highest concern).
1.
0 points
2. 20 points
3. 40 points
4. 60 points
5. 80 points
6. 100 points(Average: 71.8 points)

Questions 3 and 4 constituted the main part of thissurvey, i.e., questions regarding the global warming
issue as environmental policy. Question 3 was aquestion asking about the degree of urgency of these
problems and countermeasures for residential environment items (the 16 sub-fields) that are classified in
Chapter 3. Here the first four sub-fields are shown.
Question 4 is a typical question in conjoint analysis,
and asks about desirable policy alternatives, bymaking each respondent choose among alternatives
which have different levels of elements (safety, health,convenience, amenity and cost) the nearest to his wayof thinking. In this survey, five questions were
presented to each respondent, who was to choose one
alternative out of three alternatives for each question.
Four different questionnaires were prepared. One
alternative in each question was a common “standard
case,” with a total of 41 alternatives set up in thissurvey. The “standard case” was that of existingmeasures being maintained against global warming,with the result that the residential environment quality
ten years later would decrease 20% from the present
level. Here the first question is shown.
<Question 3>
In Japan, various measures are being considered for avoiding influences on “safety,” “health,” “convenience” and“amenity” of residential environments from global warming. How much importance do you give to problems andmeasures regarding “safety,” “health,” “convenience” and“amenity” in your life? Regarding the degree of your concern, please choose the nearest to your thinking of the following six levels (0 points = no concern, 20 points,
40 points, 60 points, 80 points, 100 points = highest concern).
1) Safety of residential environments
1 <Problems> fires: increased risk of forest fires due todrying<Countermeasures> land control, fire prevention measures, etc.
1.
0 points
2. 20 points
3. 40 points
4. 60 points
5. 80 points
6. 100 points(Average: 56.0 points)
2 <Problems> water shortages: reduced available water
resources due to decreases in precipitation<Countermeasures> evaporation and transpiration control, development of technology that decreases losses
through leakage, application of drainage, etc.
1.
0 points
2. 20 points
3. 40 points
4. 60 points
5. 80 points
6. 100 points(Average: 67.9 points)
3 <Problems> floods: more frequent flood disasters incoastal areas and the river valleys due to increases in
sea level and precipitation<Countermeasures> development of embankment facilities, adjustment of river flows, etc.
1.
0 points
2. 20 points
3. 40 points
4. 60 points
5. 80 points
6. 100 points(Average: 69.9 points)
4 <Problems> greater frequency of damage from typhoons and gusts<Countermeasures> development of protection facilities against wind, etc.
1.
0 points
2. 20 points
3. 40 points
4. 60 points
5. 80 points
6. 100 points(Average: 67.9 points)

Economic Evaluation of Residential Environment Change Associated with Global Warming

fields) in the k -th residential environment (four large fields),
z kj : absolute degree of concern for thej -th residential environment (four subfields) in the k -th residential environment (four large fields),
p : cost [yen / month], andα k , β kj , γ : unknown parameters.

<Question 4>
Below we present three policy alternatives, which place
different levels of importance on different elements (safety,
health, convenience, amenity, cost). Please choose the nearest to your way of thinking out of the three alternatives.
1. Policy A
2. Policy B
3. Policy C
PolicyA
B
C

Change in residential environment
level due to policy
Saf.
Hea.
Con.
Ame.
20%
50%
20%
50%
down
down
down
down
20%
No
No
50%
down
change change down
20%
20%
20%
20%
down
down
down
down

Cost
[yen/household/month]
65,00080,00070,000Notes)- “No change”: enough measures are carried out against global
warming such that the residential environment level ten years later
will not change from the present level.
- “20% down”: existing measures are maintained against global
warming, resulting in a 20% decrease in the residential environment level ten years later from the present level.
- “50% down”: no measures are carried out against global warming,
resulting in a 50% decrease in the residential environment levelten years later from the present level.
- “Cost”: the amount spent for measures to realize the policy every
month, where its fund is the tax that you paid.
- “70,000 yen/household/month”: the amount used for measures tocontinue the existing policy every month. Please pay attention. If
you choose the policy that requires a higher (or cheaper) cost than
70,000 yen, the amount that you are able to use usually decreases(or increases) by the difference from 70,000 yen.

5. Economic Evaluation Model
5.1 Definition of the utility function
In conjoint analysis, defining utility functions ofpeople in terms of the function of their policy attributes, environmental situations, policy costs, income
and so on, we estimate the function from the results ofchosen behavior of people. This study defines the utility function as follows.
4

V = ∑ α k xk + γ ⋅ p
k =1

(1)

<Model 2>⎞4 ⎛ 4
V = ∑ ⎜ ∑ β kj y kj ⎟ x k + γ ⋅ p⎟⎜
k =1 j =1⎠⎝
z kj
y kj = 4∑ z kj

(2)
(3)

j =1

where

V:

5.2 Method of economic evaluation
This study measures the marginal willingness topay for residential environment change. By differentiating utility functions (1) and (2), the following
equations are obtained.
<Model 1>
4

dV = ∑ α k dx k + γ ⋅ dp
k =1

partial utility of the residential environment,x k : level of the k -th residential environment (four large items) [%; present
level = 100%],
y kj : relative degree of concern for the j -th
residential environment (four sub-(4)<Model 2>44dV = ∑ ∑ β kj ( y kj dx k + x k dy kj ) + γ ⋅ dp
k =1 j =1(5)where I set dy kj = 0 , because the only controllable
variables in utility function V are x k and p .
In equations (4) and (5), I set dV = 0 anddx k ' = 0 ( k ' ≠ k ) , in order to obtain the change in cost
dp so as to cancel the change in utility dV due tothe change in the residential environment dx k . Thenthe ratio of the change in cost dp to the change inthe residential environment dx k is obtained asfollows.

<Model 1>
dp
α
=− k
dxk
γ

(6)

<Model 2>
4∑ β kj y kj

<Model 1>

231dp= − k =1
dx k
γ

(7)

Equations (6) and (7) indicate the marginal willingness to pay. Moreover, equation (7) implies that theoverall value is given by the total of the individual
values of each residential environment field. Therefore, the economic value of each field is given as follows.
4∑ β kj y kj

αk
= − k =1γ
γ
β kj y kj
M kj = −γ
Mk = −

where

(8)
(9)

M k : economic value of the k -th residential
environment (four large fields),
M kj : economic value of the j -th residential
environment (four sub-fields) in the

232

E. OHNOk -th residential environment (fourlarge fields),

The economic values M k and M kj indicate theeconomic impact (benefit or damage) on the residential environment, when the level ten years laterchanges (increases or decreases) 1% from the present
level. A 1% change in the residential environment
level due to global warming is defined by a 1%change in the physical level. It is difficult, however, todefine a 1% change in each level, because each residential environment field in this study contains plural
physical quantities that change independently. For
instance, each item (“fires,” “water shortages,”“floods,” “storm damage”) in the “safety” of the residential environment has at least two physical quanti-

Variables
SafetyHealthConven.
Amenity
Cost

2.782E-02 ( 21.531)
2.736E-02 ( 17.492)
1.525E-02 ( 9.463)
1.679E-02 ( 11.939)–5.891E-05 (–11.420)

MWTP[yen/household/month]
472
464
259
285

Note) “Case 1”: using all samples.

The parameters of equations (1) and (2) were estimated using data collected in the questionnaire survey
in this study. By applying these estimated parameters
to equations (7) and (9), the marginal willingness topay (MWTP) for residential environment change wasobtained. The result is shown in Tables 1-4.

Variable

Estimated parameters(t-value)

SafetyHealthConven.
Amenity
Cost

2.875E-02 ( 19.631)
2.954E-02 ( 16.556)
1.634E-02 ( 8.926)
1.663E-02 ( 10.422)–5.355E-05 ( –9.204)

MWTP[yen/household/month]
537
552
305
311

Note) “Case 2”: excluding samples of people who had low interest in
the global warming issue.

Note) “Case 1”: using all samples.

Table 2 Estimated values (Model 2: Case 1).
Estimated
Relative
Variables
parameters
degree of(t-value)
concern
Safety①
1.877E-02
0.214( 1.461)②
3.129E-02
0.260( 2.529)③
6.130E-02
0.267( 4.769)④–2.338E-03
0.259( – 0.189)
Health①–2.019E-03
0.240( – 0.133)②
3.973E-03
0.237( 0.264)③5.472E-02
0.260( 3.144)④4.804E-02
0.263( 2.867)
Conven.
①1.280E-02
0.280( 0.958)②
2.237E-02
0.275( 1.443)③
6.794E-03
0.218( 0.400)④
4.804E-02
0.227( 1.018)
Amenity①
1.535E-02
0.230( 1.124)②
9.846E-03
0.255( 0.703)③
6.707E-03
0.241( 0.424)④
3.322E-02
0.274( 2.958)
Cost–5.899E-05(–11.473)

6. Results of Economic Evaluation

Table 3 Estimated values (Model 1: Case 2).

Table 1 Estimated values (Model 1: Case 1).
Estimated parameters(t-value)ties, “frequency of occurrence” and “strength of occurrence.” In order to define a 1% change in each item,
we have to make a new index, integrating frequency
and strength. This is a big problem which differs
among each of the sixteen sub-fields, and I would liketo solve this problem in a future study, but this problem appears not to ruin the modeling of this study.

MWTP[yen/household/month]
(473)
68
138
278
–10
(463)
–8
16
241
214
(260)
61
104
25
69
(284)
60
43
27
154

Table 4 Estimated values (Model 2: Case 2).
Estimated
Relative
Variables
parameters
degree of(t-value)
concern
Safety①
7.485E-03
0.214( 0.476)②
5.674E-02
0.260( 3.517)③
4.377E-02
0.267( 2.917)④3.205E-03
0.259( 0.211)
Health①–2.087E-02
0.240( –1.187)②
2.161E-04
0.237( 0.011)③
8.628E-02
0.260( 3.808)④4.598E-02
0.263( 2.258)
Conven.
①
1.060E-02
0.280( 0.633)②
1.981E-02
0.275( 1.077)③
1.335E-02
0.218( 0.627)④
2.278E-02
0.227( 1.020)
Amenity①
1.843E-020.230( 1.024)②
4.250E-03
0.255( 0.260)③3.715E-02
0.241( 1.854)④
9.634E-03
0.274( 0.677)
Cost–5.419E-05( –9.293)

MWTP[yen/household/month]
(532)
30
272
216
15
(546)
–92
1
414
223
(304)
55
101
54
95
(312)
78
20
165
49

Note) “Case 2”: excluding samples of people who had low interest in
the global warming issue.

Economic Evaluation of Residential Environment Change Associated with Global Warming

Tables 1 and 2 show the results estimated using all
samples obtained in the questionnaire survey. Here,the number of valid replies was 1,077, and the numberof samples used to estimate parameters was 5,385 because each respondent answered the comparative
questions five times. Table 1 indicates that the
MWTPs for “safety,” “health,” “convenience” and“amenity” were 472, 464, 259 and 285 yen/household/month, respectively.
Considering the number of households on March
31, 2005, in Japan was about 50.38 million, the total
economic damage to the residential environment in
the standard case (when existing measures are maintained against global warming and the residential environment level ten years later decreases 20% fromthe present level) can be calculated as 17.91 trillion
yen/year. The ratio of the total economic loss to the
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2004 was 3.61%.
Now, the standard case, which is defined as “the casein which the residential environment level ten years
later decreases 20% from the present level” in thisstudy, is a hypothesis with no particular scientificbacking. Therefore, I invite future discussion of thishypothesis in order to evaluate the accuracy of“3.61%.”
By comparing Table 1 and Table 2, it can be said
that the estimated values of MWTP for the four large
fields are almost equal, and that there is adjustability
between Model 1 and Model 2. However, Table 2 indicates that there are many parameters whose t-value
is low, and it is difficult to tell if the results of Model 2
have sufficient statistical significance.
Tables 3 and 4 indicate the results estimated by excluding samples of people who had low interest in the
global warming issue. The excluded sample is the
sample of people who select 40 points or less on
Question 1 or 2, and the number of samples used inestimating parameters was 4,245. Table 3 indicatesthat the MWTPs for “safety,” “health,” “convenience”
and “amenity” were 537, 552, 305 and 311 yen/household/month, respectively. The order of values inTable 3 was the same as that of Table 1, and eachvalue in Table 3 was greater than the respective one in
Table 1. Also, by comparing Table 3 and Table 4, it
can be said that there is adjustability between Model 1
and Model 2. However, from Table 4, it is alsodifficult to tell if the results of Model 2 have sufficient
statistical significance.

7. Conclusion
This research aimed to calculate the control total
for managing adjustability between individual values
and overall values in each field, and has tried to classify the residential environment into four large fields
and sixteen sub-fields and apply a conjoint analysis
based on a questionnaire survey.
The results indicate that the marginal willingness
to pay for four large fields (“safety,” “health,” “con-233

venience” and “amenity”) of the residential environment is 472, 464, 259 and 285 yen/household/month,respectively. These values indicate economic impact(benefit or damage) on the residential environment,
when the level ten years later changes (increases ordecreases) 1% from the present level. If we assume
that existing measures are maintained against global
warming and the residential environment levelten years later decreases 20% from the present level,
the total economic damage can be calculated as 17.91
trillion yen/year.
The values for the sixteen sub-fields of the residential environment were also estimated. However, themodel has many parameters whose t-value is low, and
it is difficult to say that the results have sufficient
statistical significance. Reconstruction of the economic evaluation model will be a future subject of thisstudy.

Acknowledgement
I want to thank the Ministry of the Environment ofJapan for their financial support (Global Environmental Research Funds in 2005).
References
Arrow, K., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radnerand H. Schuman (1993) Report of NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, 58, Federal Register 4601 (January 15).
Ciriacy-Wantrups, S.V. (1947) Capital returns from soil conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 27: 1181-1196.
Hanemann, W.M. (1984) Welfare evaluation in contingent
valuation experiments with discrete responses. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66: 332-341.
Japan Marketing Organization (2000) Internet survey. In: Internet Marketing Basics, Chapter 3, Nikkei BP, 93-103. (inJapanese)
Kuriyama, K. (2000) Conjoint analysis. In: E. Ohno, ed., Practice of Environmental Economic Evaluation, Chapter 6,
Keiso Shobo, 105-132. (in Japanese)
Metroeconomica (2004a) Costing the Impacts of Climate
Change in the UK: Overview of Guidelines. UKCIP Technical Report, UKCIP, Oxford.
Metroeconomica (2004b) Costing the Impacts of Climate
Change in the UK: Implementation Report. UKCIP Technical Report, UKCIP, Oxford.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson (1989) Using Surveys to Value
Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources
for the Future.
NOAA (1994) Oil Pollution Act of 1990: Proposed Regulations
for Natural Resource Damage Assessments, US Departmentof Commerce.
Ohno, E. (2000) General view of environmental economic
evaluation method. In: E. Ohno, ed., Practice of Environmental Economic Evaluation, Chapter 1, Keiso Shobo, 3-12.
(in Japanese)
Sato, Y. and Y. Asami (2001) Concept of residential environment. In: Y. Asami, ed., Residential Environment – Methods
and Theory for the Evaluation –, Chapter 1, University ofTokyo Press, 3-30. (in Japanese)
Small, K.A. and H.S. Rosen (1981) Applied welfare economics
with discrete choice models. Econometrica, 49: 105-129.
(Received 18 December 2006, Accepted 26 December 2006)