|
|
||||||||
The marginal values of different open space attributes are tested using a hedonic pricing model with residential sales data from central Maryland. The identification problems that arise due to endogenous land use spillovers and unobserved spatial correlation are addressed using instrumental variables estimation with a randomly drawn subset of the data that omits nearest neighbors. Results show a premium associated with permanently preserved open space relative to developable agricultural and forested lands and support the hypothesis that open space is most valued for providing an absence of development, rather than for providing a particular bundle of open space amenities. (JEL R52)
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Kopits, V. McConnell, and M. Walls Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand? Land Economics, January 1, 2008; 84(1): 1 - 16. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. R. Smith Institutional Determinants of Collaboration: An Empirical Study of County Open-Space Protection J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., December 17, 2007; (2007) mum037v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. C. Cheshire Resurgent Cities, Urban Myths and Policy Hubris: What We Need to Know Urban Stud, July 1, 2006; 43(8): 1231 - 1246. [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Cheshire and S. Sheppard The Introduction of Price Signals into Land Use Planning Decision-making: A Proposal Urban Stud, April 1, 2005; 42(4): 647 - 663. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |