Empirical Economics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 5–34 | Cite as

Errors in variables and spatial effects in hedonic house price models of ambient air quality

Original Paper

Abstract

In the valuation of the effect of improved air quality through the estimation of hedonic models of house prices, the potential “errors in variables” aspect of the interpolated air pollution measures is often ignored. In this paper, we assess the extent to which this may affect the resulting empirical estimates for marginal willingness to pay (MWTP), using an extensive sample of over 100,000 individual house sales for 1999 in the South Coast Air Quality Management District of Southern California. We take an explicit spatial econometric perspective and account for spatial dependence and endogeneity using recently developed Spatial 2SLS estimation methods. We also account for both spatial autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity in the error terms, using the Kelejian–Prucha HAC estimator. Our results are consistent across different spatial weights matrices and different kernel functions and suggest that the bias from ignoring the endogeneity in interpolated values may be substantial.

Keywords

Spatial econometrics Hedonic models HAC estimation Endogeneity Air quality valuation Real estate markets 

JEL Classification

C21 Q51 Q53 R31 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews DW (1991) Heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica 59:817–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (1980) Estimation methods for spatial autoregressive structures. Regional Science Dissertation and Monograph Series, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Anselin L (1998) GIS research infrastructure for spatial analysis of real estate markets. J Housing Res 9(1):113–133Google Scholar
  5. Anselin L (2001a) Rao’s score test in spatial econometrics. J Stat Plan Inf 97:113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anselin L (2001b) Spatial econometrics. In: Baltagi B (ed) A companion to theoretical econometrics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 310–330Google Scholar
  7. Anselin L (2001c) Spatial effects in econometric practice in environmental and resource economics. Am J Agric Econ 83(3):705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anselin L (2002) Under the hood. Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agric Econ 27(3):247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Anselin L (2006) Spatial econometrics. In: Mills T, Patterson K (eds) Palgrave handbook of econometrics, vol 1, Econometric Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 901–969Google Scholar
  10. Anselin L, Bera A (1998) Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to spatial econometrics. In: Ullah A, Giles DE (ed) Handbook of applied economic statistics. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 237–289Google Scholar
  11. Anselin L, Kelejian HH (1997) Testing for spatial error autocorrelation in the presence of endogenous regressors. Int Reg Sci Rev 20:153–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Anselin L, Le Gallo J (2006) Interpolation of air quality measures in hedonic house price models: spatial aspects. Spat Econ Anal 1:31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Anselin L, Bera A, Florax R, Yoon M (1996) Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26:77–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Basu S, Thibodeau TG (1998) Analysis of spatial autocorrelation in house prices. J Real Estate Finance Economics 170(1):61–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bayer P, Keohane N, Timmins C (2006) Migration and hedonic valuation: the case of air quality. NBER Working Papers Series, Paper No. 12106Google Scholar
  16. Beron KJ, Murdoch JC, Thayer MA (1999) Hierarchical linear models with application to air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin. Am J Agric Econ 81:1123–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Beron K, Murdoch J, Thayer M (2001) The benefits of visibility improvement: New evidence from Los Angeles metropolitan area. J Real Estate Finance Econ 22(2–3):319–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Beron KJ, Hanson Y, Murdoch JC, Thayer MA (2004) Hedonic price functions and spatial dependence: implications for the demand for urban air quality. In: Anselin L, Florax RJ, Rey SJ (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools and applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  19. Bourassa S, Hamelink F, Hoesli M, MacGregor B (1999) Defining residential submarkets. J Housing Econ 8:160–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boyle MA, Kiel KA (2001) A survey of house price hedonic studies of the impact of environmental externalities. J Real Estate Lit 9:117–144Google Scholar
  21. Brasington DM, Hite D (2005) Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis. Reg Sci Urban Econ 35:57–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brueckner JK (2003) Strategic interaction among governments: An overview of empirical studies. Int Reg Sci Rev 26(2):175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Chay KY, Greenstone M (2005) Does air quality matter? evidence form the housing market. J Polit Econ 113(2):376–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Conley TG (1999) GMM estimation with cross-sectional dependence. J Econom 92:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dubin R, Pace RK, Thibodeau TG (1999) Spatial autoregression techniques for real estate data. J Real Estate Lit 7:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman AM III (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values, theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedman M (1957) A theory of the consumption function. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Gillen K, Thibodeau TG, Wachter S (2001) Anisotropic autocorrelation in house prices. J Real Estate Finance Econ 23(1):5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graves P, Murdoch JC, Thayer MA, Waldman D (1988) The robustness of hedonic price estimation: urban air quality. Land Econ 64:220–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall P, Patil P (1994) Properties of nonparametric estimators of autocovariance for stationary random fields. Prob Theory Related Fields 99:399–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Härdle W (1990) Applied nonparametric regression. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison D, Rubinfeld DL (1978) Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. J Environ Econ Manage 5:81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 Finance Econ 17(1): 99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2006a) HAC estimation in a spatial framework. J Econom (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  37. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2006b) Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelejian HH, Robinson DP (1993) A suggested method of estimation for spatial interdependent models with autocorrelated errors, and an application to a county expenditure model. Papers Reg Sci 72: 297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR, Yuzefovich Y (2004) Instrumental variable estimation of a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances: large and small sample results. In: LeSage JP, Pace RK (eds) Advances in econometrics: spatial and spatiotemporal econometrics. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, pp 163–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim CW, Phipps T, Anselin L (2003) Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach. J Environ Econ Manage 45:24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee L-F (2003) Best spatial two-stage least squares estimators for a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Econom Rev 22:307–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee L-F (2006) GMM and 2SLS estimation of mixed regressive, spatial autoregressive models. J Econom (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  43. Lin X, Lee L-F (2005) GMM estimation of spatial autoregressive models with unknown heteroskedasticity. Working paper, The Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  44. Manski CF (2000) Economic analysis of social interactions. J Econ Perspect 14(3):115–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moulton BR (1990) An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro units. Rev Econ Stat 72:334–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newey WK, West KD (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55:703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pace RK, LeSage JP (2004) Spatial statistics and real estate. J Real Estate Finance Econ 29:147–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pace KR, Barry R, Clapp JM, Rodriguez M (1998) Spatial autocorrelation and neighborhood quality. J Real Estate Finance Econ 17(1):15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palmquist RB (1991) Hedonic methods. In: Braden JB, Kolstad CD (eds) Measuring the demand for evironmental quality. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 77–120Google Scholar
  50. Ridker R, Henning J (1967) The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution. Rev Econ Stat 49:246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simonoff JS (1996) Smoothing methods in statistics. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  52. Small KA, Steimetz S (2006) Spatial hedonics and the willingness to pay for residential amenities. Economics working paper no. 05-06-31, University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith VK, Huang J-C (1993) Hedonic models and air pollution: 25 years and counting. Environ Resource Econ 3:381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith VK, Huang J-C (1995) Can markets value air quality? a meta-analysis of hedonic property value models. J Polit Econ 103:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith VK, Sieg H, Banzhaf HS, Walsh RP (2004) General equilibrium benefits for environmental improvements: projected ozone reductions under EPA’s Prospective Analysis for the Los Angeles air basin. J Environ Econ Manage 47:559–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Staiger D, Stock JH (1997) Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3):557–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White H (1980) A heteroskedastic-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geographical SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Spatial Analysis Laboratory (SAL) and Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.School of Geographical SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations