cavailhes j. gis based hedonic pricing of landscape 2009
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
1/20
Environ Resource Econ (2009) 44:571590DOI 10.1007/s10640-009-9302-8
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape
Jean Cavailhs Thierry Brossard
Jean-Christophe Foltte Mohamed Hilal
Daniel Joly Franois-Pierre Tourneux
Cline Tritz Pierre Wavresky
Accepted: 16 June 2009 / Published online: 27 June 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Hedonic prices of landscape are estimated in the urban fringe of Dijon (France).
Viewshed and its content as perceived at ground level are analyzed from satellite images
supplemented by a digital elevation model. Landscape attributes are then fed into economet-
ric models (based on 2,667 house sales) that allows for endogeneity, multicollinearity, and
spatial correlations. Results show that when in the line of sight, trees and farmland in the
immediate vicinity of houses command positive prices and roads negative prices; if out of
sight, their prices are markedly lower or insignificant: the view itself matters. The layoutof features in fragmented landscapes commands positive hedonic prices. Landscapes and
features in sight but more than 100300 m away all have insignificant prices.
Keywords Amenity Hedonic pricing Landscape View
1 Introduction
Rural scenery, open spaces, woodland, and farmland are green landscapes sought after by
many households in most developed countries. This paper focuses on the valuation of the
viewshed and its contents, as seen by residents from their homes, in a French leafy periur-
ban belt. This is an important issue because public authorities are wary of urban sprawl and
careful in the management of open spaces and green areas in and around cities.
This research was financed by Burgundy Regional Council, Cte-dOr Departmental Council and Dijon
Conurbation Joint Councils. It uses data on real-estate transactions from the PERVAL Corporation.
J. Cavailhs (B)
CESAER-INRA, 26 Bd Docteur Petitjean, BP 87999, 21079 Dijon Cedex, Francee-mail: [email protected]
T. Brossard J.-C. Foltte D. Joly F.-P. Tourneux C. Tritz
CNRS-ThMA, 32 rue Megevand, 25030 Besanon, France
M. Hilal P. Wavresky
INRA-CESAER, 26 Boulevard Petitjean, BP 87999, 21079 Dijon Cedex, France
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
2/20
572 J. Cavailhs et al.
Hedonic pricing is employed here to value landscapes in a periurban belt around Dijon, the
main city in Burgundy (France). These are commonplace rural landscapes, with villages and
small towns scattered over plains, hills, and valleys covered by farmland and woodland. We
analyze a landscape as seen from within instead of from above by allowing for objects
and relief that may block out the view. The view from home can thus be reconstituted in athree-dimensional space, allowing us to identify both landscape objects (trees, fields, roads,
etc.) present in the viewshed, and the same objects that are present in the surroundings but
hidden by masks. Hedonic prices of these seen and unseen objects are then derived from
data for 2,667 house sales using either a fixed-effects model estimated by the instrumental
variable method or a random-effects model.
The remainder of the paper is arranged into four parts. After a brief review of the literature
(Sect. 2), the economic and geographic models are set out along with the data (Sect. 3); then
come the results (Sect. 4). Section 5 presents the discussion and conclusions.
2 Landscape Valuation
Econometric landscape valuation presupposes that quantitative landscape variables are intro-
duced into econometric models. Different methods or models such as they are developed by
geographers for characterizing landscape are appropriate and can be used to this end. We
present some examples here arranged according to the type of material: ground-level photo-
graphs to mark the esthetic value of landscape, maps to measure distances between objects
(1 dimensional approach), aerial photographs or satellite images to classify the land cover
or calculate landscape indices (2 dimensional approach), virtual landscapes reconstructed in
three dimensions, as is done here, by combining satellite images and digital elevation models.Photographs have long been used to analyze the esthetic value of landscapes by regression
methods. A score given by a panel is explained by objective attributes (land cover, visual
arrangement, etc.), subjective attributes (mystery, atmosphere, etc.), and sometimes personal
characteristics (gender, age, etc.). Much of this work was done in the 1980s. Gobster and
Chenoweth (1989) listed more than 80 references and recorded 1194 terms for describing
esthetic preferences. For example, marks for photographs in the Great Lakes region (US)
are explained by physical, ground-cover, informational (order, complexity, mystery), and
perceptual (open, smooth, easy to cross) variables (Kaplan et al. 1989). Recent research has
followed similar lines; for example, Johnston et al. (2002) use maps and photographs to show
that households choose fragmented, long and narrow housing subdivisions when density islow, but opt for more clustered forms for denser subdivisions. Ground-level photographs are
also used to estimate the economic value of landscapes by contingent evaluation (e.g. Willis
and Garrod 1993) or by the choice-experiment method (Hanley et al. 1998).
Distance between an observer and an object is used as a landscape variable. Real-estate
values generally decrease with distance to green areas, golf courses, forest parks ( Tyrvinen
and Miettinen 2000), stretches of water(Spalatro and Provencher 2001)ortowetlands(Mahan
et al. 2000). This effect is sometimes non-linear. For example, Bolitzer and Netusil (2000)
show that the proximity of open or green spaces affects house prices when the distance is
very short (a few tens of meters), but the effect falls off rapidly with distance, and disap-pears beyond a few hundred meters at most. Thorsnes (2002) shows that housing with direct
access to forests is worth 2025% more, but that this extra value vanishes if there is a road
to cross to get to the forest. Therefore, researchers must take into account the exact locations
of observers and objects alike.
The land cover within a radius around a house can be analyzed from aerial photographs
or satellite images. The findings are used for landscape valuation, mostly by the hedonic
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
3/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 573
method. In most although not all cases positive hedonic prices are reported for trees (Kestens
et al. 2004), particularly on land adjacent to the residential lot (Thorsnes 2002), and for
nearby recreational woods (Tyrvinen and Miettinen 2000) as well as for parkland, golf
courses, or greenbelts. Farmland has a less clear-cut impact with some studies concluding it
has a positive effect on real-estate values (Roe et al. 2004, who use the choice-experimentmethod) and others reporting contrary effects (Garrod and Willis 1992). The legal status of
land is sometimes included in the hedonic equation either because it affects expectations
about development (Irwin 2002) or because access rights to parcels affect their recreational
value (Cheshire and Sheppard 1995).
Landscape ecology provides variables for characterizing the shape of patches formed
by the land cover: diversity, fragmentation, entropy, fractal dimension, or other statistical
summaries. For example, Geoghegan et al. (1997) show that landscape fragmentation and
diversity have negative effects on real-estate values, except where very close to and very far
from Washington DC.
The view from the ground entails integrating the third dimension (i.e. relief and any tall
objects) into 2D satellite images. It has only recently been introduced into hedonic-valuation
models: to the best of our knowledge, there are just a few examples to date. Germino et al.
(2001) analyze a landscape from satellite images and a digital elevation model to simulate a
view, and Bastian et al. (2002) use such variables for the hedonic pricing of landscape; they
conclude that in the Rocky Mountains (US) landscape diversity, the only landscape variable
that is significant, is highly appreciated. Paterson and Boyle (2002), using precise satellite
imagery information, compare the land cover and the view from the ground in a rural region
of Connecticut (US). The sign of their results varies with the specification, showing that
the visibility measures are important determinants of prices and that their exclusion maylead to incorrect conclusions regarding the significance and signs of other environmental
variables (Paterson and Boyle 2002: 417). Here, we extend and enhance this conclusion by
distinguishing between objects in view and objects hidden by relief or masks that block the
view. Lake et al. (1998) estimate the price of road noise and view in Glasgow (Scotland);
the viewshed is identified by systematic visits (to measure building heights), and the findings
show that the view of a road reduces the real-estate price. In the same way, we distinguish
seen from unseen roads.
In short, most studies use data on distance (1D), and maps, aerial photographs, or satellite
images (2D). Very few reconstruct 3D landscapes as is done here by taking account of relief
and tall objects that block the view. Our method allows us to evaluate the hedonic price ofobjects whether in or out of sight, by using hedonic pricing models. We take into account
both endogeneity of covariates and spatial autocorrelation by using a fixed-effects model
estimated by the instrumental method, and a random-effects model.
3 Study Region, Geographical and Econometric Models, Data
3.1 The Study Region
The study region is a belt around Dijon (France). Its inner bound is the city of Dijon and its
suburbs, which are excluded from the study. Its outer bound is given by access time to Dijon
of less than 33 min or a distance by road of less than 42 km.1 The region covers 3,534 km2
1 These limits were determined by first setting a threshold of 40% of commuters, and then rounding by
including some interspersed communes.
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
4/20
574 J. Cavailhs et al.
Fig. 1 South-eastern sector of the study region
and has 140,703 inhabitants. It is composed of 266 communes (a commune is the lowest tier
of local government in France), with a mean population of 461 inhabitants (median: 229,
standard deviation: 733). Land cover is 2.4% built areas, 59% farmland, and 38% forests and
natural formations.
Figure 1 shows the settlement pattern in the south-eastern sector of the study region (other
quadrants are similar). This region is made up of many villages and small towns forming
densely populated clusters isolated from their neighbors by broad expanses of farmland,
woods, and forests. The average population density of villages is 1700 inhabitants per square
kilometer when population is divided by the area of the village polygon (composed of build-
ings, streets and roads, and open and green spaces whether private or public); but the mean
population density of the study region is only 41 inhabitants per square kilometer. Clearly,
two different scales co-exist: dwellings are tightly clustered (just a few tens of meters apart)
within villages, while villages lie several kilometers apart. Moreover, from one commune to
the next there are often stark variations in population, household income, local public policy
(tax, land zoning), quality of schools, etc.
3.2 A GIS-Based Geographic Model of Quantitative Analysis of Landscape
A landscape can be quantified in terms of its extent and its content, which are analyzed here
using a GIS-based model (see a survey in Bateman et al. 2002). Its extent varies with both
relief and the objects that may block the view. Its content is a matter of the type of objects
visible. The viewshed is measured by simulating the view of an observer whose eyes are 1.8 m
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
5/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 575
Fig. 2 Viewshed without and with objects blocking the view. (A) There is an uninterrupted view from 0 to155m from the observer located at cell I; between 155 and 325 m the view is blocked by the hill-crest. Thesecond hill is visibile between 325 and 385 m. (B) The tree 65m from the observer blocks out the view beyond
above ground level. This simulation of view is made everywhere, all around each observation
point of the study region. Each place in the surroundings is visible or not, depending upon
topography and land-use structure (Fig. 2). This process operates using a cellular represen-
tation of space: a squared grid divides the study area into regular cells (7 7 m = 49 m2),
which are the smallest spatial units for identification of geographical objects.
The distance from the observer to the seen objects is measured by distinguishing six radius
areas to take into account the depth of the viewshed: 070, 70140, 140280, 2801200 m,
1.26, and 640 km. Figure 3 shows this process applied to a flat area: Fig. 3a illustrates the
land use and 3-B shows the viewshed from the central point, containing different land-use
types located at different distances. On average, only 18% of the land cover can be seen from
the ground (the median is 8.9%).
To analyze views in this way, a land-cover layer that localizes and identifies objects is
combined with a digital elevation model that processes topography (see Joly et al. 2009).
Land-cover data are derived from two satellites: Landstat 7 ETM (Enhanced Thematic Map-
per; 30 m and 15 m spatial resolution) and IRS 1 (Indian Remote Sensing; 5.6 m spatial
resolution). The model is based on the state of the landscape at the time the satellites passedoverhead (June and September 2000). The economic data cover the period 19952002. The
landscapes changed little over this period, so satellite images from 2000 can be used.2
2 The European database Corine Land Cover (CLC) provides two satellite images in 1990 and 2000, from
which the land use change between the two dates can be calculated. The resolution of CLC is too coarse to
be used in our study but it shows that the change in land use in the study region has been slow. Moreover, the
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
6/20
576 J. Cavailhs et al.
Fig. 3 Land cover (a) and view at ground level (b)
Figure 3a illustrates the land cover in three rings around a transaction point. This point
is located in a village where two roads intersect and around which the built environment
is relatively tight-knit, even if some open spaces form gaps. Outside the village, the area is
covered by crops alone. The entire space is taken into account. Figure 3b shows the viewshed.
The space is subdivided into seen or masked sectors, where only the cells actually seen by
the observer are filled out (in grey or black). They make up just 12% of the area of the 280 mradius ring. A substantial difference arises between the area of the ring and the area seen,
because of topographical masks and land cover that hide more of the view the closer they
are to the observer. We term unseen object the difference between the total number of land
cover cells and the total number of cells seen.
Images are then processed by standard remote sensing procedures to correct their geom-
etry, merge the two satellite images, and classify the pixels, which correspond to the cells.
Twelve types of land cover are identified: conifers and deciduous trees (merged as trees);
crops, meadows and vineyards (merged as agriculture); bushes; roads and railroads (merged
as networks); built cells; water; quarries; and trading estates. Some objects are ascribed afixed height imposing a visual mask: 15 m for deciduous trees, 20 m for conifers, 3 m for
bushes, 1 m for vineyards and 7 m for houses.3 The others land uses (water, roads, railroads,
fields) have zero height.
3.3 Econometric Model
We begin with the usual hedonic price equation: ln Pi = Xi b + i , where Pi is the price
of real-estate i , Xi the matrix of explanatory variables (including an intercept), b the vector
Footnote 2 continuedeconometric model estimated for 20002001 yields results that are statistically similar to those obtained over
the whole period.
3 The model may be sensitive to the height of the houses, which are the most common type of object blocking
the view. They are mainly detached houses without upper storeys. We tested the effect of the chosen height
(from 5 to 9 m) on the econometric results; they are not statistically different between 6 and 9 m. The height of
constructions is very variable in the city of Dijon and its suburbs, where there are many apartment buildings;
for this reason the city was excluded from the study region.
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
7/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 577
of parameters to be evaluated, and i an error term.4 We examine in turn the questions of
endogeneity, spatial correlation, and multicollinearity (see a detailed discussion related to
these questions in Irwin 2002).
First, covariate endogeneity may have several causes: when the consumer chooses simul-
taneously the price of housing and the quantity of an attribute (e.g. the living space); whenthe market determines both the l h.s. and some r.h.s. variables of the equation (e.g. if urban
pressure is high, residential values are high and open spaces are scarce; conversely, the scar-
city of open spaces influences residential prices; Irwin 2002); when omitted variables are
correlated with variables present in the equation. Thus, the instrumental variable method
(IV) is employed here. We use as instruments either personal features of the agents (Epple
1985; Sheppard 1999) or other instruments for projecting endogenous landscape variables
(See Sect. 3.4). If endogeneity occurs, the main equation is then estimated by the 2SLS.
Second, for a located good such as housing, spatial dependency is often present because
nearby observations share more similarities than observations which are far apart. Moreover,
located data are often spatially heterogeneous, which entails spatial heterogeneity of the esti-
mators for different zones. These two aspects may be addressed by means of spatial fixed
effects. This rests on the assumption that the spatial range of the unobserved heterogeneity/
dependence is specific to each spatially delineated unit (Anselin and Lozano-Garcia 2008).
Following this method, we introduce into the equation a variable m j characterizing the
commune j : ln Pi j = Xi j b+bj m j + i j that captures the effects of attributes whose values
are shared by observations located in this commune, including badly measured or omitted
variables, to the extent that the effect of these covariates is identical for each house within
the commune, and may be appropriately modeled by a linear shift in the model intercept.
Thus, there are no inter-commune correlations between the residuals.5
The m j s are eitherfixed-intercept shifters in the fixed-effects model (m j = Ij ), or random-intercept shift-
ers in the random-effects model (m j = j ). The fixed-effects model is better at handling
omitted or poorly measured variables, but it fails to take account of inter-commune effects.
The random-effects model allows us to introduce additional explanatory variables (e.g. inter-
commune differences between landscape variables), but it involves a risk of bias if some
inter-commune variables are badly measured, and some Xi j s may be correlated with the j s.
Therefore, we prefer the fixed-effects model. Even so, the random-effects model is also used
to check effects of inter-commune landscape variables and to compare the results obtained
by the two approaches.
Spatial autocorrelation may also occur because of the location of the houses in a commune.A Morans index between the neighbors i j s is computed and its significance is tested.
6
Thirdly, multicollinearity between landscape variables is an important issue, because the
land-cover types may be correlated for several reasons: complementarity, such as between
roads and houses, dominant uses (e.g.: farmland occupying the main part of an alluvial plain
and limiting the space available for other uses), the same land-cover should be present on
both sides of two adjacent rings. Fortunately, as Pearsons correlation coefficients show, the
view from the ground reduces these spatial links, because high objects block the view in a
quasi-random way, and break the regular pattern of land uses. We chose the view from the
ground because it is the actual view, and this choice entails the statistical advantage of greatly
4 The result of a Box-Cox test supports the use of the log-linear form.5 A Morans index test for observations belonging to neighboring communes allowed us to check this is indeed
the case.6 We use a contiguity matrix where observations less than 200 m apart are neighbors. This distance is the
threshold used in France to define urban morphology (distance cut-offs of 50 and 100 m were also tested).
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
8/20
578 J. Cavailhs et al.
reducing multicollinearity. Nevertheless, multicollinearity may subsist, and is managed by
standard methods: merging of adjacent rings when a landscape variable exhibits a high corre-
lation and yields similar parameters on both sides; transformation of other correlated variables
(variables introduced as a percentage of a viewshed, etc.).
Finally, the statistical tests are carried out as follows: Hausmans method is used to testwhether variables are endogenous (by the increased regression method); Sargans method
is used to test the validity of the instruments; two Morans indexes between neighboring
residuals are calculated (houses less than 200 m apart and houses belonging to neighboring
communes) and their significance is tested; the homoscedasticity of the residuals is submitted
to Whites test.7
3.4 Data and Variables
Data were collected from real-estate lawyers (notaires), who are responsible for registering
real-estate conveyances in France. The database is made up of 2757 sales of detached housesbetween 1995 and 2002, and records the price of the transaction and certain characteristics
of the property and the economic agents involved.8 Each observation is also characterized
by its longitude and latitude in a French system of Cartesian coordinates (the Lambert
system), allowing a link with the geographical data. Some 90 observations were excluded
(atypical observations, shortcomings of the data base, etc.): evaluations were made from
2,667 observations. The variables used in the regressions are defined in Table 1.
Three variables, closely correlated with the living space (lot size, number of rooms and of
bathrooms), were transformed into lot size/living space, average room size (also included in
quadratic form), and number of bathrooms/living space. New houses resold within 5 years
have specific characteristics, which are captured by a dummy variable. Some of the vari-
ables in the database were excluded because either of insignificant parameters (presence of
outbuildings, parking spaces, cellars, lofts, terraces or balconies) or subjective appreciation
by the notaire (quality of the structure, etc.). Other variables characterize the transaction
(operator, previous transaction, house occupied or not, remoteness of the buyers previous
residence), the location (proximity to a highway, location both in the zoning scheme and a
floodable zone, distance from the town hall), the topography of the parcel (slope, orientation,
steep-sidedness), and the year of the transaction (dummy variables that take into account
inflation, interest rate, tax policy, etc.). The database also includes variables used as instru-
ments to project characteristics of the house that may be endogenous: the gender, occupation,age, marital status, and nationality of the buyer and the seller. Other instruments were used
to project landscape attributes that may be endogenous: Percentage of Like-Adjacence, Con-
tagion Index, Interspection and Juxtaposition Index, Division Index, Perimeter-Area Ratio
Distribution, Simpsons Evenness Index, and Patch area mean (McGarigal et al. 2002).
The landscape variables are made up of the number of cells seen and unseen (i.e. the dif-
ference between the land cover and the seen cells) arranged in the six rings (some variables in
adjacent rings are merged). They are computed for an observation point located at the center
of the residential lot. However, the view may change within the size of the parcel; therefore
we have checked that the econometric results are not influenced by the lot size.9 We tested
7 Other problems occur in the second stage of the Rosen (1974) method (Brown and Rosen 1982; Day et al.
2007), which we do not examine because this second stage cannot be made here.
8 This data base contains only houses that were sold, with no telling whether or not they are representative of
the housing stock as a whole.9 We estimate the econometric model by calculating the average view over a square around every observation
point with sides of 3, 5 or 9 cells, depending on whether the area of the residential lot, recorded in the data base,
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
9/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 579
Table 1 Variables
Abbreviation Definition
LSPACE Living space (m2) (logarithm)
LOT/LSPACE Lot size (m2)/living space (m2)
ROOMSIZE Average room size = living space/number of main rooms
(ROOMSIZE)2 Average room size: square form
STORIES Number of stories in the house (included habitable attic or basement)
BATHROOMS Number of bathrooms/living space
ATTIC Presence of an attic
PERIOD OF Period of construction: before 1850; 18501916; 19171949;
CONSTRUCTION 19501969 (reference); 19701980; 19811991; 19922002; unknown
LESS 5 YEARS Building constructed since less than 5 years, and reselled
BASEMENT Presence of a basement
AN1995 to AN2002 Date of conveyance: dummies from 1995 to 2001 (2002 = reference)
PRIVATE Transaction without real estate offce (directly between private individuals)
SALE OFFICE Transaction by a real estate office
LAWYER OFFICE Transaction by a real estate lawyer office
BUYER OCC Property already occupied by the buyer
SELLER OCC Property already occupied by the seller
DIST BUYER Distance between the house and the buyers location (logarithm)
FRENCH Buyer of French nationality
SUCC Previous transaction = succession
DIVISON Previous transaction = division of estate
NORMAL SALE Previous transaction = normal sale
100_200_ROAD 100200 m from a major road
POS-UD Zone UD of the zoning scheme, i.e. located on periphery of the village
MIXED ZONE Mixed zone of the zoning scheme: residential and business zone
DIST TOWN HALL Distance to the town hall from a transaction point
SOUTH South orientation of the parcel
FLOODING Liable to flooding
STEEP Steep sidedness
POPULATION Population of the commune
DISTANCE DIJON Distance to Dijon from the town hall of a commune
(DISTANCE DIJON)2 Distance to Dijon from the town hall of a commune: square form
INCOME Mean income of the commune households
TREE Number of tree-covered cells (R_TREE: rate of these cells)
TREE LOT/LSPACE Number of tree-covered cells LOT/LSPACE
AGRI Number of cells of agriculture (R_AGRI: rate of these cells)
AGRI LOT/LSPACE Number of cells of agriculture LOT/LSPACE
AGRI POSUD Number of cells of agriculture class UD of the zoning scheme
NETWORK TRANSPORT Number of cells of road/railroad (R_NETWORKS: rate of these cells)
BUILT Number of built cells (R_BUILT: rate of these cells)
BUSH Number of cells of bush (R_BUSH: rate of these cells)
