Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Hedonic Price Analysis and Selectivity Bias

  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Panos Pashardes
Article

Abstract

Hedonic valuation of quality attributes can be misleading when theassumption that these attributes are exogenous to sample selection isviolated. This paper considers the simultaneity between hedonic valuationand sample selection in the context of a model of producer behavior andinvestigates empirically the case where land is demanded for use as an inputeither in agricultural production or in touristic development. The empiricalanalysis suggests that failing to correct for sample selection results in abiased valuation of the effect of water salinity on agricultural land.

quality resource environmental valuation sample selection bias separability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Binkley, C. (1978), The Recreation Benefits of Water Quality Improvements: An Analysis of Day Trips in an Urban Setting. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  2. Bockstael, N. E., W. M. Hanemann and I. E. Strand (1987), Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models. Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement CR-811043-01-0.Google Scholar
  3. Caswell, M. F. and D. Zilberman (1986), ‘The Effects ofWell Depth and Land Quality on the Choice of Irrigation Technology’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, 798-811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caulkins, P. P., R. C. Bishop and N. W. Sr. Bouwes (1986), ‘The Travel Cost Model for Lake Recreation: A Comparison of Two Methods for Incorporating Site Quality and Substitution Effects’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, 291-297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clawson, M. (1959), Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation. REF Reprint No. 10. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  6. Clawson, M. and J. Knetsch (1966), Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Deaton, A. and J. Muellbauer (1980), Economics and Consumer Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ervin, D. E. and J. W. Mill (1985), ‘Agricultural Land Markets and Soil Erosion: Policy Relevance and Conceptual Issues’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, 938-942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman, A. M. (1979), The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, K. and R. Barrows (1985), ‘The Impact of Soil Conservation Investment on Land Prices’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, 943-947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griliches, Z., ed. (1971), Price Indexes and Quality Change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hausman, J. A. (1978), ‘Specification Tests in Econometrics’ Econometrica 46, 1251-1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hausman, J., G. Leonard and D. McFadden (1992), A Utility-Consistent, Combined Discrete Choice and Count Data Model: Assessing Recreational Use Losses Due to Natural Resource Damage, Paper presented at the Cambridge Economics Symposium titled ‘Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment’ Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Heckman, J. (1976), ‘The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models’ Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5, 475-492.Google Scholar
  15. Heckman, J. (1979), ‘Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error’ Econometrica 47, 153-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hellerstein, D. and R. Mendelsohn (1992), A Theoretical Foundation for Applying Count Data Models to Measure Recreation Values. Working Paper, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  17. Hotelling, H. (1931), ‘The Economics of Exhaustible Resources’ Journal of Political Economy 39, 1937-1975.Google Scholar
  18. King, D. A. and J. A. Sinden (1988), ‘Influence of Soil Conservation on Farm Land Values’ Land Economics 64, 242-255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koundouri, P. (2000), Three Approaches to Measuring Natural Resource Scarcity: Theory and Application to Groundwater. PhD Thesis, Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Politics, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Koundouri, P., P. Pashardes, T. Swanson and A. Xepapadeas (2003), ‘Economics of Water Management in Developing Countries: Problems, Principles and Policies’ Edward-Elgar Publishers. ISBN: 184376122X.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, J. and M. Hay (1981), ‘Determinants of Hunter Participation: Duck Hunting in the Mississippi Flyway’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63, 677-684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miranowski, J. A., and D. B. Hammes (1984), ‘Implicit Prices of Soil Characteristics for Farmland of Iowa’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 645-649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Russell, C. and J. William (1982), ‘The National Recreational Fishing Benefits of Water Pollution Control’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 9, 328-354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosen, S. (1974), ‘Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product differentiation in Pure Competition’ Journal of Political Economy 2, 34-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, V. K. and W. H. Desvousges (1986), Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijho.Google Scholar
  26. Torell, A., J. Libbin and M. Miller (1990), ‘The Market Value of Water in the Ogallala Aquifer’ Land Economics 66, 163-175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vaughan, W. J. and S. R. Clifford (1982), ‘Valuing a Fishing Day: An Application of a Systematic Varying Parameter Model’ Land Economics 60, 450-463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phoebe Koundouri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Panos Pashardes
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ReadingReading
  2. 2.University College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations