Environmental Management

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 628–644 | Cite as

Valuation of Spatial Configurations and Forest Types in the Southern Appalachian Highlands

Article

Abstract

Site-specific estimates of the values of spatial configuration and forest composition are presented. Amenity values of forest patches are found to vary the most by urban and sprawling development patterns of specific areas and forest types. For example, smaller patches of deciduous forest are more highly valued in the urban and sprawling areas of Greensboro, North Carolina, whereas larger patches of deciduous forest are more highly valued in the urban and sprawling areas of Greenville, South Carolina. Within the Greenville and Greensboro areas, visible landscape complexity is highly valued for deciduous and evergreen forest patches, whereas lower visible landscape complexity, i.e., smoothly trimmed forest patch boundaries, is highly valued for mixed forest patches.

Keywords

Landscape values Amenity resources Forest fragmentation Open space GWR Hedonic model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank David. B. Eastwood for his valuable comments and seminar participants at the 2008 annual meetings of Southern Regional Science Association. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the University of Tennessee.

References

  1. Acharya G, Bennett LL (2001) Valuing open space and land-use patterns in urban watersheds. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(2/3):221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson AT, West SE (2006) Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36:773–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L (1988) Spatial Econometrics. Methods and models. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of Spatial Association (LISA). Geographical Analysis 27:93–115Google Scholar
  5. Baldassare M (1992) Suburban communities. Annual Review of Sociology 18:475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bin O, Polasky S (2004) Effects of flood hazards on property values: evidence before and after hurricane flood. Land Economics 80:490–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blakely EJ (1994) Planning local economic development: theory and practice, 2nd edn. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunsdon C, Fotheringham AS, Charlton ME (1996) Geographically weighed regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis 28(4):281–298Google Scholar
  9. Brunsdon C, Fotheringham AS, Charlton ME (1999) Some notes on parametric significance tests for geographically weighted regression. Journal of Regional Science 39:497–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron A, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Cao TV, Cory DC (1981) Mixed land uses. Land-use externalities and residential property values: a re-evaluation. Annals of Regional Science 16:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho S, Newman DH, Wear DN (2005) Community choices and housing demands: A spatial analysis of the southern Appalachian Highlands. Housing Studies 20:549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho S, Bowker JM, Park WM (2006) Measuring the contribution of water and green space to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially-weighted Hedonic models. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31:485–507Google Scholar
  14. Cho S, Roberts RK (2007) Cure for urban sprawl: measuring the ratio of marginal implicit prices of density-to-lot-size. Review of Agricultural Economics 29:572–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho S, Poudyal NC, Roberts RK (2008) Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecological Economics. In Press: Available onlineGoogle Scholar
  16. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally weighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83:596–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniels T (2001) Smart growth: a new American approach to regional planning. Planning Practice & Research 16:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deller SC, Lledo V (2007) Amenities and rural appalachian growth. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 36(1):107–132Google Scholar
  19. EPA (2000) Air Data—County Emission Map. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/emisdist.html?us~usa~United%20States. Accessed online 10 October 2007
  20. ESRI (2004) GIS and Mapping Software. http://www.esri.com. Accessed online 15 September 2007
  21. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2002) Measuring Sprawl and its Impact. Smart Growth America, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Farber S, Páez A (2007) A systematic investigation of cross-validation in GWR model estimation: empirical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Geographical Systems 9(4):371–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton ME (1998) Geographically weighted regression: a natural evolution of the expansion method for spatial data analysis. Environment and Planning A 30:1905–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C (1999) Local forms of spatial analysis. Geographical Analysis 31:340–358Google Scholar
  25. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton ME (2000) Quantitative geography. Perspectives on spatial data analysis. Sage Publications, Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton ME (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, West Sussex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodman AC (1977) A comparison of block group and census tract data in a Hedonic housing price model. Land Economics 53:483–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1998) Prove it. Brookings Review 16:23–26Google Scholar
  29. Geoghegan J, Weinger L, Bockstael N (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a Hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics 23:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Green GP (2001) Amenities and community economic development: strategies for sustainability. Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy 31(2):61–75Google Scholar
