The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 911–934 | Cite as

Identifying priority target areas for the Knoxville–Knox County hillside and ridgetop protection plan: using the value of visual amenity during the real estate boom of 2002–2007 and the recession of 2008

  • Matthew Chadourne
  • Seong-Hoon ChoEmail author
  • Roland K. Roberts
Original Paper


In support of the Joint City–County Taskforce on Ridge, Slope, and Hillside Development and Protection, the goal of this research was to identify areas within Knox County, Tennessee, where views of hillsides and ridges were most valued and how those values were affected by different economic climates. The amenity values added to houses by their views were quantified for houses sold during a housing boom and again during a recession. The results of this study show that forest views add significant value to homes during both periods. However, the amenity value added to houses decreased 13 % from the boom period to the recession period, implying that forest views decrease in value when there is an economic recession. Additionally, the value of the view of barren/scrub land, which was not significant in the boom period, became significant during the recession, reducing house value almost $112 per visible acre and showing that while consumers are less inclined to pay more for views of forest, they are also less willing to endure disamenity views during a recession. When the forest land values were mapped to highlight planned areas with consistently high visual amenity values across both periods, some areas exhibited amenity values in excess of $100 per visible acre of forest land. The areas with the highest amenity values of forest land views roughly correspond to the areas with the highest disamenity values of barren/scrub view. These results imply that these areas represent the highest potential return on investment for preservation and reforestation efforts.

JEL Classification

Q51 R14 



Chadourne, Cho, and Roberts are, respectively, graduate research assistant, associate professors, and professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the University of Tennessee.


  1. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acharya G, Bennett LL (2001) Valuing open space and land-use patterns in urban watersheds. J Real Estate Financ Econ 22:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastian CT, McLeod DM, Germino MJ, Reiners WA, Blasko BJ (2002) Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data. Ecol Econ 40(3):337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop JT (1999) Valuing forests: a review of methods and applications in developing countries. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.Google Scholar
  5. Brasington DM, Hite D (2005) Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis. Reg Sci Urban Econ 35(1):57–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Case B, Pollakowski HO, Watcher SM (1991) On choosing among house price index methodologies. Real Estate Econ 19:286–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho S, Kim SG, Roberts RK (2011a) Values of environmental landscape amenities during the 2000–2006 real estate boom and subsequent 2008 recession. J Environ Plan Manag 54:71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho S, Lambert DM, Kim SG, Roberts RK, Park WM (2011b) Relationship between value of open space and distance from housing locations within a community. J Geogr Syst 13:319–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho S, Bowker JM, Park WM (2006) Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially weighted hedonic models. J Agric Resour Econ 31:485–507Google Scholar
  10. Cho S, Poudyal NC, Roberts RK (2007) Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol Econ 66:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cho S, Kim SG, Roberts RK, Jung S (2009) Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the southern Appalachian highlands. Ecol Econ 68:2646–2657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clapp JM, Giaccotto C (1998) Price indices based on the hedonic repeat-sales method: application to the housing market. J Real Estate Financ Econ 16:5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally weighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. J Am Stat Assoc 83(403):596–610Google Scholar
  14. Cohen JP, Coughlin CC (2008) Spatial hedonic models of airport noise, proximity, and housing prices. J Reg Sci 48(5):859–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conway D, Li CQ, Wolch J, Kahle C, Jerrett M (2010) A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. J Real Estate Financ Econ 41:150–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donila M (2011) Burchett opposes Knox hillside plan. Knoxville News Sentinel, 28 Feb 2011.Google Scholar
  17. ESRI (Environmental System Research Institute) (2008) ArcGIS 9.3. Software.Google Scholar
  18. FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Agency) (2011) Online housing price index calculator. Available at: Accessed 15 Feb 2011
  19. Florax R, Rey S (1995) The impacts of misspecified spatial interaction in linear regression models. In: Anselin L, Florax R (eds) New directions in spatial econometrics. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–135Google Scholar
  20. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C (2000) Quantitative geography: perspectives on spatial data analysis. Sage Publications Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Geoghegan J (2002) The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy 9:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol Econ 23:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen J (2009) Australian house prices: a comparison of hedonic and repeat-sales measures. Econ Rec 85:132–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hetzel RL (2009) Monetary policy in the 2008–2009 recession. Fed Reserve Bank of Richmond Econ Q 95(2):201–233Google Scholar
  26. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78:465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iwata S, Murao H, Wang Q (2000) Nonparametric assessment of the effects of neighborhood land uses on residential house values. Adv Econom 14:229–258Google Scholar
  28. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1998) A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J Real Estate Financ Econ 17(1):99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. KGIS (Knox County, Knoxville Utilities Board Geographic Information System) (2010) Online database. Available at: Accessed 15 Dec 2010
  30. Lee C, Linneman P (1998) Dynamics of the greenbelt amenity effect on the land market: the case of Seoul’s greenbelt. Real Estate Econ 26:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis DJ, Provencher B, Butsic V (2009) The dynamic effects of open space conservation policies on residential development density. J Environ Econ Manag 57(3):239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ 76:100–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MPC (Knox County, Metropolitan Planning Commission) (2009) The Knoxville/Knox county hillside and ridgetop protection plan. Draft policy proposal. Available at: Accessed 22 Feb 2010
  34. MPC (Knox County, Metropolitan Planning Commission) (2010) GIS shapefiles of all parcels in the county with attributes provided on CD, January 2010.Google Scholar
  35. Newburn D, Berck P, Merenlender AM (2006) Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: targeting strategies for land conservation. Am J Agric Econ 88(1):28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olshansky RB (2007) Regulation of hillside development in the United States. Environ Manag 22:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palmquist RB, Danielson LE (1989) A hedonic study of the effects of erosion control and drainage on farmland values. Am J Agric Econ 7:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palmquist RB, Smith VK (2002) The use of hedonic property value techniques for policy and litigation. In: Tietenberg T, Folmer H (eds) The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2002/2003. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 115–164Google Scholar
  39. Peters JW (2006) Sales slow for homes new and old. New York Times, 26 July 2006.Google Scholar
  40. Riddel M (2001) A dynamic approach to estimating hedonic prices for environmental goods: an application to open space purchase. Land Econ 77:494–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sander H, Polasky S, Haight RG (2010) The value of urban tree cover: a hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota counties, Minnesota. USA. Ecol Econ 69(8):1646–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith V, Poulos C, Kim H (2002) Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resour Energy Econ 24:107–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tennessee Spatial Data Server (2011) GIS map of Knox County, Tennessee. Available at: Accessed 19 March 2011
  44. Tse RYC (2002) Estimating neighbourhood effects in house prices: towards a new hedonic model approach. Urban Stud 39(7):1165–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2001) National land-cover data base (NLCD). Available at: Accessed 22 Feb 2010
  46. US Census Bureau (2010) Houses sold by region, report. Available at: Accessed 23 Aug 2010
  47. Wooldridge J (2003) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Thompson and Southwestern, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Chadourne
    • 1
  • Seong-Hoon Cho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roland K. Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations