115, -, 320 3, -,0, 0, 222,/3- Conjoint 3.., 1,/-0... 0 - Analysis 1, 1/3./. 3 / /-, - 0-,.- ha, /. 1
116,/ / - /-, /1 /2 0 / 0- - 0 2,, / 3 ing - 0. - / - - 0 -. 1 -, 2, 3, - - 3 3 31, 3,,. ISO. /.. 0 -,. ISO., 0-
117, - 4.,3.4.,,43 3- -.4- /3,34. -..240 3 14 /4/ 2 4. 3 14 / 14/. /41 3.4, 21.-4-,, -4.,1 4, 4 1 4 /,,,,1 3.., 3- -..- -.. 3 1. 3 1., 21 -.-.- /3,3..,3... / 1/. //. 1 -..2. 0,, -.. 2... /1.,,3. -0-0.
118,/ - -0,4/,/ 40 /4-33 034- / 14,.2 0041, 04 / 04 / 043 -, 4,. 4, 2 4,21 4,/ 4 1, 4. 3/ 1,4, /, 1.43.- 0.4, -2.4,3.4-3 -4.,.4. 0,4 0 24,/ 34-0 143 3-4.,1 4,- 4 01 4,... -.,21 33 / 03. - -0,./ / -,., 1., 1 -..,-/ 2. 3 / / -. -, 2 0. /, - 0.,,,...,,..,., 1.,./. / / /.,1 3/ 1,., -2..,/ 3. -
119 /, -. / 5,5-5.5 /5 5 - / 1, 2 - / 4 4 04,4-4 -.4.4 04,4 04 4 4 4 1 0 -. 4 4,4/,4/,/4.,4/,4/ /4,4/ 14/ 4 4 4, /, 4 4,4 4 /4 4 4,4 4 4 4 4 4 / discrete 1 0,,, Full-Concept Method Full Profile Rating 0 /
120,/, -.,5 / 0 1 2 5 5,5 0 23 /- -0 Factor Level Averaged Averaged Averaged importance Utility importance Utility importance Utility F -4-0 4-- -4,1 4/1, -41, 403. F, 4-- 4/1, 403. F, 04,1 4.00 04.0 4..0 /4.. 4/,12 F,, 4.00 4..0 4/,12 F- -43 4-/1-420 4,./.40 42-- F-, 4-/1 4,./ 42-- F. 04. 4.. 14. 4.1//,4-- 4/,2 F., 4.. 4.1// 4/,2 F/.4-. 43,, -34-1 402..4./ 4///0 5 F/, 4--, 421. 431,,5 F/- 4/3 433. 40/,2 CONSTANT.43..4,02.431, Person s R 43/- 43.- 432- Kendall s tau 43. 42.- 43,3 /4- /4. /4, /4. /4-04, - 04, 04, 04-..4.4- -4 /.4.4.4. 0.4.4.4 1.40.4/ /4 2,4,,4-41 Max Utility BTL Logit Max Utility BTL Logit Max Utility BTL Logit -4-/.42/ 340-42.432 343 4-3.4-24-,, 34.. /4-.4 14..40.,4-240 14,,432 - -143, 14,/ -4-0 -041 140-43,.-40 140, --4,,. 04/ 4-. -4/0 341 430 /41.,412 241..4-- / -4. 4., 4.1,40. 4,, 4-3 0401,4-42 0,41 41 4, -41 43 4-1 4 41 34// 1-431,41-14.2-4,1,4.0 041 043. -423 413 2-41 04-4- -43, 04-3 -42/ 4.421 4
121 - Max Utility BTL Bradley-Terry-Luce Logit. 3/- 2. 3. 2 - Max Utility -1. 3, BTL / 1.,/ Logit -.-0 Averaged importance,..-. 0.,1 0.. -. 3 -. -0. 3.-. 2.- -3.-1 1.. 0..0.--.-- -. 20..00 -.,1..00.-/1.-/1./1,..../1,......0...0. 3,,,.,./. --,,,.,././3..1//..1//
122,/. 02,. 21.. /,2,,. 33..///0,.31,,,. 0/,2 - - Max Utility BTL Logit, - Max Utility -0. 1 BTL 1. 0 Logit -. 3,, - Max Utility BTL Logit - Max Utility.-.0BTL. 32-1. 0, Logit --.,,. 3,3.../ /.....0 -. 1,.,.--.03..03../,12./,12.2--..2--. /,2
123 1 5 43,,,4,/-.4-. 143,.4-. 5,-41/ A.,4 23 5 4--, 43,/3.4-. 143, 04/3 5,5 04/3 B 04,1,5 4/3 4.4-. 143, 4 402,4,0, -34-1 34.- -34-1 5,/4/ A -3411 /- 5 421. 41-, -34-1 34.-.4,, 5,5.4,, B 14-,5 433. 4-34-1 34.- 4 4///0-4,2...4./ -42/..4./ 5,4, A.34.3 5 431, 41/..4./ -42/,.4,. 5,5,.4,. B.4,/ -0,5 40/,2 4..4./ -42/ 4 2 23 /- -0 A.,4 B 04- A -342 B 14- A.34/ B.4, /0,4/ 02/4 /2/4-01340 2/4-3241 2-142 31,42 /,141 0/.40 //4, 01140 3--4 5/14-31.4/ 5324 0134 10.4, 03/43 04, /0/43 0-042 /1343 /240 0,24 2334 0,42 50/41 0214- /1,42 A.,. 0,2. B 0.-,,, 233. A -3. 2 0,. 2 B 1.- 0/1,. A 3.3./ 021. - B.., /1,. 2 1 B 1-. 0/1,. 1 A.3/. 021. - //.. A B 2 2.
124,/ /.., -, /
125, 3. 3/,. -3 /,, - 0 rating-based conjoint RBC choice-based conjoint CBC - Full Profile Rating, pair-wise rating, / choice experiment. 3 1 discrete 1 linear -1 ideal antiideal /. / 1, 2 Max Utility,,/ 1., 0-3. 3..- BTL Bradley-Terry-Luce 1 /...- 0. 3-0 Logit /,. 3,, 0 1 0213,,. 32, 3-,. 33,-.,., 2,/,
126,/ Resident Evaluation for Community Planning Plan based on The Resources Circulation A Case Study of Nagai City, Yamagata Prefecture Mitsuhiro T ERAUCHI (Tokyo University of Agriculture) Nagai City, Yamagata Prefecture has developed regional environment maintenance community planning by the resident participation and region resources cycloid community planning by the resident participation. Based on the result of investigation of cyclical system of regional resources, the main issue of this study is to clarify inhabitant evaluation of community planning plan based on the resources circulation for Nagai City. In addition, the directivity of community planning based on the resources circulation is clarified. As an analysis procedure, Conjoint analysis is applied, in which the evaluation of the preference of the multiattribute is possible. The major results of the analysis can be summarized as follows. ) For the citizen, it is necessary to present a concrete participation form.,) As a participation form, it is mainly made to be volunteerism. -) From the citizen who practices community planning based on the resources circulation at present, it is possible to receive the funding..) For the citizen, it is possible that the administration puts a tax on community planning by the presentation of the concrete community planning plan. /) In the presentation of community planning plan, all presentations are desirable for core industrial sector, directivity, region landscape, subject, fund establishment. 0) In the presentation of community planning plan, it is necessary that directivity, region landscape, item on the fund establishment, are all clarified as to content.