  31. Handy S (2005) Smart growth and the transportation—land use connection: what does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review 28(2):146–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huang Y, Leung Y (2002) Analyzing regional industrialization in Jiangsu province using geographically weighted regression. Journal of Geographical Systems 4:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iwata S, Murao H, Wang Q (2000) Nonparametric assessment of the effects of neighborhood land uses on the residential house values. In: Fomby TB, Hill RC (eds) Advances in econometrics: applying Kernel, nonparametric estimation to economic topics, vol 14. JAI Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  34. Judge GG, Lutkepohl H, Hill RC, Lee T, Griffiths WE (1982) Introduction to the theory and practice of econometrics. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelejian HH, Robinson D (2004) The influence of spatially correlated heteroskedasticity on tests for spatial correlation. Advances in Spatial Econometrics, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. Kestens Y, Theriault M, Rosiers FD (2004) The impact of surrounding land use and vegetation on single-family house prices. Environment and Planning B. Planning and Design 31:539–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim K, Marcouiller DW, Deller SC (2005) Natural amenities and rural development: understanding spatial and distributional attributes. Growth and Change 36(2):275–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lambert DM, McNamara KT, Garrett MI (2006) An application of Spatial Poisson Models to manufacturing investment location analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economic 38(1):105–121Google Scholar
  40. Leung Y, Mei CL, Zhang WX (2000a) Testing for spatial autocorrelation among the residuals of the geographically weighted regression. Environment and Planning A 32(5):871–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leung Y, Mei CL, Zhang WX (2000b) Statistical tests for spatial nonstationarity based on the geographically weighted regression model. Environment and Planning A 32(1):9–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu JY, Liu ML, Tian HQ, Zhuang DF, Zhang ZX, Zhang W, Tang XM, Deng XZ (2005) Spatial and temporal patterns of China’s cropland during 1990–2000: an analysis based on Landsat TM data. Remote Sensing of Environment 98:442–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Economics 76(1):100–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McMillen DP (1996) One hundred and fifty years of land values in Chicago: a nonparametric approach. Journal of Urban Economics 40(1):100–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Monchuk D, Miranowski J (2007) Amenities and non-farm employment growth in the U.S. Midwest: an analysis of recreational amenities in surrounding counties. The Review of Regional Studies 37(2):120–45Google Scholar
  46. MRLC, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2001) USGS Earth Resource Observation and Science (EROS) Center. http://www.mrlc.gov. Accessed online 13 October 2007
  47. Nelson N, Kramer E, Dorfman J, Bumback B (2004) Estimating the economic benefit of landscape pattern: an Hedonic analysis of spatial landscape indices. Institute of Ecology, The University of GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  48. Páez A, Uchida T, Miyamoto K (2002a) A general framework for estimation and inference of geographically weighted regression models: 1. Location-specific Kernel bandwidths and a test for locational heterogeneity. Environment and Planning A 34(4):733–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Páez A, Uchida T, Miyamoto K (2002b) A general framework for estimation and inference of geographically weighted regression models: 2. Spatial Association and model specification tests. Environment and Planning A 34(5):883–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Páez A, Long F, Farber S (2008) Moving Window approaches for Hedonic price estimation: an empirical comparison of modeling techniques. Urban Studies. In PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Palmer JF (2004) Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rasker R, Hansen AJ (2000) Natural amenities and population growth in the Greater Yellowstone region. Human Ecology Review 7:30–40Google Scholar
  53. Rempel RS, Carr AP (2003) Patch Analyst extension for ArcView version 3Google Scholar
  54. RTI (2005) Rural Technology Initiative—LMS Analyst. http://www.ruraltech.org. Accessed online 15 October 2007
  55. Skaburskis A (2000) Housing prices and housing density: do higher prices make cities more compact? Canadian Journal of Regional Science 23:455–487Google Scholar
  56. Tian G, Yang Z, Zhang Y (2007) The spatio-temporal dynamic pattern of rural residential land in China in the 1990s using Landsat TM images and GIS. Environmental Management 40:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. U.S. Census (2000) U.S. Census Bureau—USA QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed online 15 September 2007
  58. Weitz J (1999) From quiet revolution to smart growth: state growth management programs, 1960 to 1999. Journal of Planning Literature 14(2):268–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wheeler D, Tiefelsdorf M (2005) Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression. Journal of Geographical Systems 7:161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu J (2006) Environmental amenities, urban Sprawl, and community characteristics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52:527–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu D, Wu C (2004) Understanding population segregation from Landsat ETM + imagery: a geographically weighted regression approach. GIScience and Remote Sensing 41(3):187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations