Environmental Management

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 391–398 | Cite as

Hedonic Analysis of Effects of a Nonnative Invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) Lakefront Properties

  • John M. HalsteadEmail author
  • Jodi Michaud
  • Shanna Hallas-Burt
  • Julie P. Gibbs
Environmental Assessment


Introduced species are a major threat to the planet’s ecosystems and one of the major causes of species extinction. This study deals with some of the economic impacts of one of these “invaders,” variable milfoil. Variable milfoil can clog waterbodies, cause boating and swimming hazards, and crowd out native species. This study analyzed the effects of variable milfoil on shoreline property values at selected New Hampshire lakes. Results indicate that property values on lakes experiencing milfoil infestation may be considerably lower than similar properties on uninfested lakes. Results are highly sensitive to specification (variable selection) of the hedonic equation.


Variable milfoil Hedonics Nonnative species 



The authors would like to thank Ju-Chin Huang and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Thanks also for support from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and Amy Smagula. Any remaining errors are those of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Bouwes, N. W., Schneider, R. 1979Procedures in estimating benefits of water quality change.American Journal of Agricultural Economics61535539Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, G. M., Pollakowski, H. 1977Economic valuation of shoreline.Review of Economics and Statistics59272278Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyle, K. P., Poor, J., Taylor, L. O. 1999Estimating the demand for protecting freshwater lakes from eutrophication.American Journal of Agricultural Economics81(5)11191122Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cropper, M., Deck, L. B., McConnell, K. E. 1988On the choice of functional form for hedonic price functions.Review of Economics and Statistics70(4)668675Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Epp, D., Al-Ani, K. S. 1979The effect of water quality on rural nonfarm residential property values.American Economic ReviewAugust529534Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman, A. 1974On estimating air pollution control benefits from land value studies.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management9(1)7483Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freeman, A. M. 1979The benefits of environmental improvement: Theory and practiceJohn Hopkins University Press, Resources for the FutureBaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freeman, A. M. 1993Property value models. Measurement of environmental and resource valuesResources for the FutureWashington DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garrod, G. D., Willis, K. G. 1992Valuing goods’ characteristics: An application of hedonic price method to environmental attributes.Journal of Environmental Management345976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbs, J. P., Halstead, J. M., Boyle, K. J., Huang, J. -C. 2002An hedonic analysis of the effects of lake water clarity on New Hampshire lakefront properties.Agricultural and Resource Economics Review31(1)3946Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graves, P., Murdoch, G. C., Thayer, M. A., Waldman, D. 1988The robustness of hedonic price equations: Urban air quality.Land Economics64(3)220233Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halstead, J. M., Bouvier, R. A., Hansen, B. E. 1997On the issue of functional form choice in hedonic price functions: Further evidence.Environmental Management21(5)759765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lancaster, K. J. 1966A new approach to consumer theory.Journal of Political Economy124(2)132157Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leggett, C. G., Bockstael, N. E. 2000Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land prices.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management39(2)121144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McNeely, J. A., K. R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. A. Mittermeier, and T. B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the world’s biological diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; WRI, CI, WWF-US, and the World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mendelsohn, R. 1984Estimating the structural equations of implicit markets and household production functions.Review of Economics and Statistics66(4)673677Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michael, H. J., K. Boyle, and R. Bouchard. 1996. Water quality affects property prices: A case study of selected Maine lakes. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, Miscellaneous Report 398Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michaels, H. J., Boyle, K., Bouchard, R. 2000Does the measurement of environmental quality affect implicit prices estimated from hedonic models?Land Economics76(2)283298Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michaels, G., Smith, V. K. 1990Market segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: The case of hazardous waste sites.Journal of Urban Economics28223242Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milon, J. W., Gressel, J., Mulkey, D. 1984Hedonic amenity valuation and functional form specification.Land Economics60(4)378387Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morse, L. E., J. T. Kartesz, and L. S. Kutner. 1995. Native vascular plants. In E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac (eds), Our living resources: A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of US plants, animals, and ecosystems. US Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Motavalli, J. 2001. Here comes trouble: Facing up to the invasive-species onslaught. Appalachian Mountain Club. Outdoors 15 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murdoch, J., Thayer, M. 1992Hedonic price estimation of variable urban air quality.Journal of Environmental Economics15(2)143146Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    NH-DES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 1999. Exotic aquatic weed control program: Chronology of events, 1981–1996. Concord, New Hampshire Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    NH-DES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2000. Weed watcher kit 2000. Concord, New HampshireGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelson, J. P. 1978Residential choice, hedonic prices, and the demand for urban air quality.Journal of Urban Economics5357369Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    (OTA) Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pimentel, D. 2002Biological invasions: Economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species.CRC PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D. 1999Environmental and economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States.Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesIthaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosen, S. 1974Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition.Journal of Political Economy81(1)3455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simberloff, D. 1996. Impacts of introduced species in the United States. Consequences The Nature and Implications of Environmental Change 2(2):000 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith, R. L. 1996Ecology and field biologyHarperCollinsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilman, E. 1984External costs of coastal beach pollution: An hedonic approach.Resources for the FutureWashington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Halstead
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jodi Michaud
    • 1
  • Shanna Hallas-Burt
    • 1
  • Julie P. Gibbs
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Resource Economics and DevelopmentUniversity of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824 603-862-3914USA
  2. 2.Regional EconomistU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TexasUSA

Personalised recommendations