Luận án The liveliness of sidewalks in Ho Chi Minh city and its impact on property values in mixed - Use neighborhoods

nt of guidelines, policies, laws or has the effect of changing the perception of society when considering sidewalks as a public space. Contribute to built infrastructure on the surface sidewalk for improving the quality of life, for example, pedestrian walking corridor, connectivity on public services, limited private vehicles, safety and comfort. Currently, although the legislation on sidewalk ownership is clearly defined, the actual use and ownership rights are not strictly controlled by the authorities in HCMC. One of the main reasons is that the quality of the sidewalk is poor, namely, the sidewalk width is very small, mostly under 3 meter. Along with traffic jams and vehicle users must run on the sidewalk. Moreover, the equally important reason is that this thesis proposes solutions and policies for management levels and subjects in urban infrastructure management, urban planning management, and necessary in the context of in HCMC today. 132 Currently, although the legislation on sidewalk ownership is well defined, the actual use and ownership rights are not strictly controlled by the authorities. One of the main reasons is poor urban street infrastructure leading to traffic congestion and the driver on the sidewalk. Moreover, the important reason is that sidewalk management is still fragmented and local. The use of sidewalks in coexistence with different functions creates the feeling that owning a sidewalk is no longer a public good. Therefore, the management of sidewalks is also difficult in this cultural and historical context. The urban living sidewalks account for the greatest proportion of the whole traffic system, and a liveliness sidewalks will enrich social and economics activities and contribute to better social life. The sidewalk is acting as a stage people actively live in. In conclusion, a liveliness sidewak depends on the primary factors as following the comfortable physical conditions and adjacent services. When the conditions of a sidewalks can meet the needs and requests of people, the social life will be enhanced, and bring in liveliness sidewalk space. Home-owner decisions This research results can provide recent information to people planning to buy a home. Research shows the benefits and usability of sidewalks in front of the house. The level of willingness to pay for home-buyer can depend on the benefits that the sidewalk brings. The empirical results in this study have shown that the wider sidewalk, the higher the house value. This result only shows the positive relationship between the two variables. Therefore, in order to reach a deeper conclusion on policy implications, should sidewalk expansion be considered? With this result, there is not enough basis to answer, according to the author, the study can analyze more in terms of cost and benefit in extending sidewalk to be conclusive. This can a suggestion for the next research direction. 133 In addition, based on research data and research results that can show that when the sidewalk is extended by 1 meter, the house price will increase by 5 percent. In fact, if urban planning expand sidewalks, it can only expand in the direction of reducing the area of the house, because the expansion of sidewalks reduces the width of the the street is impossible. Thus, when expanding the sidewalk by 1 meter, the length of the house is reduced by 1 meter, so how much will the lot area be reduced? Based on the survey data, the author found that the common house width is from 4 to 5 meters, accounting for 45 percent. If the sidewalk is extended by 1 meter, the house area in this group decreases about 7 percent. Are home-buyers willing to accept dwindled home sizes? Home-buyers benefit from a 1 meter sidewalk extension that increase 5 percent in property value but decline 7 percent in lot size. To answer this question, it depends on the willingness to accept of home-buyers to consider the benefits and costs of this change. The liveliness index and property value Moreover, the research results also show that the higher the Liveliness index the negative impact on property value. Accordingly, in the more lively sidewalk- segments, the value of property decrease. However, the urban planners need to consider maintaining the liveliness in these sidewalks or at least should not remove it. Because lively sidewalks do not only bring benefit home-owners, particularly those used as shophouse owners, but can also help some other people earn additional income on these sidewalk-segments, among them are sidewalk vendors. In particular, sidewalks in HCMC contribute greatly and can help increase the benefit from the informal sector. If these sidewalk-segments managed well, the government can gains a large of revenue from the sidewalk. The encourage activities on sidewalks It can be seen that the meaning of activities taking place on sidewalk in HCMC is very different between day-time and night-time. This is a unique feature in HCMC 134 that is not mixed into any other place in the world. There are the large number of sidewalk-segment in mixed-use neighborhood showed marked differences. Most of activities took place in day-time, but these activities seemed to disappear in night- time, and sidewalk become quiet when houses were closed and there were no people participating in any activity. However, there are sidewalks that have the opposite effect, during the day-time, sidewalk only has a few people participate in sidewalk vending, store spillover activities, but people will spill out and fill these sidewalk with all activities in night-time as sidewalk vending, store spillover, communal, pedestrians and transportation means activities. In society, when the government does not meet the needs of the people, the private sector regulates itself. It also means that if there is no public space to take place, people can create them. In the context of an integrated planning and urban infrastructure planning that has not focused enough on household economic activities and the informal economic sector, the study provides a basis for policy recommendations in urban management. Research provides new knowledge, potentially applicable to similar economies and similar cultures. The study is based on previous studies on the role of sidewalks and public spaces in Vietnam. The study allows us to open up new research directions in Vietnam in the issue of urban infrastructure affecting economic activities. Especially, the planning of sidewalk usage and the research housing price that adjacent sidewalks. 5.3 Limitations Nevertheless, this thesis has some limitations. In terms of its data characteristics, the main sources of data used for this thesis were obtained from walk-by observation, direct observation, and survey with 283 observations. This is only a temporary acceptable level and research should be conducted at a larger sample size. In addition, during the data collection process, the study did not conduct interviews with a number of people directly involved in activities at the sidewalk-segments. Besides, this study 135 has not considered the aspects of sidewalk ownership, the purpose of using sidewalks to contribute to the official or informal economic activities in HCMC. In this study, the author has calculated the liveliness index of the sidewalk-segments based on the mixed-method. The limitation of this study is that the author has not classified in detail as the characteristics of the people participating in the activities such as age, gender, level of education, job, level of income. The level of education or income is very important because it affects the level of perception and decision of each person’s actions when using public spaces. Besides, the investment in equipment and tools during the recording process is also very limited. Researcher and participants may face many dangers when the survey during at night, so partly collected data is somewhat incomplete. LIST OF AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED PAPERS 1. Thu Nguyen (2019). The value of sidewalk in real property in commercial- residential neighborhood. In International conference on business and finance 2019, ISBN: 978-604-922-764-6. 2. Nguyễn Thị Hồng Thu (2020). Giá trị kinh tế của vỉa hè tại Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. Tạp chí khoa học Đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, 15(2), 73-83. REFERENCES Abadi, Z. K., & Jouzem, M. N. (2018). Evaluating the Legibility of Urban Sidewalks for Good Urban Governance (Case Study: District 12 of Tehran). Akkar, M. (2005). Questioning The Inclusivity of Public Spaces in Post-Industrial Cities: The Case of Haymarket Bus Station, Newcastle upon Tyne. METU JFA, 22(2), 1-24. Allsopp, B. (1974). Towards a humane architecture. F. Muller. Altman, I., & Zube, E. H. (Eds.). (2012). Public places and spaces (Vol. 10). Springer Science & Business Media. Amin, A. (2008). Collective culture and urban public space. City, 12(1), 5-24. Andersson, C. (2016). Public space and the new urban agenda. The Journal of Public Space, 1(1), 5-10. Anh, T. S., Gubry, P., Hong, V. T., & Huguet, J. W. (1996). Migration and employment in Ho Chi Minh City. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 11(2), 3-22. Appleyard, D., & Lintell, M. (1972). The Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents‘ Viewpoint. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38(2), 84– 101. Ardent, H. (1958) in The Human Condition, The university of Chicago Press, Chicago. Asabere, P. K. (1990). The value of a neighborhood street with reference to the cul- de-sac. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 3(2), 185-193. Bagby, D. G. (1980). The effects of traffic flow on residential property values. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(1), 88-94. Bahrami, S., Zade, I. P. H., & Mojtahedi, M. (2015). Characteristics to making street side walk. Case Study for Enghelab Street (Between Vali-e ASR and Razi Street). Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 36(3), 4224-4237. Bajçinovci, B. Q., Gjinolli, I., & Beqiri, R. (2018) Measuring Vitality of the Ottoman Public Space in Kosovo Cities. Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9-24. Barker, R. (1968). Ecological Psychology. California: Stanford University Press. Bartholomew, K., & Ewing, R. (2011). Hedonic price effects of pedestrian-and transit-oriented development. Journal of Planning Literature, 26(1), 18-34. Bateman, I., Day, B., Lake, I., & Lovett, A. (2001). The effect of road traffic on residential property values: a literature review and hedonic pricing study. Prepared for Scottish Executive and The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland. Becho, R. (2016). Creating Safe Sidewalk for Crime Prevention: The Case of Amce area, Addis Ababa (Doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University). Bechtel, R. B., & Zeisel, J. (1987). Observation: The world under a glass. Methods in environmental and behavioral research, 11-40. Bechtel, R. B., Marans, R. W., & Michelson, W. E. (1987). Methods in environmental and behavioral research. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Becker, G. S. (1965), ‘A theory of the allocation of time', The Economic Journal, Vol. 75, No. 299, pp. 493- 517. Bentley, I. (1985). Responsive environments: A manual for designers. Routledge. Boothroyd, P., & Nam, P. X. (2000). Socioeconomic renovation in Viet Nam: The origin, evolution, and impact of Doi Moi. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA. Bowlby, S., Gregory, S., & McKie, L. (1997, May). “Doing home”: Patriarchy, caring, and space. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 343-350). Pergamon. Brandão, A. L., & Brandão, P. (2017). Public Space, Infrastructure, Landscape: an interdisciplinary matrix for urban spatial continuity. The Journal of Public Space, 2(1), 123-134. Brondino, N. C. M., & Silva, A. N. R. (1998). A comparison of land valuation methods supported by GIS. In INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN ARCHITETURE AND URBAN PLANNING (Vol. 4). Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?. Qualitative research, 6(1), 97-113. Canter, D. (1977) The Psychology of Place. Architectural Press, London. Carlton, I. (2009). Histories of transit-oriented development: perspectives on the development of the TOD concept (No. 2009, 02). Working Paper. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2012). Public places-Urban spaces. Routledge. Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press. Cervero, R., Kang, J., & Shively, K. (2009). From elevated freeways to surface boulevards: neighborhood and housing price impacts in San Francisco. Journal of Urbanism, 2(1), 31-50. Chaskin, R. J. (1997). Perspectives on neighborhood and community: A review of the literature. Social Service Review, 71(4), 521-547. Chen, W. Y. (2017). Environmental externalities of urban river pollution and restoration: A hedonic analysis in Guangzhou (China). Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 170-179. Chitrakar, R. M. (2016). Meaning of public space and sense of community: The case of new neighbourhoods in the Kathmandu Valley. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 10(1), 213-227. Cho, S. H., Clark, C. D., Park, W. M., & Kim, S. G. (2009). Spatial and temporal variation in the housing market values of lot size and open space. Land Economics, 85(1), 51-73. Claire, L. K. M. (2013). A critical study of the public space in Hong Kong. In MCS Symposium, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www. ln. edu. hk/cultural/programmes/MCS/Symp (p. S1P2). Clapham, D. (2005). The meaning of housing: A pathways approach. Policy Press. Clemente (2015). Liveliness and livability of urban space. Perception of well-being and public space design. Proceedings of the International Conference on Changing Cities II: Spatial, Design, Landscape & Socio‐economic dimensions. ISBN: 978- 960-6865-88-6, Porto Heli, Greece , June 22-26, 2015. Colwell, P. F., & Dilmore, G. (1999). Who was first? An examination of an early hedonic study. Land Economics, 620-626. Comedia (Firm). (1991). Out of Hours: A Study of Economic, Social and Cultural Life in Twelve Town Centres in the UK: Summary Report. Comedia. Congress for the New Urbanism. (2011). CNU History. Retrieved from Cooper Marcus, C., & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. John Willey & Sons, New Yok. 357, 2003-04. Court, A. T. (1939), ‘Hedonic price indexes with automotive examples’ in “The Dynamics of Automotive Demand”, General Motors, New York, pp. 98- 119. Czembrowski, P., & Kronenberg, J. (2016). Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 146, 11-19. David, U., Enric, P., & David, B. (2002). Place Identification, Social Cohesion, And Environmental Sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34(1), 26-53. Deacon, L. A. (2013). Planning Sidewalks: Implications of Regulating Sidewalk Space in the East Village (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University). Dempsey, N. (2009). Are good-quality environments socially cohesive? Measuring quality and cohesion in urban neighborhoods. Town Planning Review, 80(3), 315- 345. Diao, M., & Ferreira Jr, J. (2010). Residential property values and the built environment: Empirical study in the Boston, Massachusetts, metropolitan area. Transportation Research Record, 2174(1), 138-147. DoE and The Association of Town Centre Management (1997). Managing Urban Spaces in Town Centres – Good Practice Guide. London, HMSO. Douglas, G. C. (2019). Do It Yourself Urbanism. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies, 1-3. Douglas, M., (1991), ‘The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space’, Social Research, 58 (1): 287–307. Dover, V. & King, J. (2012) Neighborhood Definition. In Farr, D. (Ed.). Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. John Wiley & Sons. Drummond, L. B. (2000). Street scenes: Practices of public and private space in urban Vietnam. Urban studies, 37(12), 2377-2391. E. Larsen, J., & P. Blair, J. (2014). Price effects of surface street traffic on residential property. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 7(2), 189-203. Edensor, T. (1998) The culture of the Indian street, in: N. R. FYFE (Ed.) Images of the Street: Planning, Identity and Control in Public Space, pp. 205– 221. London: Routledge. Eidse, N., & Turner, S. (2014). Doing resistance their own way: counter‐narratives of street vending in Hanoi, Vietnam through solicited journaling. Area, 46(3), 242- 248. Ewing, R. (2005). Can the physical environment determine physical activity levels?. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 33(2), 69-75. Farahani, L. M., & Beynon, D. (2015). Pavement cafes as the activity zone in the social life of neighbourhood centres. Living Learn. Res. a Better Built Environ., 193-202. Farida, N. (2013). Effects of outdoor shared spaces on social interaction in a housing estate in Algeria. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 2(4), 457-467. Farr, D. (Ed.). (2012). Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. John Wiley & Sons. Fereidooni, F., & Soheili, J. (2017). Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Increase of Liveliness in Community Spaces, from the Viewpoint of Architecture and Urbanism Intellectuals in Iran. Follain, J. R., & Malpezzi, S. (1980). Dissecting Housing Value and Rent: Estimates of Hedonic Indexes for Thirty-nine Large SMSAs (Vol. 249, No. 17). Urban Institute Press. Francis, M. (1984). Mapping Downtown Activity. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 1, 21–35. Franco, S. F., & Macdonald, J. L. (2018). Measurement and valuation of urban greenness: Remote sensing and hedonic applications to Lisbon, Portugal. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 72, 156-180. Friedman, M. (1976). Wage determination and unemployment. Price Theory, 213- 37. Fullerton, T. M., & Villalobos, E. (2011). Street widths, international ports of entry and border region housing values. Journal of Economic Issues, 45(2), 493-510. Gallacher, P. (2005). Everyday spaces-the potential of neighbourhood space. Garcia-Ramon, M. D., Ortiz, A., & Prats, M. (2004). Urban planning, gender and the use of public space in a peripheral neighborhood of Barcelona. Cities, 21(3), 215- 223. Garnett, N. S. (2008, October). Private norms and public spaces. Paper presented at the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, Williamsburg, VA. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Building, Translated by J. Koch, NewYork. Gehl, J. (1989). A changing street life in a changing society. Places, 6(1). Gehl, J., & Matan, A. (2009). Two perspectives on public spaces. Gibert, M., & Peyvel, E. (2016). Unpacking the figure of the backpacking neighborhood Phạm Ngũ Lão in the making of Hồ Chí Minh city. South East Asia Research, 24(4), 510-531. Gibson, J. J. (1979). An Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology Press. Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R.E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Giddens, A., (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: principles and practice. victoria. British Columbia: Optimal Books. Gonzalez-Navarro, M., & Quintana-Domeque, C. (2010, July). Public infrastructure, private investment and residential property values: experimental evidence from street pavement. In Labour & Population: Proceedings of an International Conference, Santa Monica on (Vol. 13, p. 3). Goodman, A. C. (1998). Andrew Court and the invention of hedonic price analysis. Journal of urban economics, 44(2), 291-298. Haas, G. C. (1922). Sale prices as a basis for farmland appraisal(Vol. 9). University Farm. Hajer, M. and Reijndorp, A. (2001). In Search of New Public Domain. Netherlands. Harms, E. (2009). Vietnam's civilizing process and the retreat from the street: A turtle’s eye view from Ho Chi Minh City. City & Society, 21(2), 182-206. Hass-Klau, C., Crampton, G., Dowland, C., & Nold, I. (1999). Streets as living space: Helping public places play their proper role. Hassan, D. M., Moustafa, Y. M., & El-Fiki, S. M. (2019). Ground-floor façade design and staying activity patterns on the sidewalk: A case study in the Korba area of Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. Hayward, D. (1996). The reluctant landlords? A history of public housing in Australia. Helmisaari, T. (2015). Changing food choices in a changing city: Vietnamese youth in contemporary Hanoi. Heng, C. K. (1999). Cities of aristocrats and bureaucrats: the development of medieval Chinese cityscapes. Nus Press. Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (1998). Video and the analysis of objects in action. Communication & Cognition. Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007). Social interactions in urban public places. Policy Press. Houthakker, H. S. (1952), ‘Compensated changes in quantities and qualities consumed’, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 155-164. Hui, S. C., & Jiang, J. (2014). Assessment of thermal comfort in transitional spaces. In Proceedings of the joint symposium 2014: change in building services for future. Huynh, D. (2015). The misuse of urban planning in Ho Chi Minh City. Habitat international, 48, 11-19. Ittelson, W. H, Rivlin, L.G and Proshansky, H. . (1976). The Use of Behavioural Maps in Environmental Psychology. In Proshansky, H. M, Ittelson, W. T and Rivlin, L.G (Eds). Environmental Psychology: Man and his Physical Setting (pp. 658–668). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Jacobs, A. (1999). Great streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random House, Inc. Jalaladdini, S. and Oktay, D. (2011) Urban Public Spaces and Vitality: A Socio- Spatial Analysis in the Streets of Cypriot Towns, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 35 ( 2012 ) 664 – 674 (2011) Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Kanellopoulou, D. (2017). Walking and standing in Athinas Street: Encountering pedestrian life in Athens’ historical centre. Ambiances. Environnement sensible, architecture et espace urbain, (3). Keller, S. I. (1968). The urban neighborhood: A sociological perspective (Vol. 33). Random House. Kim, A. M. (2012). The mixed-use sidewalk: Vending and property rights in public space. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(3), 225-238. Kim, A. M. (2014). Sidewalk City: Remapping Public Space in Ho Chi Minh City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kim, K. S., Park, S. J., & Kweon, Y. J. (2007). Highway traffic noise effects on land price in an urban area. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(4), 275-280. Koh, D. (2007). The pavement as civic space: History and dynamic in the city of Hanoi. In: Douglass, M., Ho, K. C., & Ooi, G. L. (Eds.). (2007). Globalization, the city and civil society in Pacific Asia: the social production of civic spaces. Routledge. Koster, H. R., & Rouwendal, J. (2012). The impact of mixed land use on residential property values. Journal of Regional Science, 52(5), 733-761. Kray, C., Fritze, H., Fechner, T., Schwering, A., Li, R., & Anacta, V. J. (2013, September). Transitional spaces: Between indoor and outdoor spaces. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (pp. 14-32). Springer, Cham. Kurfürst, S. (2012). Redefining public space in Hanoi: places, practices and meaning (Vol. 13). LIT Verlag Münster. Kürten, S. (2008). The transformation of public space in Hanoi. Asien, 108(July), 67- 79. Lamit, H., Ghahramanpouri, A., & Nia, S. S. (2012). A behavioral observation of street liveliness in meldrum walk, johor bahru of Malaysia. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 4(1), 3-14. Lancaster, K. J. (1966), ‘A new approach to consumer theory’, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 132- 157. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory. The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental. design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Li, M. M., & Brown, H. J. (1980). Micro-neighborhood externalities and hedonic housing prices. Land economics, 56(2). Li, W., Joh, K., Lee, C., Kim, J. H., Park, H., & Woo, A. (2015). Assessing benefits of neighborhood walkability to single-family property values: A spatial hedonic study in Austin, Texas. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(4), 471- 488. Lipton, M. (1980). Family, Fungibility and Formality: Rural Advantages of Informal Non-Farm Enterprise versus the Urban Formal State. In: AMIN, S. (ed.) Human Resources, Employment, and Development, Volume 5, Developing Countries. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of the International Economic Association, Mexico City: MacMillan, London. Lofland, L. H. (2017). The public realm: Exploring the city's quintessential social territory. Routledge. Long, F., Guo, M., & Zheng, S. (2009). Estimating the willingness-to-pay for urban housing in Chinese cities. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 14(3), 360-366. Loukaitou-Sederis, A., and Ehrenfeucht, R. (2009). Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation Over Public Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Banerjee, T. (1998). Urban design downtown: Poetics and politics of form. Univ of California Press. Low, S. 2000. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press. Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open spaces as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 48, pp161-167. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city (Vol. 11). MIT press. Lynch, K. (1984). Good city form. MIT press. Lynch, K., Lynch, K. R., & Hack, G. (1984). Site planning. MIT press. Machielse, W. (2015). Perceived safety in public spaces: A quantitative investigation of the spatial and social influences on safety perception among young adults in Stockholm. Madanipour, A. 1996. Design of Urban Space. New York: Wiley. Mahan, B. L., Polasky, S., & Adams, R. M. (2000). Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land economics, 100-113. Malpezzi, S. (2002). Hedonic pricing models: a selective and applied review. Housing economics and public policy, 67-89. Matthews, J. (2006). Retail Proximity and Residential Values or Do Nearby Stores Really Run Down Property Values?. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series, (07-21). Matthews, J. W., & Turnbull, G. K. (2007). Neighborhood street layout and property value: The interaction of accessibility and land use mix. The journal of real estate finance and economics, 35(2), 111-141. Mayer, M. R. (2005). Parking Lots: An Investigation of Public Space in the Contemporary American City (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology). Mehta, V. (2006). Lively Streets: Exploring the relationship between built environment and social behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Mehta, V. (2013). The Street: A Quintessential Social Public Space. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53-88. Mehta, V., & Bosson, J. K. (2018). Revisiting lively streets: Social interactions in public space. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X18781453. Miller-Lane, B. (Ed.). (2007). Housing and dwelling: Perspectives on modern domestic architecture. Routledge. Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People's Park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the association of American geographers, 85(1), 108- 133. Molavi, M., & Jalili, F. (2016). Comparison of Vitality between Two Streets of Tehran. Urbanism. Arhitectura. Constructii, 7(4), 267. Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 3: 1, 93-116. Muth, R. F. (1966), ‘Household production and consumer demand functions’, Econometrica, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 699- 708. Nam, S. (2018). Lịch sử khẩn hoang miền Nam. Nhà xuất bản Trẻ. Nase, I., Berry, J., & Adair, A. (2013). Hedonic modelling of high street retail properties: a quality design perspective. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 31(2), 160-178. Ng, S., & Dagger, T. (2006, January). The antecedents and consequences of customer emotions in collective hedonic services: an exploratory study. In Doctoral Colloquium Paper, ANZMAC Colloquium (pp. 4-6). Nguyen, K. (2016). Towards developing a design model for socially sustainable multi-storey housing in Vietnam: An environment-behaviour approach. Nguyen, T. B., Samsura, D. A. A., van der Krabben, E., & Le, A. D. (2016). Saigon- Ho Chi Minh City. Cities, 50, 16-27. Nguyen, T. V. T., & Han, H. Y. (2017). Making a sociable street in Vietnam–A vision and solutions. Oranratmanee, R., & Sachakul, V. (2014). Streets as public spaces in Southeast Asia: Case studies of Thai pedestrian streets. Journal of Urban Design, 19(2), 211-229. Park, J., Lee, D., Park, C., Kim, H., Jung, T., & Kim, S. (2017). Park accessibility impacts housing prices in Seoul. Sustainability, 9(2), 185. Park, Y., & Rogers, G. O. (2015). Neighborhood planning theory, guidelines, and research: Can area, population, and boundary guide conceptual framing?. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(1), 18-36. Peters, K. (2011). Living together in multi-ethnic neighborhoods: The meaning of public spaces for issues of social integration. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic. Pollock, V. L., & Paddison, R. (2014). On place-making, participation and public art: The Gorbals, Glasgow. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 7(1), 85-105. Qamaruz-Zaman, N., Shaberi, W. S. W., Bakri, A. F., & Ahmad, S. S. (2014). Functional dimension of spillover activities towards the liveliness of Sungai Besi Market, Kuala Lumpur. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 629-638. Rahman, N. A., Shamsuddin, S., & Ghani, I. (2015). What makes people use the street?: Towards a liveable urban environment in Kuala Lumpur city centre. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 624-632. Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and Cultua. Prentice-Hall of India Private Ltd.: New Delhi, India. Rapoport, A. (1985). Thinking about home environments. In Home environments (pp. 255-286). Springer, Boston, MA. Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. University of Arizona Press. Rapoport, A. (1995). A critical look at the concept “home”. The Home: Words, Interpretations, Meaning, and Environments.” Avebury, Hants, United Kingdom, 25-51. Rapport, N. and Dawson, A., (1998). Migrants of Identity: Perceptions of Home in a World of Movement, Oxford: Berg. Razafindrakoto, M., & Roubaud, F. (2010). How deep was the impact of the economic crisis in Vietnam. Retrived from colloques. tamdaoconf. com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/Policy-Brief-2-IMPACT-CRISIS-on-the- informal-sector-English-version. pdf. Rosen, S. (1974), ‘Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 34-55. Rupa, C. K. (2015). Importance of public spaces in cities. Russell, A. (2011). The definition of public space in Republican Rome (Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley). Sassen, S. (2011). The global street: Making the political. Globalizations, 8(5), 573- 579. Schmuck, C., Caron, P., Hauet, A., & Blavette, D. (1997). Ordering and precipitation of γ′ phase in low supersaturated Ni-Cr-Al model alloy: An atomic scale investigation. Philosophical Magazine A, 76(3), 527-542. Schwanke, D., Phillips, P., and Bohl, C. (2003). Mixed-Use Development Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, D.C., ULI - The Urban Land Institute. Sennett, R. (1992). The uses of disorder: Personal identity and city life. WW Norton & Company. Seo, D., & Kwon, Y. (2017). In-migration and housing choice in Ho Chi Minh City: Toward sustainable housing development in Vietnam. Sustainability, 9(10), 1738. Seo, K., Salon, D., Kuby, M., & Golub, A. (2019). Hedonic modeling of commercial property values: distance decay from the links and nodes of rail and highway infrastructure. Transportation, 46(3), 859-882. Seo, K., Salon, D., Shilling, F., & Kuby, M. (2018). Pavement Condition and Residential Property Values: A Spatial Hedonic Price Model for Solano County, California. Public Works Management & Policy, 23(3), 243-261. Shahimi, S. S., Tukiman, I., & Hussain, M. R. M. (2019). People’s Experiences in Relation to the City Liveliness of Urban Heritage Trail. Shin, W. J., Saginor, J., & Van Zandt, S. (2011). Evaluating subdivision characteristics on single-family housing value using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Real Estate Research, 33(3), 317-348. Shuhana, S., Norhaslina, J., & Maslyana, M. (2004). Criteria of success for traditional shopping streets in Malaysia: Case study of Kuala Lumpur. Unpublished Research Report, Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia. Simpson E. (1949). Measurement of Diversity. Nature, 163(688). Sirmans, G. S., MacDonald, L., Macpherson, D. A., & Zietz, E. N. (2006). The value of housing characteristics: a meta analysis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 33(3), 215-240. Sivam, A., & Karuppannan, S. (2013). The role of streets within placemaking in cross-cultural contexts: Case studies from Adelaide, Australia and Georgetown, Malaysia (Doctoral dissertation, State of Australian Cities Research Network). Song, T., Zhu, X., & Song, W. (2012). Urban new space: commercial public space system. City Planning Review, 5. Song, Y., & Knaap, G. J. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6), 663-680. Song, Y., & Knaap, G.J. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 663– 680. Song, Y., & Zenou, Y. (2012). Urban villages and housing values in China. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(3), 495-505. Strassmann, W. P. (1986). Types of neighbourhood and home-based enterprises: evidence from Lima, Peru. Urban Studies, 23(6), 485-500. Strassmann, W. P. (1987). Home-based enterprises in cities of developing countries. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36(1), 121-144. Talen, E. (2015). Do-it-yourself urbanism: A history. Journal of Planning History, 14(2), 135-148. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Thomas, M. (1991). The demise of public space. Town planning responses to city change, 209-224. Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and urban planning, 60(2), 59-72. Tiesdell, S., & Oc, T. (1998). Beyond ‘fortress’ and ‘panoptic’cities—Towards a safer urban public realm. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(5), 639-655. Tipple, G. (2005). The place of home-based enterprises in the informal sector: evidence from Cochabamba, New Delhi, Surabaya and Pretoria. Urban studies, 42(4), 611-632. U.S. Green Building Council. (2010). LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development Rating System. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council. Ujang, N., & Dola, K. (2007). Linking activity and place attachment dimensions in enhancing the sense of place. Alam Cipta, International Journal on Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice, 2(1), 59-67. UN-Habitat. (2013). Streets as Public Spaces and Drivers of Urban Prosperity. Nairobi, Kenya. Van Cao, T., & Cory, D. C. (1982). Mixed land uses, land-use externalities, and residential property values: a reevaluation. The Annals of Regional Science, 16(1), 1-24. Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic analysis (No. 338.5 V299m 1992). WW Norton. Voltolini, P. (2006). Street vending and the use of public spaces in New York City. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Wallace, H. A. (1926). Comparative farm-land values in Iowa. The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, 2(4), 385-392. Watson, D. S. (1968). Price theory and its uses. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Wilhelmsson, M. (2000). The impact of traffic noise on the values of single-family houses. Journal of environmental planning and management, 43(6), 799-815. Williams, K., & Green, S. (2001). Literature review of public space and local environments for the cross cutting review. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development. Wright, G. (1991). The politics of design in French colonial urbanism. University of Chicago Press. Wu, C., Ye, X., Du, Q., & Luo, P. (2017). Spatial effects of accessibility to parks on housing prices in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 63, 45-54. Xiao, Y. (2017). Hedonic Housing Price Theory Review. In Urban Morphology and Housing Market (pp. 11-40). Singapore: Springer. Xiao, Y., Webster, C., & Orford, S. (2016). Identifying house price effects of changes in urban street configuration: An empirical study in Nanjing, China. Urban Studies, 53(1), 112-131. Yang, H., Song, J., & Choi, M. (2016). Measuring the externality effects of commercial land use on residential land value: A case study of Seoul. Sustainability, 8(5), 432. Yasmeen, G. (1996) ‘Plastic-bag housewives’ and postmodern restaurants?: Public and private in Bangkok’s foodscape, Urban Geography, 17, pp. 526–544. Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. APPENDIX Appendix A: Choosing observational scale and good view Fine scale: Gehl (1987) asserts that when we talk about social range in vision, 100 meters is a boundary, the point at which we can see people in motion and their body language in roughly, and 25 meters is another significant threshold, only under which we can precisely read facial expression and principal emotions. A good view It is quite interesting to look at our city, glance at surroundings and people, whether when we are walking, standing or sitting. A good view is essential in streets. It should be noticed that our downward and upward sights are different. We look down to figure out where we step on, about 70-80 degrees below the horizon, while look up, the angle of vision is limited to 50-55 degrees above the horizon (Figure 6-31). In addition, our head is usually inclined about 10 degrees downward during normal walking so that we can better assess the situation around. By contrast, raising our head upwards is much more difficult (Tilley, 2002). Appendix B: Category and percentage of activities in HCMC. Observed activity Analytical category Percentage Sidewalk vendor attending to buyers - Breakfast or dinner food - Drink shop - Motorbike taxi drivers - shoes or clothing marker repairing a shoes or clothing Sidewalk vending 21% Children washing plates in front of house Domestic use 9% Women cooking outside a house or a local food store People bathing in front of house Family eat lunch or dinner in front of house Family members sleep in front of house Women standing and chatting outside a store Communal 6% People chatting and drinking Young men chatting, drinking, smoking Children playing outside or playing football People seating and watching sidewalk activities under the shade Lady tapping on her phone Boy seating under the tree resting Man observing the sidewalk outside a cafe shop People excercise in front of house People participate in event on sidewalk Mechanic fixing a cars or motorbike Store spillover 51% Cars or motorbike washers, washing Store operator selling at a house Women attending to customers at a shop Shop operator siting outside the store Shop operator watching sidewalk activities Shop keeper talking on the phone A lady buying from the shop keeper Men drinking cafe at a cafe shop Shop owner display of goods Customer cars or motorbikes parking space Men at work on street construction Sidewalk occupancy of pedestrians and transportation means activities 13% Motorbike drivers negotiating with customers Man offloading from a vehicle Motorbike drivers waiting for their customer Standing and resting by a motorbike Pedestrians and walkers Motorbike drivers ride on sidewalk when traffic jam Appendix C: Some pictures describe activities on sidewalks Parking lots front shops/stores Walking on the streets Food shops on the sidewalk Vendors Physical characteristics Household activities Appendix D: Frequency and Percent of dummy variables Corner variable Corner | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 257 90.81 90.81 1 | 26 9.19 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 Rental variable Rental | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 192 67.84 67.84 1 | 91 32.16 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 Mixed-use variable Mixed_use | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 171 60.42 60.42 1 | 112 39.58 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 SW_qual variable SW_qual | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 73 25.80 25.80 1 | 210 74.20 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 SW_material variable SW_material | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 23 8.13 8.13 1 | 34 12.01 20.14 2 | 140 49.47 69.61 3 | 86 30.39 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 SW_fur variable SW_fur | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 154 54.42 54.42 1 | 129 45.58 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 Street variable Street | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 239 84.45 84.45 1 | 44 15.55 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 Oneway variable Oneway | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 269 95.05 95.05 1 | 10 3.53 98.59 2 | 4 1.41 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 Twoway variable Twoway | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 0 | 235 83.04 83.04 1 | 48 16.96 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 283 100.00 Appendix E: Scatter histogram Appendix F: Regression models F.1 Correlation matrix between price and day-time and night-time activities | price d_vend~g d_dome~c d_comm~l d_store d_tran~t n_vend~g n_dome~c n_comm~l n_store n_tran~t -------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- price | 1.0000 d_vending | -0.0126 1.0000 d_domestic | -0.0766 -0.0492 1.0000 d_communal | -0.0232 0.0932 0.0640 1.0000 d_store | -0.0153 0.2064 0.0359 0.1580 1.0000 d_transport | 0.0486 0.2824 -0.0265 0.1653 0.1414 1.0000 n_vending | 0.0148 0.3643 0.0279 -0.0322 0.1450 0.2173 1.0000 n_domestic | -0.0970 -0.0343 0.2257 0.0925 0.1463 -0.0514 -0.0627 1.0000 n_communal | 0.0201 0.2292 0.0136 0.3623 0.1580 0.1263 0.0512 0.0546 1.0000 n_store | 0.0121 0.0502 -0.0303 0.0584 0.3359 0.1252 0.0434 0.0260 0.0739 1.0000 n_transport | 0.0768 0.1023 -0.1343 -0.0443 0.0038 0.2412 0.0498 -0.0642 0.0512 -0.0147 1.0000 F.2 Regression results (includes districts) Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Constant -1.609*** (0.191) -1.577*** (0.199) -1.655*** (0.195) -1.552*** (0.197) Structural characteristics Lot size (square meter) 0.644*** (0.057) 0.636*** (0.056) 0.659*** (0.055) 0.643*** (0.058) Floor size (square meter) 0.201*** (0.033) 0.200*** (0.033) 0.192*** (0.033) 0.199*** (0.034) Corner (1=corner) -0.086 (0.063) -0.083 (0.062) -0.062 (0.064) -0.077 (0.067) Width (meter) 0.006 (0.011) 0.008 (0.011) 0.004 (0.010) 0.005 (0.011) Property use conditions Rental property (1 = rental property) 0.112** (0.047) 0.120*** (0.046) 0.137*** (0.045) 0.110** (0.046) Mixed-use property (1 = using house to business and shelter) -0.106** (0.046) -0.112** (0.046) -0.124** (0.048) -0.104** (0.047) Shophouse neighborhood (the number of houses) 0.047*** (0.007) 0.049*** (0.007) 0.051*** (0.008) 0.050*** (0.007) Location characteristics Distance to CBD (kilometer) -0.058*** (0.008) -0.058*** (0.009) -0.053*** (0.009) -0.056*** (0.009) Distance to School (kilometer) -0.062 (0.038) -0.069* (0.040) -0.047 (0.038) -0.069* (0.040) Distance to School_squared (square kilometer) 0.016*** (0.005) 0.017*** (0.005) 0.013*** (0.005) 0.016*** (0.005) Distance to Hospital (kilometer) 0.181*** (0.055) 0.198*** (0.057) 0.176*** (0.054) 0.181*** (0.057) Distance to Hospital_squared (square kilometer) -0.037*** (0.011) -0.039*** (0.011) -0.036*** (0.010) -0.036*** (0.011) Distance to Market (kilometer) 0.039 (0.049) 0.019 (0.051) 0.026 (0.049) 0.034 (0.049) Sidewalk Sidewalk width (meter) 0.047** (0.021) 0.061** (0.025) 0.047* (0.027) 0.047* (0.026) Distance to sidewalk (meter) -0.002*** (0.000) -0.002*** (0.000) -0.002*** (0.000) -0.002*** (0.000) Sidewalk surface (1 = paved sidewalk) 0.104* (0.062) 0.115* (0.062) 0.116* (0.066) 0.120* (0.066) Sidewalk width*surface -0.037 (0.027) -0.042 (0.028) -0.036 (0.029) -0.040 (0.031) Sidewalk furniture (1 = sidewalk has furniture) 0.139*** (0.037) 0.137*** (0.036) 0.132*** (0.035) 0.138*** (0.037) Street width (meter) 0.086 (0.052) 0.096* (0.053) 0.074 (0.055) 0.082 (0.055) Liveliness index Liveliness index (number) -0.029* (0.015) Day-time activities D sidewalk vending (people) -0.003 (0.017) D domestic use (people) -0.056* (0.031) D communal (people) -0.059*** (0.012) D spillover store (people) 0.014 (0.013) D transportation (people) -0.025 (0.026) SW width*D sidewalk vending -0.002 (0.006) SW width*D domestic use 0.030** (0.015) SW width*D communal 0.006 (0.004) SW width*D spillover store -0.008* (0.004) SW width*D transportation 0.015* (0.008) Night-time activities N sidewalk vending (people) 0.005 (0.014) N domestic use (people) -0.019 (0.024) N communal (people) -0.014 (0.033) N spillover store (people) -0.005 (0.004) N transportation (people) -0.043** (0.020) SW width*N sidewalk vending -0.001 (0.003) SW width*N domestic use 0.004 (0.010) SW width*N communal 0.001 (0.013) SW width*N spillover store 0.001 (0.000) SW width*N transportation 0.016* (0.009) Districts (Base: Binh Tan district) Distrist 1 0.340*** (0.091) 0.347*** (0.093) 0.365*** (0.090) 0.347*** (0.092) Distrist 3 0.357*** (0.105) 0.330*** (0.108) 0.391*** (0.103) 0.339*** (0.112) Distrist 5 0.299*** (0.089) 0.325*** (0.085) 0.402*** (0.079) 0.298*** (0.090) Distrist 10 0.291*** (0.074) 0.288*** (0.075) 0.323*** (0.075) 0.288*** (0.077) Distrist 11 0.249*** (0.073) 0.250*** (0.073) 0.254*** (0.072) 0.260*** (0.076) Phu Nhuan Distrist 0.331*** (0.068) 0.340*** (0.069) 0.335*** (0.072) 0.351*** (0.071) Tan Binh Distrist 0.244*** (0.060) 0.259*** (0.062) 0.261*** (0.059) 0.236*** (0.060) R_squared 0.8488 0.8518 0.8625 0.8523 F (Prob > F) 47.85 (0.000) 48.31 (0.000) 49.34 (0.000) 36.26 (0.000) Mean VIF 4.13 4.07 4.72 4.85 AIC 102.04 98.34 95.24 115.38 BIC 200.47 200.41 230.12 250.26 F3. F test Model 2 (1) livelinessindex = 0 F( 1, 255) = 3.59 Prob > F = 0.0592 Model 3 ( 1) d_vending = 0 ( 2) d_domestic = 0 ( 3) d_communal = 0 ( 4) d_store = 0 ( 5) d_transport = 0 ( 6) sw_dvending = 0 ( 7) sw_ddomestic = 0 ( 8) sw_dcommunal = 0 ( 9) sw_dstore = 0 (10) sw_dtransport = 0 F( 10, 246) = 6.96 Prob > F = 0.0000 Model 4 ( 1) n_vending = 0 ( 2) n_domestic = 0 ( 3) n_communal = 0 ( 4) n_store = 0 ( 5) n_transport = 0 ( 6) sw_nvending = 0 ( 7) sw_ndomestic = 0 ( 8) sw_ncommunal = 0 ( 9) sw_nstore = 0 (10) sw_ntransport = 0 F( 10, 246) = 5.06 Prob > F = 0.0379