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 ...
Table 28: Results from Repeat Sales Model Coef. SE p Value n Intercept 0.005 0.02 0.81 354 WAOR Omitted Omitted Omitted 6 TXHC -0.01 0.02 0.63 57 OKCC 0.03 0.02 0.11 102 IABV 0.02 0.02 0.14 59 ILLC -0.01 0.02 0.38 18 WIKCDC 0.02 0.03 0.50 8 PASC -0.01 0.02 0.67 32 PAWC 0.02 0.02 0.16 35 NYMCOC 0.02 0.02 0.23 24 NYMC 0.03 0.02 0.13 13 SalePrice96 Pre -0.000001 0.0000002 0.00 354 SalePrice96 Pre Sqr 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00 354 Acres 0.002 0.001 0.10 354 Sqft 1000 0.02 0.01 0.00 354 No View Omitted Omitted Omitted 305 Minor View -0.02 0.01 0.02 35 Moderate View 0.03 0.03 0.29 5 Substantial/Extreme View -0.02 0.01 0.09 9 Less than 1 Mile 0.03 0.01 0.01 14 Between 1 and 3 Miles 0.01 0.01 0.59 199 Between 3 and 5 Miles 0.01 0.01 0.53 116 Outside 5 Miles Omitted Omitted Omitted 25 "Omitted" = reference category for fixed effects variables "n" indicates number
that are located within one mile
- 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: adjustment, and represent another t
- 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
- Page 127 and 128: ural landscapes, with the largest p
Table 28: Results from Repeat Sales Model<br />
Coef. SE p Value n<br />
Intercept 0.005 0.02 0.81 354<br />
WAOR Omitted Omitted Omitted 6<br />
TXHC -0.01 0.02 0.63 57<br />
OKCC 0.03 0.02 0.11 102<br />
IABV 0.02 0.02 0.14 59<br />
ILLC -0.01 0.02 0.38 18<br />
WIKCDC 0.02 0.03 0.50 8<br />
PASC -0.01 0.02 0.67 32<br />
PAWC 0.02 0.02 0.16 35<br />
NYMCOC 0.02 0.02 0.23 24<br />
NYMC 0.03 0.02 0.13 13<br />
SalePrice96 Pre -0.000001 0.0000002 0.00 354<br />
SalePrice96 Pre Sqr 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00 354<br />
Acres 0.002 0.001 0.10 354<br />
Sqft 1000 0.02 0.01 0.00 354<br />
No View Omitted Omitted Omitted 305<br />
Minor View -0.02 0.01 0.02 35<br />
Moderate View 0.03 0.03 0.29 5<br />
Substantial/Extreme View -0.02 0.01 0.09 9<br />
Less than 1 Mile 0.03 0.01 0.01 14<br />
Between 1 and 3 Miles 0.01 0.01 0.59 199<br />
Between 3 and 5 Miles 0.01 0.01 0.53 116<br />
Outside 5 Miles Omitted Omitted Omitted 25<br />
"Omitted" = reference category for fixed effects variables<br />
"n" indicates number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cases in category when category = "1"<br />
Model Informati<strong>on</strong><br />
Model Equati<strong>on</strong> Number 11<br />
Dependent Variable<br />
Number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cases<br />
SalePrice96_AAR<br />
354<br />
Number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Predictors (k) 19<br />
F Statistic 5.2<br />
Adjusted R2 0.19<br />
Turning to the variables <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> interest, mixed results (see Figure 9 and Figure 10) are found. For<br />
homes with MINOR or SUBSTANTIAL/EXTREME VIEWS, despite small sample sizes,<br />
appreciati<strong>on</strong> rates after adjusting for inflati<strong>on</strong> are found to decrease by roughly 2% annually (p<br />
values <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.02 and 0.09, respectively) compared to homes with NO VIEW. Though these<br />
findings initially seem to suggest the presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Scenic Vista Stigma, the coefficients are not<br />
m<strong>on</strong>ot<strong>on</strong>ically ordered, counter to what <strong>on</strong>e might expect: homes with a MODERATE rated<br />
view appreciated <strong>on</strong> average 3% annually (p value 0.29) compared to homes with NO VIEW.<br />
Adding to the suspici<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these VIEW results, the DISTANCE coefficient for homes situated<br />
inside <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e mile, where eight out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the nine SUBSTANTIAL/EXTREME rated homes are<br />
located, is positive and statistically significant (0.03, p value 0.01). If interpreted literally, these<br />
results suggest that a home inside <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e mile with a SUBSTANTIAL/EXTREME rated view<br />
would experience a decrease in annual appreciati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2% compared to homes with no views <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
turbines, but simultaneously would experience an increase <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 3% in appreciati<strong>on</strong> compared to<br />
homes outside <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> five miles. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore, when compared to those homes outside <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> five miles and<br />
with no view <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the wind facilities, these homes would experience an overall increase in AAR by<br />
1%. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se results are counterintuitive and are likely driven by the small number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sales pairs<br />
60