WATER Number of cells of water
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
10/20
580 J. Cavailhs et al.
Table 1 continued
Abbreviation Definition
DECID_PACHES Number of patches of deciduous trees within a 70 m radius
DECID_EDGE Length of deciduous wood edges within a 70 m radius (m)AGRI_PACHES Number of patches of crops between 70 and 140 m
COMPACT Compactess index (0 = compact forms; 1 = elongate forms),
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
11/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 581
In the fixed-effects model, the adjusted R2 is 0.70; the 2 Log Likelihood is 671.4 in
the random-effects model. Some 35% of the intercept shifters are significant at the 5% level
in the fixed-effects model, and the random intercepts are significant at the 1% level in the
random-effects model (z-value equals 5.34). The living space is endogenous (Students t
in the increased regression is 13.7) and Sargans test shows that the characteristics of theagents used as instruments are exogenous. Thus, the main equation is estimated by the 2SLS,
using as covariate the projection of the living space on the instruments. Whites test shows
that the residuals are homoscedastic. Morans index between residuals of houses less than
200 m is 0.015, and between residuals of houses pertaining to neighboring communes is
equal to 0.008661. These values are insignificant, which suggests statistically insignificant
effects of spatial autocorrelation, both at the inter-commune and the intra-commune levels.
Regarding the landscape variables, the first finding is that, unlikein other studies (e.g. Irwin
2002; Irwin and Bockstael 2001), landscape attributes are not endogenous.10 The difference
probably arises from stringent public control of land cover in France that limits the market
forces. Moreover, in the absence of spatial autocorrelations and with landscape covariates
being exogenous, the tests do not allow us to conclude that landscape estimates are biased
by omitted variables.
The significance, sign, and magnitude of the parameters estimated by the fixed-effects
model using the 2SLS and by the random-effects model are different regarding some char-
acteristics of the house and of the transaction (area of the rooms, date of construction, etc.).
Signs for landscape variables are always the same whatever the model, and the significance
at the 5% level is slightly different for two variables only (trees seen in the 140280 m range,
proportion of bushes seen in the 70140 m range).
A large number of inter-commune effects were tested with the random-effects model.They are significant in two cases only: transport networks seen less than 280 m away and
trees seen less than 70 m away. As discussed in Sect. 3.3, the random-effects model presents
drawbacks in comparison with the fixed-effects model estimated by the IV method. Thus,
we comment below mainly on the results of the latter model.
The parameters evaluated for non-landscape variables (property, transaction and location
attributes) are consistent with other French studies (e.g. Cavailhs 2005). Interestingly, two
land zoning variables are significant: house prices are lower for locations both in mixed
residential and business zones (such mixed land use often entails nuisances for inhabitants),
and on the periphery of the villages (i.e. zones UD of the zoning scheme): prices are lower
on the periphery of towns or villages than close to the town hall.For landscape attributes, Table 2 shows that most objects located more than 70 m away
have insignificant hedonic prices. Exceptions are farmland, where it is the view between 70
and 280 m that matters and transport networks in sight, which are significant up to 280 m
away. Water seen is also significant whatever the distance (with a surprising negative param-
eter). The hedonic price of other types of land cover is insignificant beyond 70 m. Other
variables were tested (dummies or quantitative variables for the rings beyond 280 m), which
are all insignificant. It is as if households were short-sighted. This indifference to the view
beyond a few tens of meters, or a few hundreds of meters, can be explained by the character-
istics of the study zone, where distant horizons, when seen, are not formed by outstandingfeatures, sea, or snow-capped lines of mountains, etc.; on the contrary they are bluish-grayish
in color, making them hard to distinguish against the skyline.
10 In the first step (projection of the landscape variables on the instruments), the partial R2 is contained
between 0.1 and 0.3, according to the model; the instruments are exogenous (Sargans statistic is superior
to 0.20); finally Hausmans test rejects the endogeneity of the landscape variables (Students t values in the
augmented equation are between 1.6 and +1.2).
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
12/20
582 J. Cavailhs et al.
Table 2 Results
(1) (2)
Fixed-effects, 2SLS Random-effects
INTERCEPT 11.89 12.50
LSPACE 0.0126 0.0069
LOT/LSPACE 0.0169 0.0167
ROOMSIZE 0.0175 0.0012
(ROOMSIZE)2 3.4E-5 7.0E-5
STORIES 0.1349 0.0159
BATHROOMS 18.508 2.639
ATTIC 0.1108 0.0526
BASEMENT 0.0428 0.0690
PERIOD CONSTR.BEFORE 1850 0.0948 0.0832
18501916 0.0580 0.0628
19171949 0.05288 0.0875
19501969 Reference Reference
19701980 0.017 0.0523
19811991 0.0546 0.0712
19922002 0.0104 0.0565
UNKNOWN 0.0229 0.0204
LESS5 YEARS
0.0451
0.0613
AN1995 0.2540 0.2694
AN1996 0.1936 0.2158
AN1997 0.2069 0.2305
AN1998 0.1723 0.1956
AN1999 0.1212 0.1326
AN2000 0.0369 0.0410
AN2001 0.0118 0.00639
AN2002 Reference Reference
SELLER OCC 0.0443
0.0740
BUYER OCC 0.1653 0.1688
DIST BUYER 0.0064 0.00764
FRENCH 0.0997 0.0366
PRIVATE 0.0114 0.0088
SALE OFFICE 0.0256 0.0353
LAWYER OFFICE Reference Reference
SUCC 0.0391 0.0589
DIVISION 0.0583 0.0509
NORMAL SALE Reference Reference100_200_ROAD 0.0735 0.0430
POS-UD 0.0398 0.0230
MIXED ZONE 0.0642 0.0331
DIST TOWN HALL 4.0E-5 .0E-52
SOUTH 0.00042 4.5E-5
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
13/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 583
Table 2 continued
(1) (2)
Fixed-effects, 2SLS Random-effects
FLOODING 0.0208 0.0223
STEEP 7.E-5 2.0E-5
Ring Location from Dijon
TREES SEEN
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
14/20
584 J. Cavailhs et al.
4.3 Land Uses
At the mean point of the residential lot, trees seen in the first 70 m have a significant positive
hedonic price: the price of a house increases by 3% per additional standard deviation. More-
over, the actual view of trees is valued more highly than their mere presence: the parameterof trees unseen is three times smaller. The latter is the value of nearby trees for recreational
(walking areas), protective (against noise), and ecological (air quality, fauna and flora, etc.)
functions, but not for scenery seen from home, which is higher by far.
The difference between the two parameters may be attributed to the view sensu stricto,
disregarding the other functions of tree-covered land uses. For a variation of one standard
deviation of tree-covered area, the view represents therefore some 2% of the price of a house
and the other functions (recreation, protection, ecology) about 1%. When the distinction is
no longer made between seen and unseen tree-covered cells, as when the view from above is
analyzed, a parameter of 0.0027 is obtained for a variation of one cell of those within 70 m,
that is an intermediate value between cover actually seen in the ring (0.0057) and cover not
seen (0.0017). The 3D geographic model therefore provides greater precision than the 2D
model.
The shape of areas covered by deciduous trees within a 70 m radius (landscape ecology
indices were not calculated for conifers, which are rare) also exerts significant effects on
house prices, compounding the foregoing: an additional patch has a positive contribution
(+1.4% of the house price) and conversely 100 additional meters of boundary have a neg-
ative effect (0.5%). The combination of these two variables provides an indication of the
shapes valued: numerous patches with short edges correspond to rounded copses and not to
massed forests or narrow, elongated formations.Surprisingly, the random effects model shows that trees seen less than 70 m away have a
parameter higher on the periphery of the study area than close to Dijon. One might expect
their price to be higher in this inner belt, due to their scarcity close to the city. Nevertheless,
when trees are present but unseen their value is higher close to Dijon: wooded surround-
ings are dearer close to the city than on the periphery of the zone, where the parameter is
barely significant at the 10% level. Lastly, when seen more than 70 m away, trees command
insignificant prices, confirming the myopia of households.
Farmland seen at less than 70 m has an insignificant parameter, but crops and meadows
seen between 70 and 280 m have a positive effect on house prices: +6.6% per standard devi-
ation.11 It transpires from comparison with trees that the hedonic price of farmland seen ispositive at distances somewhat greater than for trees, although it remains confined to a radius
of 300 m or so. This is consistent with other results (Johnston et al. 2002; Smith et al. 2002).
Two contradictory effects may be combined in the 070 m range: the view of fields (positive
effect) and nuisances (noise, smells, etc.), leading to an insignificant overall effect. Farmland
that is present but not seen within the 70280 m radius commands a positive price, but only
a fifth of that of farmland that is seen, confirming the importance of the view itself. The
conclusions are similar, then, to those just presented for tree-covered cells.
In view of these findings, it must be asked whether public support for farming and forestry
is adequate in respect of one of its objectives which is to help maintain landscapes. For one
thing, the hedonic price of farmland in view is far less than that of tree-covered land uses
11 Farmland seen between 70 and 280 m makes up 56% of the area of the viewshed. Farmland is flat (it does
not hide the view) and occupies extensive areas in the study region. It is to be expected then that abundant
farmland is related to a wide viewshed and scarce farmland to a more restricted viewshed (because the land
is then occupied by tall objects such as buildings or trees). The parameter estimated for the 70280 m ring
therefore corresponds to a wide viewshed largely occupied by farmland.
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
15/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 585
in view, whereas public support is in inverse proportions; for another thing, such support is
unrelated to the location of farmland relative to housing while households place a positive
value on farmland only when it is very close to housing.
The interaction parameters between lot size and the area of both farmland seen and trees
seen are negative: the larger the lot, the lower the marginal price of visible farmland or trees.There may be a substitution relationship between green landscape and lot size.
In contrast to tree-covered and farmland cells just examined, roads (and railroad tracks) in
view at less than 280 m lower the price of a house by 1.3% per standard deviation. Networks
within this radius but not in view command an insignificant price: it is less the presence
of roads that is a nuisance when they are not seen (although they are source of danger, air
pollution, and noise) than the actual sight of them, as they are a visual obstruction. This
result is consistent with that for trees and agriculture: the presence of an object counts less
than whether or not it can be seen. Beyond the first 280 m, the sight of roads no longer
significantly affects house prices, indicating that such nuisances remain confined to a narrow
strip.12 Transport networks seen in the 280 m circle have a clearly more negative parameter
close to Dijon, where these networks are dense and crowded, than at the periphery of the
region, where unseen roads in this circle have a positive sign (probably because they are
correlated with omitted variables: local public goods, etc.).
Among other types of objects, buildings are the most common land cover close to housing.
Their hedonic price is insignificant whatever the distance. Two opposite effects might explain
this finding: on the one hand, nearby houses allow social relations with neighbors, and on
the other hand the view of these structures may be less appreciated than green land cover.
The parameter of bushes seen is insignificant (except in the 70280 m range, with a positive
sign), which may be explained by the heterogeneity of this type of object (coppices, fallowland, groves, recent plantations, etc.). Finally, the sight of rivers or lakes has a significant
negative sign, which is not due to flooding risk (zones liable to flooding are controlled in the
equation). This result is contrary to the usual findings of the literature; however it is based on
a small number of observations (only 69 houses have viewsheds with 5% or more of water
in the 0280 m ring).
Lastly, landscape composition variables were introduced into the regression by a step-
wise method, and four indices were kept: the number of patches of deciduous trees and their
lengths within a 70 m radius (as said), a compactness index ranging from 0 (compact forms)
to 1 (elongate forms), and the number of patches of farmland located in the 70280 m range.
For 1% of additional elongation, price rises by 0.23%, and by 0.2% per additional patch offarmland. The results, for the combination used here as for other indicators taken separately,
show that division, complexity, non-contiguity, landscape fragmentation, mosaic patterns,
etc., command positive hedonic prices.
Note that over several decades, the re-parceling of farmland has formed large plots with
simple geometric shapes to facilitate work with farm machinery, hedges have been torn up
and tracks plowed up to enlarge production areas while crop rotations have been simplified.
Forests have undergone comparable, although less extensive, change with the same objec-
tive of increasing productivity. There is a clear contrast between landscapes arising from
the productive function of farming (and forestry) and landscapes valued for the non-marketfunctions of these activities.
12 Note that a location at less than 200 m from a freeway or a major road reduces the price by 7.8% (see the
100_200_ROAD parameter in Table 2).
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
16/20
586 J. Cavailhs et al.
5 Discussion and Conclusion
Hedonic price models have been combined here with a GIS-based geographic model to eval-
uate the price of landscapes seen from houses in the urban fringe of Dijon (France). The
geographic model is used to identify, with a resolution of 7 m, 12 types of objects fromsatellite images and to measure the viewshed, by trigonometry, taking into account relief and
obstacles that may block the view. The landscape is quantified in terms of viewshed and of
the type of objects seen and unseen. The econometric models are the first stage of Rosens
approach, estimated from 2,667 house sales, which allows for endogeneity by the instru-
mental method and spatial correlations by either a fixed-effects model or a random-effects
model.
The main advantage of our geographic model is that it can be used to calculate landscape
variables from any of the 144 million cells of the study region. Estimations can thus be
extended to new transactions if the economic data base is broadened. Results can be mapped
too, as the following example shows. The price of a marginal loss of viewshed due, say, to
new building blocking out 10% of the view can be calculated at any point. Hedonic prices are
used to calculate the predicted price of this marginal loss of landscape, which is equal to the
sum of the quantity of each hidden object weighted by its price. Figure 4 shows the result for
one town, Genlis, and the surrounding villages. Obstruction of 10% of the viewshed entails
a loss of value on the outskirts of villages, where the view is primarily of fields and trees:
sometimese2000 or more (1.52% of the house price). It has a positive price where the new
buildings mask roads.
This example shows that the pairing of the geographic model (allowing the landscape
to be measured from any point) and the econometric model (allowing hedonic landscapeprices to be predicted for marginal variations in its attributes) opens up new perspectives.
Given the current state of research it is not yet possible to use such models for prescriptive
purposes, say for selecting the location of a new building by reducing its monetary impact
on the value of the view for its neighbors. But this might be a possible future use. The geo-
graphical model presented here has been used by Electricit de France (EDF), the French
public-sector power company, to route its high-voltage power lines where they are least
visible.
The main shortcoming of this geographic model is that it yields results which are approxi-
mation of the actual situations and which may be biased if certain assumptions are inaccurate.
In particular, a comparison with orthophotographs shows that the present model may under-estimate the viewshed by exaggerating the amount blocked out by buildings.
The great advantage of the fixed-effects econometric model is that it takes into account all
the factors depending on distance from Dijon. Almost all the covariates, including those for
landscapes, vary with this urbanrural gradient and the co-variations are almost impossible to
account for without the fixed-effects model. The main drawback of this model is that it allows
for intra-communal variations of landscape variables only, and ignores inter-communal vari-
ations. Moreover, whatever the precautions taken to avoid the effects of omitted variables,
the method cannot guarantee freedom from bias related to this problem. The method also
allows us to test for endogeneity of explanatory variables (including landscape attributes) byusing the instrumental method.
The results are consistent with the literature on several points. They show, first, that it is
above all the view of the tens of meters around a house that counts; beyond a hundred meters
or so, a few attributes remain significant up to 150300 m, but no farther. Second, the results
confirm that land cover around houses has a significant effect on housing prices, generally
with the expected signs: trees have positive hedonic prices, as does farmland, while roads
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
17/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 587
Fig. 4 The price of an obstruction of 10% of the view in and around Genlis. Note: For cells located morethan 200 m for built polygons, the price of obstructed view is not calculated as it would be absurd to calculate
the price of loss of view from a house located in the middle of a field or a forest. These cells are light grey in
the Figure (not calculated box). For a cell belonging to or close to a built polygon, the blocking of the view
generally entails a loss of value, which loss is greater when the cell is located on the edge of the village (everdarker greys). In some instances (in white in the Figure), the blocking of the view is reflected by an increased
value when it is roads that are masked by new buildings.
have negative hedonic prices. In some instances the signs are counterintuitive (water), which
is not uncommon in the literature and shows that further research is required.
We also show, which is new in the literature, that it is the view that influences the real-
estate price and not the mere land cover: trees or farmland close to a house but not visible
from it command far lower hedonic prices than when they are seen. Trees close to houses
but out of sight contribute to the residential setting by providing amenities (peace and quiet,fresh air, etc.) but their hedonic price is a third of that of trees in view. Unseen farmland is
worth just one-fifth of the hedonic price of farmland in sight and unseen nearby roads have an
insignificant hedonic price, while they are a source of nuisances (noise, danger, etc.). These
results about the importance of the actual view are confirmed by the results about landscape
shapes: landscape shape indexes show that households prefer complex, fragmented shapes
and mosaic patterns of scenery.
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
18/20
588 J. Cavailhs et al.
However, our method is reductive because it simplifies in the extreme what a landscape
is and evaluates only use values related to residential consumption. Moreover, the hedonic
method used does not ensure full compliance with the all-else-being-equal requirement. The
point that in spite of these limitations on the whole it yields significant results is encouraging.
However, we are aware that other methods are also required to enhance knowledge in thedomain of the economic valuation of landscapes.
Appendix: Descriptive Statistics (Landscape Variables)
See Table 3
Table 3
Variable Ring Number of
houses with
the attribute
Value for houses with the attribute
Mean Total SD Intra-SD Inter-SD
Trees seen
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
19/20
GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 589
References
Anselin L, Lozano-Garcia N (2008) Errors in variables and spatial effects in hedonic house price models of
ambient air quality. Empir Econ 34(1):534
Bastian CT, McLeod DM, Germino MJ, Reiners WA, Blasko BJ (2002) Environmental amenities and agri-
cultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data. Ecolog Econ 40:337349
Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Lovette AA, Lake IR, Day BH (2002) Applying geographical information systems
(GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ Resour Econ 22:219269
Bolitzer B, Netusil NR (2000) The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. J Environ
Manage 59:185193
Brown JN, Rosen HS (1982) On the estimation of structural hedonic price models. Econometrica 50(3):
765768
Cavailhs J (2005) Le prix des attributs du logement. Economie et Statistique 381(382):91123
Cheshire P, Sheppard S (1995) On the price of land and the value of amenities. Economica 62:247267
Day B, Bateman I, Lake I (2007) Beyond implicit prices: recovering theoretically consistent and trans-
ferable values for noise avoidance from a hedonic property price model. Environ Resour Econ 37:
211232Epple D (1985) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: estimating demand and supply functions for differenti-
ated products. J Polit Econ 95:5980
Garrod GD, Willis KG (1992) Valuing goods characteristics: an application of the hedonic price method to
environmental attributes. J Environ Manage 34:5976
Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an eco-
logical economics analysis using GIS. Ecolog Econ 23:251264
Germino MJ, Reiners WA, Blasko BJ, McLeod D, Bastian CT (2001) Estimating visual properties of rocky
mountain landscapes using GIS. Landsc Urban Plan 53:7183
Gobster PH, Chenoweth RE (1989) The dimensions of aesthetics preference: a quantitative analysis. J Environ
Manage 29:4772
Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ
Resour Econ 11:413428
Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78:465480
Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2001) The problem of identifying land cover spillovers: measuring the effects of
open space on residential property values. Am J Agr Econ 83:698704
Johnston RJ, Swallow SK, Bauer DM (2002) Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods:
considerations for rural land use. Land Econ 78:481500
Joly D, Brossard T, Cavailhs J, Hilal M, Tourneux FP, Tritz C, Wavresky P (2009)A quantitative approach to
the visual evaluation of landscape. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 99(2):292308
Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Bown T (1989) Environmental preferences. A comparison of four domains of predictors.
Environ Behav 21:509530
Kestens Y, Thriault M, des Rosiers F (2004) The impact of surrounding land cover and vegetation on single-
family house prices. Environ Plan B 31:539567
Lake IR, Lovett AA, Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1998) Modelling environmental influences on property prices
in an urban environment. Comput Environ Urban Syst 22:121136
McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical
maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst
McGarigal K, Marks B (1995) Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure,
Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, Portland
Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ
76:100113
Paterson RW, Boyle KJ (2002) Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic
property value models. Land Econ 78:417425
Roe B, Irwin EG, Morrow-Jones HA (2004) The effects of farmland, farmland preservation, and other neigh-
borhood amenities on housing values and residential growth. Land Econ 80:5575Rosen S (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J Polit Econ
82:3455
Sheppard S (1999) Hedonic analysis of housing markets. In: ES Mills, P Cheshire (eds) Handbook of regional
and urban economics. Applied Urban Economics, pp. 15951635
Smith VK, Poulos C, Kim H (2002) Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resour Energy Econ 24:107129
Spalatro F, Provencher B (2001) An analysis of minimum frontage zoning to preserve lakefront amenities.
Land Econ 77:469481
123
-
7/30/2019 Cavailhes J. GIS Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape 2009
20/20
590 J. Cavailhs et al.
Thorsnes P (2002) The value of a suburban forest preserve: estimates from sales of vacant residential building
lots. Land Econ 78:426441
Tyrvinen LA, Miettinen A (2000) Property prices and urban forest amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 39:
205223
Willis KG, Garrod GD (1993) Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. J Environ Manage 37:122