The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values ...
The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values ... The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values ...
Effectively, this model seeks to identify reasons that AARs vary among those sales pairs in the sample. Reasons for such differences in AARs might include variations in home and site characteristics, the study area in which the sale occurs, or the degree to which the home is in proximity to or has a dramatic view
adjustment, and represent another test for Area Stigma; if effects exist, it is expected that the 0 and 1 coefficients will be negative. As with the hedonic models presented earlier, the assumptions
- 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: Table 27: List of
- 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 119 and 120: Variables of Inter
- 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
adjustment, and represent another test for Area Stigma; if effects exist, it is expected that the 0<br />
and 1 coefficients will be negative.<br />
As with the hed<strong>on</strong>ic models presented earlier, the assumpti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> homoskedasticity, absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
spatial autocorrelati<strong>on</strong>, reas<strong>on</strong>ably little multicollinearity, and appropriate c<strong>on</strong>trols for outliers<br />
are addressed as described in the associated footnote and in Appendix G. 93<br />
6.4. Analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Results<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> results from the Repeat Sales Model are presented in Table 28. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> model performs<br />
relatively poorly overall, with an Adjusted R 2 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> just 0.19 (and an F-test statistic <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 5.2). Other<br />
similar analyses in the literature have produced higher performance statistics but have d<strong>on</strong>e so<br />
with samples that are c<strong>on</strong>siderably larger or more homogenous than ours. 94 <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> low R 2 found<br />
here should not be cause for undue c<strong>on</strong>cern, however, given the relatively small sample spread<br />
across ten different study areas. Moreover, many <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the home and site characteristics are found<br />
to be statistically significant, and <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the appropriate sign. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> coefficient for the adjusted initial<br />
sales price (SalePrice96_Pre), for example, is statistically significant, small, and negative (-<br />
0.000001, p value 0.00), while the coefficient for the adjusted initial sales price squared<br />
(SalePrice96_Pre_Sqr) is also statistically significant and c<strong>on</strong>siderably smaller (