Public services and resources such as job accessibility and environmental quality are often not equally distributed in spatial and/or social dimensions within metropolitan regions. Availabilities of these public services and resources affect the quality of residential locations, and can be expected to be capitalised into house prices. For prospective house owners, selections of properties will be based on their preferences and appreciations of different attributes of the properties, but also be constrained by their housing budgets. Such a constraint may lead to segmentation of local housing markets into submarkets by price bands, and availabilities of public services and resources, as well as prices of them, might be different between the resulted submarkets. In such a case, distribution of public services and resources might be highly dependent on the public’s abilities to pay for housing, rather than based on their needs for, consumptions of, or expenses on each specific service or resource. Using Greater London as the case metropolitan region, this study examined the existence of housing submarkets by price bands, and explored the differences in availabilities, prices and trade-offs of job accessibility and environmental quality between the submarkets. Results of this study show that submarkets by price bands did exist in Greater London, and indicate that households with lower housing budgets were more likely to have lower job accessibility but enjoy higher environmental quality. They were also more likely to pay less, in relative to the total house price, for both job accessibility and environmental quality.

中文翻译：

---

细分住房市场中工作机会和环境质量的公平性：大伦敦的案例

公共服务和资源，例如工作可及性和环境质量，在大都市区内的空间和/或社会维度通常分布不均。这些公共服务和资源的可用性会影响住宅区的质量，预计会被资本化到房价中。对于准业主来说，选择物业会根据他们对物业不同属性的喜好和欣赏程度，但也受制于他们的住房预算。这种限制可能导致当地住房市场按价格区间划分为子市场，公共服务和资源的可用性以及它们的价格在产生的子市场之间可能会有所不同。在这种情况下，公共服务和资源的分配可能高度依赖于公众支付住房的能力，而不是基于他们对每项特定服务或资源的需求、消费或支出。本研究以大伦敦作为大都市区的案例，按价格区间检查了住房子市场的存在，并探讨了子市场之间在可用性、价格和就业机会和环境质量的权衡方面的差异。这项研究的结果表明，大伦敦确实存在按价格区间划分的子市场，并表明住房预算较低的家庭更有可能获得较低的工作机会，但享有更高的环境质量。相对于总房价而言，他们也更有可能为工作机会和环境质量支付更少的费用。