Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 613–642 | Cite as

Hedonic Valuation with Translating Amenities: Mountain Pine Beetles and Host Trees in the Colorado Front Range

  • Jed Cohen
  • Christine E. Blinn
  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Thomas P. Holmes
  • Klaus MoeltnerEmail author


In hedonic valuation studies the policy-relevant environmental quality attribute of interest is often costly to measure, especially under pronounced spatial and temporal variability. However, in many cases this attribute affects home prices and consumer preferences solely through its impact on a readily observable, spatially delineated, and time-invariant feature of the physical landscape. We label such a feature a “translating amenity.” We show that under certain conditions changes in the marginal effect of such amenities on home values over time can be used to draw inference on the implicit price of the unobserved environmental quality of interest. We illustrate this approach in the context of a repeat-sales model and the recently intensified outbreak of the Mountain Pine Beetle in the Colorado Front Range.


Forest pests Property values Repeat-sales model  Wildland–urban interface 


  1. Anselin L, Lozano-Gracia N (2008) Errors in variables and spacial effects in hedonic house price models of ambient air quality. Empir Econ 34:5–34Google Scholar
  2. Bentz B, Jacques R, Fettig C, Hansen E, Hayes J, Hicke J, Kelsey R, Negrn J, Seybold S (2010) Climate change and bark beetles of the Western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60:602–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyle K, Kuminoff N, Zhang C, Devanney M, Bell K (2010) Does a property-specific environmental health risk create a “neighborhood” housing price stigma? Arsenic in private well water. Water Resour Res 46(W03):507Google Scholar
  4. Carbone J, Hallstrom D, Smith V (2006) Can natural experiments measure behavioral responses to environmental risk? Environ Resour Econ 33:273–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll A, Taylor S, Régnière J, Safranyik L (2004) Effects of climate change on range expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. In: Shore T, Brooks J, Stone J (eds) Mountain pine beetle symposium: challenges and solutions, October 30–31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Center, Information report BC-X-399, pp 223–232Google Scholar
  6. Case B, Colwell P, Leishman C, Watkins C (2006) The impact of environmental contamination on condo prices: a hybrid repeat-sales/hedonic approach. Real Estate Econ 34:77–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chau K, Wong S, Yiu C (2005) Adjusting for nonlinear age effects in the repeat sales index. J Real Estate Finance Econ 31:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho SH, Roberts R, Kim S (2011) Negative externalities on property values resulting from water impairment: the case of the Pigeon River watershed. Ecol Econ 70:2390–2399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dastrup S, Graff Zivin J, Costa D, Kahn M (2012) Understanding the solar home price premium: electricity generation and “green” social status. Eur Econ Rev 56:961–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daufresne M, Boët P (2007) Climate change impacts on structure and diversity of fish communities in rivers. Glob Change Biol 13:2467–2478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eidenshink J, Schwind B, Brewer K, Zhu Z, Quayle B, Howard S (2007) A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecol 3:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans M, Hastings N, Peacock B (2000) Statistical distributions, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Highway Administration (2014) Highway traffic and construction noise—regulation and guidance. Accessed 27 May 2014
  14. Francke M (2010) Repeat sale index for thin markets: a structured time series approach. J Real Estate Finance Econ 41:24–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman A (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Goetzmann W, Spiegel M (1995) Non-temporal components of residential real estate appreciation. Rev Econ Stat 77:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. von Haefen R (2007) Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models. J Environ Econ Manag 54:15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen W, Naughton H (2013) The effects of a spruce bark beetle outbreak and wildfires on property values in the wildland-urban interface of south-central Alaska, USA. Ecol Econ 96:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes T, Murphy E, Bell K (2006) Exotic forest insects and residential property values. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35(1):155–166Google Scholar
  20. Holmes T, Murphy E, Bell K, Royle D (2010) Property value impacts of hemlock wooly adelgid in residential forests. For Sci 56:529–540Google Scholar
  21. Kim C, Phipps T, Anselin L (2003) Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach. J Environ Econ Manag 45:24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kovacs K, Holmes T, Englin J, Alexander J (2011) The dynamic response of housing values to a forest invasive disease: evidence from a sudden oak death infestation. Environ Resour Econ 49:445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krinsky I, Robb A (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larimer County Assessor (2013b) 2011 Larimer County mill levies. Accessed 8 Apr 2013
  25. Larimer County Treasurer (2013a) Common questions about property taxes. Accessed 8 Apr 2013
  26. Leggett C, Bockstael N (2000) Evidence of the effect of water quality on residential land prices. J Environ Econ Manag 39:121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Man G (2012) Major forest insect and disease conditions in the United States: 2011. Technical report FS-1000, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendelsohn R, Hellerstein D, Huguenin M, Unsworth R, Brazee R (1992) Measuring hazardous waste damages with panel data models. J Environ Econ Manag 22:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murdoch P, Baron J, Miller T (2000) Potential effects of climate change on surface-water quality in North America. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Interagency Fire Center (2012) Total wildland fires and acres (1960–2009). Accessed 3 Apr 2013
  31. Neill H, Hassenzahl D, Assane D (2007) Estimating the effect of air quality: spatial versus traditional hedonic models. South Econ J 73:1088–1111Google Scholar
  32. Palmquist R (1980) Alternative techniques for developing real estate price indexes. Rev Econ Stat 62:442–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmquist R (1982) Measuring environmental effects on property values without hedonic regressions. J Urban Econ 11:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmquist R (1991) Hedonic methods. In: Braden J, Kolstad C (eds) Measuring the demand for environmental quality. Elsevier, North Holland, pp 71–120Google Scholar
  35. Palmquist R (2005) Property value models. In: Mäler KG, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, vol II. Elsevier, North Holland, pp 763–819Google Scholar
  36. Phaneuf DJ, Smith V, Palmquist R, Pope J (2008) Integrating property value and local recreation models to value ecosystem services in urban watersheds. Land Econ 84(3):361–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pope J (2008) Buyer information and the hedonic: the impact of a seller disclosure on the implicit price for airport noise. J Urban Econ 63:498–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Price J, McCollum D, Berrens R (2010) Insect infestation and residential property values: a hedonic analysis of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. For Policy Econ 12:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruefenacht B, Finco M, Nelson M, Czaplewski R, Helmer E, Blackard J, Holden G, Lister A, Salajanu D, Weyermann D, Winterberger K (2008) Conterminous U.S. and Alaska forest type mapping using forest inventory and analysis data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens 74(11):1379–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sims C, Aadland D, Finnoff D (2010) A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 34:2407–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stetler K, Tyron V, Calkin D (2010) The effects of wildfire and environmental amenities on property values in Northwest Montana, USA. Ecol Econ 69:2233–2243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. US Environmental Protection Agency (2014a) Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Accessed May 27 2014
  43. US Environmental Protection Agency (2014b) Particulate matter (PM) standards. Accessed 27 May 2014
  44. US Environmental Protection Agency (2014c) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standards. Accessed May 27 2014
  45. US Environmental Protection Agency (2014d) Watershed priorities, Lake Tahoe, CA & NV. Accessed May 27 2014
  46. USDA Forest Service (2012a) Forest type groups of the United States. Accessed Apr 3 2013
  47. USDA Forest Service (2012b) Monitoring trends in burn severity. Accessed 4 Apr 2013
  48. USDA Forest Service (2012c) Wildland fire decision support system. Accessed 4 Apr 2013
  49. Whitehead P, Wilby R, Battarbee R, Kernan M, Wade A (2009) A review of potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality. Hydrol Sci 54:101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wooldridge JM (2012) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jed Cohen
    • 1
  • Christine E. Blinn
    • 2
  • Kevin J. Boyle
    • 1
  • Thomas P. Holmes
    • 3
  • Klaus Moeltner
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Resources and Environmental ConservationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest ServiceResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations