Moderating effect of forest cover on the effect of proximity to chemical facilities on property values

Lee, Sang Woo; Taylor, Pat D.; Hong, Sung–Kwon

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.002

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They conclude that adjacency to private forests adds value to houses, but adjacency to institutional forests does not. Lee et al (2008) used a hedonic model to evaluate the effect of tree cover and proximity to chemical facilities on house price in Tarrant County, Texas. Consistent with previous studies, they found that tree cover positively influence house price and proximity to a chemical facility decreased house price.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon

Donovan

Butry

2010

Landscape and Urban Planning

256

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon

Donovan

Butry

2010

Landscape and Urban Planning

256

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1992; Hite et al. 2001), public utility service networks (Willis and Garrod 1997), and hazardous facilities (Lee et al. 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amenities and disamenities: a hedonic analysis of the heterogeneous urban landscape in Shenzhen (China)

Chen

Jim

2010

Geographical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape amenities and disamenities are important factors for households in making residence decision. This study presents a hedonic analysis of the amenity and disamenity effects arising from the heterogeneous urban landscape in a Chinese city. The sample is composed of 358 apartment characteristics and transaction data collected directly from home owners in the central built‐up area of Shenzhen. Four types of urban landscapes were included, namely urban parks, residential gardens, Shenzhen Bay, and urban villages. We applied a three‐dimensional model (availability, accessibility, and visibility) to estimate the amenity–disamenity effects of these urban landscape features. The results indicated that residential gardens were the most attractive landscape (an average increase of 17.2% of housing price) and urban villages had disamenity effects (a decrease of 3.72% for visibility and 2.5% for availability). The visibility of landscape was more valued than the accessibility. The lower weight accorded to the availability variable suggested: both benefits and possible negative impacts related to urban parks and Shenzhen Bay could be embodied in home buyers' behaviour; and the unavoidability of urban villages. The findings could provide insights to the location and design of residential areas vis‐à‐vis amenity–disamenity landscape features in Chinese cities that are rapidly expanding and redeveloping.

show abstract

“…Farber, 1998;Ihlanfeldt and Taylor, 2004;Lee et al, 2008;Palmquist et al, 1997;Ready and Abdalla, 2005). Examples of significant positive effects, such as open space, on property prices are described by Donovan and Butry (2010), Tyrvainen (1997) and Tyrvainen and Miettinen (2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%