Inconsistency in Welfare Inferences from Distance Variables in Hedonic Regressions
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
In hedonic analysis, a common approach for eliciting information regarding the welfare significance of some landmark or (dis)amenity is to control for its distance from each observation. Unfortunately, the effects of distances to amenities on housing prices are generally not consistent indicators of the true price impact of that amenity. Instead these variables serve as proxies for the relative position of every observation in space. Whenever a household considers more than two landmarks in a housing purchase, distance variable parameter estimates are simply the best linear fitted weights for that multiple criteria location decision. Simulations illustrate extreme sensitivity in parameter estimates to the researcher’s choice of landmarks. One strategy models the location of each observation directly instead of its distances to amenities. Using the quadratic controls of longitude and latitude controls for location effects on price to assure unbiased estimates of non-distance variable regressors.
- Brasington, D. M., & Hite, D. (2005). Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis. Journal of Urban Economics, 35, 57–82. CrossRef
- Cameron, T. A. (2006). Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51(1), 26–45. CrossRef
- Deaton, B. J., & Hoehn, J. P. (2004). Hedonic analysis of hazardous waste sites in the presence of other urban disamenities. Environmental Science and Policy, 7(6), 499–508.
- Fik, T. J., Ling, D. C., & Mulligan, G. F. (2003). Modeling spatial variation in housing prices: a variable interaction approach. Real Estate Economics, 31(4), 623–646. CrossRef
- Harrison, D., & Rubinfeld, D. (1978). Hedonic housing prices and demand for clean air. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 5, 81–102. CrossRef
- Ihlanfeldt, K. R., & Taylor, L. O. (2004). Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites: evidence from urban commercial property markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(1), 117–139. CrossRef
- Kasriel, R. A. (1971). Undergraduate topology. Malabar: Krieger.
- Noonan, D. S., Krupka, D. J., & Baden, B. M. (2007). Neighborhood dynamics and price effects of superfund site clean-up. Journal of Regional Science, 47(4), 665–692. CrossRef
- Pace, R. K., & LeSage, J. P. (2008). A spatial Hausman test. Economic Letters, 101(3), 282–284. CrossRef
- Palmquist, R. B. (1984). Estimating the demand for the characteristics of housing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), 394–404. CrossRef
- Palmquist, R. B. (2004). Property value models. In K. G. Mäler & J. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics edition 1 (Vol. 2, pp. 763–819). North-Holland: Elsevier.
- Schmeidler, D. (1969). The nucleolus of a characteristic function game. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 17(6), 1163–1170.
- Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: The MIT.
- Zietz, J., Zietz, E. N., & Sirmans, G. S. (2008). Determinants of house prices: a quantile regression approach. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 37(4), 317–333. CrossRef
- Inconsistency in Welfare Inferences from Distance Variables in Hedonic Regressions
The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics
Volume 43, Issue 3 , pp 385-400
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Sensitivity analysis
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. School of Public & Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA
- 2. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Texas Tech University, Agricultural Sciences Building—Box 42132, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA
- 3. Department of Marketing and Economics, Langdale College of Business Administration, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, 31698-0075, USA