The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure A - 17: Histogram <strong>of</strong> Standardized Residuals for All Sales Model Figure A - 18: Histogram <strong>of</strong> Mahalanobis Distance Statistics for All Sales Model 134
<strong>The</strong> M Distance histograms suggested that a cut<strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> 150 may be appropriate, which would exclude 15 cases from the All Sales Model and seven cases from the Base Model (all <strong>of</strong> the latter <strong>of</strong> which were among the 15 outliers in the All Sales Model). <strong>The</strong> Standardized Residual histograms suggested a cut<strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> 4, 5, or 6, which would exclude 13, 8, and 3 cases from the Base Model, and 22, 12, and 5 cases from the All Sales Model. A case-by-case investigation <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> these sales transactions was then conducted by comparing their home characteristics (e.g., square feet, baths, age, etc.) against their study area and panel model cohorts to ensure that none had been inappropriately coded. None <strong>of</strong> the M Distance flagged cases seemed to be inappropriately coded, and none <strong>of</strong> those cases were removed from the final dataset as a result. Five cases that were flagged from the All Sales Model (which corresponded to three cases in the Base Model) with a Standardized Residual greater than six, however, were clearly outliers. One had a sale price that was more than $200,000 more than any other transaction in the model, and the other four had exceptionally low prices, yet high numbers <strong>of</strong> corresponding characteristics that would suggest higher home sales prices (such as over 2000 square feet – all four cases – or more than two bathrooms – three cases). As a result <strong>of</strong> these investigations, these five cases were removed from the model. One <strong>of</strong> the five cases occurred prior to announcement, one occurred after announcement and before construction, and the other three occurred after construction began. None were within three miles <strong>of</strong> the nearest wind turbine except one, which was 0.6 miles from the nearest turbine and had a MINOR view <strong>of</strong> the wind facility. <strong>The</strong> other two had no views <strong>of</strong> the turbines. Although there was hesitancy in removing any cases from the model, these transactions were considered appropriately influential and keeping them in the model would bias the results inappropriately. Further, the one home that was situated inside <strong>of</strong> one mile was surrounded by five other transactions in the same study area that also occurred after construction began and were a similar distance from the turbines, but that were not flagged by the outliers screen. <strong>The</strong>refore, its removal was considered appropriate given that other homes in the sample would likely experience similar effects. After removing these five cases, the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the model results were tested to the inclusion or exclusion <strong>of</strong> the “greater than five” and “greater than four” Standardized Residuals observations and the cases flagged by the M Distance screen, finding that parameter estimates for the variables <strong>of</strong> interest moved slightly with these cases removed but not enough to change the results significantly. Because they did not show a unique grouping across the variables <strong>of</strong> interest, nor any unusual potentially inappropriate coding, and, more importantly, did not substantially influence the results, no substantive reason was found to remove any additional transactions from the sample. <strong>The</strong>refore, the final dataset included a total <strong>of</strong> 7,459 cases, <strong>of</strong> which 4,937 occurred post-construction. Homoskedasticity: A standard formal test for the presence <strong>of</strong> homoskedastic error terms is the White's statistic (White, 1980). However, the requirements to perform this test were overly burdensome for the computing power available. Instead, an informal test was applied, which plots the regression errors against predicted values and various independent variables to observe whether a "heteroskedastic pattern" is in evidence (Gujarati, 2003). Although no evidence <strong>of</strong> heteroskedasticity was found using this method, to be conservative, nonetheless all models were 135
Page 1 and 2:
LBNL-2829E ERNEST ORLANDO LAWRENCE
Page 3 and 4:
LBNL-2829E The <st
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents
Page 7 and 8:
List of Tables Tab
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements The</stron
Page 11 and 12:
This report builds on the previous
Page 13 and 14:
Table ES-2: Impact
Page 15 and 16:
Figure ES-3: Base Model Results: Sc
Page 17 and 18:
In the Distance Stability Model, fo
Page 19 and 20:
1. Introduction Wind</stron
Page 21 and 22:
model 7 and uses various forms <str
Page 23 and 24:
A particularly useful application <
Page 25 and 26:
Using different statistical methods
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1: Summary of</strong
Page 29 and 30:
By using a variety of</stro
Page 31 and 32:
minimum of 164 fee
Page 33 and 34:
3.2.2. GIS Data GIS data on parcel
Page 35 and 36:
In addition to the qualitative VIEW
Page 37 and 38:
with the rest of t
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 4: Frequency of</str
Page 41 and 42:
4. Base Hedonic Model This section
Page 43 and 44:
impose the least structure on the u
Page 45 and 46:
of the home, home
Page 47 and 48:
etween the reference study area (WA
Page 49 and 50:
Figure 7: Results from the Base Mod
Page 51 and 52:
5. Alternative Hedonic Models <stro
Page 53 and 54:
concentrated inside of</str
Page 55 and 56:
all other components are as defined
Page 57 and 58:
the distance from them might not oc
Page 59 and 60:
explanation is that the additional
Page 61 and 62:
6) More than four years after const
Page 63 and 64:
Table 19: Results from Temporal Asp
Page 65 and 66:
Turning to the coefficient differen
Page 67 and 68:
Table 21: Frequency Crosstab <stron
Page 69 and 70:
5.6.1. Dataset and Model Form Data
Page 71 and 72:
with the scenic vista. In other wor
Page 73 and 74:
6. Repeat Sales Analysis In general
Page 75 and 76:
Table 27: List of
Page 77 and 78:
adjustment, and represent another t
Page 79 and 80:
that are located within one mile <s
Page 81 and 82:
7. Sales Volume Analysis Th
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 11: Sales Volumes by PERIOD
Page 85 and 86:
three years before announcement), a
Page 87 and 88:
8. Wind Pr
Page 89 and 90:
Drawing from the previous literatur
Page 91 and 92:
Taken together, the results from al
Page 93 and 94:
9. Conclusions Though surveys gener
Page 95 and 96:
Davis, L. W. (2008) The</st
Page 97 and 98:
LeSage, J. P. (1999) The</s
Page 99 and 100:
Watson, M. (2005) Estimation <stron
Page 101 and 102: Figure A - 1: Map of</stron
Page 103 and 104: all very small communities with lit
Page 105 and 106: A.2 TXHC Study Area: Howard County
Page 107 and 108: Census Statistics Name Type 2007 Po
Page 109 and 110: Data Collection and Summary County
Page 111 and 112: A.4 IABV Study Area: Buena Vista Co
Page 113 and 114: Variables of Inter
Page 115 and 116: facilities than the towns o
Page 117 and 118: A.6 WIKCDC Study Area: Kewaunee and
Page 121 and 122: elatively high elevations o
Page 123 and 124: A.8 PAWC Study Area: Wayne County (
Page 125 and 126: Census Statistics Name Type 2007 Po
Page 127 and 128: ural landscapes, with the largest p
Page 129 and 130: A.10 NYMC Study Area: Madison Count
Page 133 and 134: account, combined with the determin
Page 135 and 136: Appendix C: Field Data Collection I
Page 137 and 138: Figure A - 14: Field Data Collectio
Page 139 and 140: ABOVE AVERAGE VISTA PREMIUM VISTA 1
Page 141 and 142: EXTREME VIEW 6 turbines visible fro
Page 143 and 144: 5 is a vector of d
Page 145 and 146: values, that effect seems likely to
Page 147 and 148: unrestricted Home and Site Characte
Page 149 and 150: with coefficients above zero and th
Page 151: Figure A - 15: Histogram of
Page 155 and 156: sold within the preceding six month
Page 157 and 158: Appendix H: Alternative Models: Ful
Page 159 and 160: Table A - 8: Full Results for the C
Page 161 and 162: Table A - 10: Full Results for the
Page 163 and 164: Table A - 11: Full Results for the
show all

The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?