IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/foi/wpaper/2016_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Robin Hood in reverse? Assessing distributional effects of green space policy using a second-stage hedonic house price model

Author

Listed:
  • Cathrine Ulla Jensen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Toke Emil Panduro

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Thomas Hedemark Lundhede

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen
    Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen)

  • Kathrine von Graevenitz

    (Department of Environmental and Resource Economics, Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW))

  • Bo Jellesmark Thorsen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen
    Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

We analyse the housing markets in a suburb north of the Danish capital Copenhagen. We find that households sort themselves in relation to nature area. The concentration of affluent households decreases rapidly with distance to nature. This indicates that a welfare change generated by a change in the supply of urban nature could be skewed due to a systematic difference in preference that is highly correlated with demographics. In this paper we assess if and to what extent this is the case. We conduct a second-stage hedonic house price study and recover household-specific preferences for availability of nature. Preference parameters are identified locally through restrictions on household utility-functions. First, we assess the relation between demographic factors and household WTP for nature. Households with higher incomes and wealth have a 0.9% higher WTP per 1.000 EUR and this figure is slightly higher at the low end of the distribution. Interestingly, education mainly impacts the centre of the distribution and impacts the tails less. We conduct a policy simulation to illustrate how heterogeneity in preferences and local supply of nature areas can drive the outcome of a welfare economic assessment of a policy change. Our study contributes to the discussion of the distributional aspects of environmental benefits. This is a discussion mainly fuelled by stated-preference methods, and we contribute with results based on a revealed-preference method. Our results show that socio-economic distribution is a relevant factor to consider when evaluating nature area policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Toke Emil Panduro & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede & Kathrine von Graevenitz & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2016. "Robin Hood in reverse? Assessing distributional effects of green space policy using a second-stage hedonic house price model," IFRO Working Paper 2016/07, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:foi:wpaper:2016_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/WPpdf/WP2016/IFRO_WP_2016_07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brett Day & Ian Bateman & Iain Lake, 2007. "Beyond implicit prices: recovering theoretically consistent and transferable values for noise avoidance from a hedonic property price model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 211-232, May.
    2. Sudip Chattopadhyay, 1999. "Estimating the Demand for Air Quality: New Evidence Based on the Chicago Housing Market," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 22-38.
    3. David M. Brasington & Diane Hite, 2005. "Demand for Environmental Quality: A Spatial Hedonic Approach," Departmental Working Papers 2005-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    4. Noelwah R. Netusil & Sudip Chattopadhyay & Kent F. Kovacs, 2010. "Estimating the Demand for Tree Canopy: A Second-Stage Hedonic Price Analysis in Portland, Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 281-293.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    6. Brasington, David M. & Hite, Diane, 2005. "Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-82, January.
    7. Kathrine von Graevenitz & Toke Emil Panduro, 2015. "An Alternative to the Standard Spatial Econometric Approaches in Hedonic House Price Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 386-409.
    8. Sander, Heather & Polasky, Stephen & Haight, Robert G., 2010. "The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1646-1656, June.
    9. Allen Klaiber, H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2010. "Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 57-77, September.
    10. Tanya O’Garra & Susana Mourato, 2007. "Public Preferences for Hydrogen Buses: Comparing Interval Data, OLS and Quantile Regression Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 389-411, April.
    11. Roger Koenker & Kevin F. Hallock, 2001. "Quantile Regression," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 143-156, Fall.
    12. Patrick Bajari & Matthew E. Kahn, 2005. "Estimating Housing Demand With an Application to Explaining Racial Segregation in Cities," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 20-33, January.
    13. Mansfield, Carol & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & McDow, William & McDonald, Robert & Halpin, Patrick, 2005. "Shades of Green: Measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 177-199, December.
    14. Toke Emil Panduro & Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede & Kathrine von Graevenitz & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2016. "Estimating demand schedules in hedonic analysis: The case of urban parks," IFRO Working Paper 2016/06, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    15. Patrick Bajari & C. Lanier Benkard, 2005. "Demand Estimation with Heterogeneous Consumers and Unobserved Product Characteristics: A Hedonic Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(6), pages 1239-1276, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Panduro, Toke Emil & Jensen, Cathrine Ulla & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & von Graevenitz, Kathrine & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2018. "Eliciting preferences for urban parks," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 127-142.
    2. Jasper N. Meya, 2018. "Environmental Inequality and Economic Valuation," Working Papers V-416-18, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2018.
    3. Jasper N. Meya, 2020. "Environmental Inequality and Economic Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 235-270, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Toke Emil Panduro & Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede & Kathrine von Graevenitz & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2016. "Estimating demand schedules in hedonic analysis: The case of urban parks," IFRO Working Paper 2016/06, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Panduro, Toke Emil & Jensen, Cathrine Ulla & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & von Graevenitz, Kathrine & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2018. "Eliciting preferences for urban parks," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 127-142.
    3. Mei, Yingdan & Hite, Diane & Sohngen, Brent, 2017. "Demand for urban tree cover: A two-stage hedonic price analysis in California," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 29-35.
    4. Wei Li & Jean-Daniel Saphores, 2012. "A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Value of Urban Land Cover in the Multifamily Housing Market in Los Angeles, CA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(12), pages 2597-2615, September.
    5. Wolf, David & Klaiber, H. Allen & Gopalakrishnan, Sathya, 2022. "Beyond marginal: Estimating the demand for water quality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Nicolai V. Kuminoff & V. Kerry Smith & Christopher Timmins, 2010. "The New Economics of Equilibrium Sorting and its Transformational Role for Policy Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 16349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Nicolai V. Kuminoff & V. Kerry Smith & Christopher Timmins, 2013. "The New Economics of Equilibrium Sorting and Policy Evaluation Using Housing Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1007-1062, December.
    8. von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2018. "The amenity cost of road noise," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-22.
    9. Sanglim Yoo & John E. Wagner, 2016. "A review of the hedonic literatures in environmental amenities from open space: a traditional econometric vs. spatial econometric model," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 141-166, March.
    10. Zhang, Congwen & Boyle, Kevin J. & Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2015. "Partial identification of amenity demand functions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-197.
    11. Hansen, Winslow D. & Mueller, Julie M. & Naughton, Helen T., 2014. "Wildfire in Hedonic Property Value Studies," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14.
    12. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    13. John I. Carruthers & David E. Clark, 2010. "Valuing Environmental Quality: A Space‐Based Strategy," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 801-832, October.
    14. Cao, Xiang & Boyle, Kevin J. & Siriwardena, Shyamani D. & Holmes, Thomas P., 2018. "Estimating Demand for Urban Tree Cover Using a Residential Sorting Model," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274020, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Diane Hite, 2009. "Factors Influencing Differences between Survey and Market-based Environmental Value Measures," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(1), pages 117-138, January.
    16. Christophe Bontemps & Michel Simioni & Yves Surry, 2008. "Semiparametric hedonic price models: assessing the effects of agricultural nonpoint source pollution," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 825-842.
    17. Nathalie Picard & Constantinos Antoniou, 2014. "Econometric Methods For Land Use Microsimulation," Working Papers hal-01092031, HAL.
    18. Pandit, Ram & Polyakov, Maksym & Sadler, Rohan, 2014. "Valuing public and private urban tree canopy cover," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), July.
    19. Stadelmann, David, 2010. "Which factors capitalize into house prices? A Bayesian averaging approach," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 180-204, September.
    20. Ulrich B. Morawetz & H. Allen Klaiber, 2022. "Does housing policy impact income sorting near urban amenities? Evidence from Vienna, Austria," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(2), pages 411-454, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public policy; green space; 2nd stage hedonic regression; quantile regression;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R21 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Housing Demand
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:foi:wpaper:2016_07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Geir Tveit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/foikudk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.