Expert opinion versus actual transaction evidence in the valuation of non-market amenities

被引:9
|
作者
Cotteleer, Geerte [1 ]
van Kooten, G. Cornelis [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wageningen & Res Ctr, Environm Econ & Nat Resources Grp, NL-6700 EW Wageningen, Netherlands
关键词
Assessed values; Hedonic pricing; Spatial econometrics; GIS; Urban-rural fringe; OPEN SPACE; RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; FUNCTIONAL FORM; CHOICE; FARMLAND; MODEL; CONSERVATION; PROXIMITY; WATER; LAND;
D O I
10.1016/j.econmod.2011.02.041
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Actual property values are overwhelmingly employed as a dependent variable in hedonic pricing models. Yet, assessed property values are generally more readily available than actual sales values and have, in some studies, been used in lieu of market prices. In this study, we compare estimates of different non-market amenity values based on actual transactions and assessed values. We estimate a Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) model with two hedonic price equations, one with actual market values as the dependent variable and the other with assessed property values, and compare the resulting estimates of shadow prices for open space amenities. We also take into account spatial autocorrelation and combine Method of Moment estimates of the spatial parameters in both equations to create our test statistic. The results indicate that we cannot accept the hypothesis that the impacts of open space on property values are the same for actual sales and assessed values. Moreover, we do observe some differences between the distributions of assessed versus sales values, although the difference between the sizes of open space effects measured within the two equations is rather limited. Thus, while this one study is insufficient to enable one to draw definitive conclusions, there remains the possibility that policy makers cannot reliably base decisions on amenity values obtained from a hedonic model using assessed values. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:32 / 40
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Political instability and non-market valuation: Evidence from Croatia
    Kountouris, Yiannis
    Nakic, Zoran
    Sauer, Johannes
    [J]. RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2015, 41 : 19 - 39
  • [2] TRANSACTION COSTS IN NON-MARKET ECONOMIES
    SACKS, SR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT, 1988, 144 (05): : 865 - 870
  • [3] Non-market valuation of construction waste recycling: Evidence from China
    Li, Shuangshuang
    Yi, Xin
    Liu, Mocun
    Lu, JiaHui
    Qiu, Hui
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2023, 412
  • [4] The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation
    Laing, Tim
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY, 2012, 30 (04): : 748 - 749
  • [5] Special Issue: Non-market valuation Introduction
    Signorello, Giovanni
    Meyerhoff, Juergen
    Moloney, Richard
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOREST ECONOMICS, 2012, 18 (04) : 258 - 258
  • [6] Valuation of the non-market benefits of groundwater protection
    Lundhede, T
    Hasler, B
    [J]. River Basin Management III, 2005, 83 : 237 - 246
  • [7] The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation
    Laing, Tim
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY, 2012, 30 (01): : 186 - 187
  • [8] Issues in improvement of the valuation of non-market goods
    Tolley, GS
    Fabian, RG
    [J]. RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 1998, 20 (02) : 75 - 83
  • [9] The importance of social learning for non-market valuation
    Grainger, Daniel
    Stoeckl, Natalie
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2019, 164
  • [10] The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation
    Pearson, Leonie
    [J]. AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2012, 19 (01) : 69 - 70