“A23eConsidering the other spaceto substitute for difficulty greening project” was generally agreedwith, as shown by a mean value of 3.77. Speaking overall, standarddeviation was fairly high (at least 0.8) for the questions of greeningarea (A2), planting allocation (A3) and maintenance management(A4), showing that there were relatively large variations inresponses and demonstrating lowconsistency among respondents.4.2.2. Greening benefit (B)In the dimension of urbanmicroclimate environment (B1), “B11 eEffective mitigation of urban microclimates” and “B12 e Effectivemitigation of urban heat island effect” enjoyed relatively highdegrees of agreement with mean values of above 4, demonstratingthat respondents have constructs of and agree with the overallenvironmental benefits derived from greening; this attitude willfacilitate future implementation of greening policy. In the dimen-sions of Urban disaster prevention and security (B2) and Harmonywith human health and wellness (B5), the mean values for allquestions and dimensions were lower than 4, demonstrating thatrespondents had low degrees of agreement for the notion thatgreening can improve urban safety and disaster prevention as wellas the notion that greening can promote mental and physicalhealth; it is evident that instruction and education in this areaneeds to be strengthened (Table 6).4.2.3. Greening promotion implementation method (C)In this dimension, only “C14 e Complete supporting measures”and “C21 e Fund subsidy for construction” had mean values thatexceeded 4. Mean values for other questions in this dimension didnot reach 4 and standard deviations were obviously higher,demonstrating that respondents had lowdegrees of agreement andwere also inconsistent in their responses (Table 7). Overall,respondents felt that complete supportingmeasures are necessary if“compulsory” implementation of building space greening isadopted. If a “non-compulsory” implementationmethod is adopted,respondents lean towards agreement for financial subsidies, fol-lowed by tax breaks and excluded legal building area or floor-area.4.2.4. Urban greening design policy (D)All questions in this dimension had mean values less than 4,showing that respondents did not have significant degrees ofagreement for this construct. However, in dimension D1 (Table 8),“D11 e Incorporation into Taiwan EEWH assessment system”enjoyed greater agreement, with a mean value of 3.94 and rela-tively low standard deviation, demonstrating consistency ofagreement among respondents. Speaking overall, it can be seenfrom analysis results that respondents tended to agree that urbangreening design policy (D) should begin with taking into consid-eration “building policy (D1)”.4.2.5. Impact on urban real estate market (E)In the measurement dimension of building cost (E1), respon-dents tended to agree that buildings with greening design sufferedfrom higher maintenance management costs. In addition, theinvestment benefit (E2) dimension had a lower degree of agree-ment compared to other dimensions; it also had a higher standarddeviation, showing that respondents had a low degree of consis-tency in attitudes. These results demonstrate that future promotionof building space greening design should emphasize the marketbenefits derived from greening. Taken as a whole, the mean valuesof the questions in this construct were greater than 3, thereforereaching measurable agreement (Table 9).4.3. Path analysisPath analysis is used to examine the causal relationshipsbetween observed variables and to posit causal conclusions. Basedon the seven hypotheses proposed by this study, “greening benefit”and “urban greening design policy” were used as mediating vari-ables to verify the causal relationship between “building spacegreening design” and “urban real estate market.”According to path analysis, the three variables of “greeningbenefit,”“urban greening design policy,” and “urban real estatemarket” can be effectively explained. The explained variance for eachof the variables is: 0.286 (F¼ 47.069, p¼ 0.000) for the urban realFig. 3. A final model. estate market, 0.448(F¼191.521, p¼0.000) for the greening benefitand 0.451(F¼64.009, p¼ 0.000) for urban greening design policy.Greening benefit and urban greening design policy act as mediatingvariables. Building space environment greening design and greeningpromotion implementation methods can each have an impact onurban real estate market through these mediating variables. Esti-mation results for the overall model are as shown in Fig.源`自*751?文.论/文`网[www.751com.cn 绿化设计对城市房地产市场的影响英文文献和中文翻译(4):http://www.751com.cn/fanyi/lunwen_54345.html