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

Drawing from the previous literature on environmental disamenities discussed in Section 2.1,
one likely explanation for this result is simply that any effects that might exist may have faded to
a level indistinguishable from zero at distances outside <strong>of</strong> a mile from the wind facilities. For
other disamenities, some <strong>of</strong> which would seemingly be more likely to raise concerns, effects
have been found to fade quickly with distance. For example, property value effects near a
chemical plant have been found to fade outside <strong>of</strong> two and a half miles (Carroll et al., 1996), near
a lead smelter (Dale et al., 1999) and fossil fuel plants (Davis, 2008) outside <strong>of</strong> two miles, and
near landfills and confined animal feeding operations outside <strong>of</strong> 2,400 feet and 1,600 feet,
respectively (Ready and Abdalla, 2005). Further, homes outside <strong>of</strong> 300 feet (Hamilton and
Schwann, 1995) or even as little as 150 feet (Des-Rosiers, 2002) from a high voltage
transmission line have been found to be unaffected. A second possible explanation for these
results could be related to the view <strong>of</strong> the turbines. In the sample used for this analysis, a large
majority <strong>of</strong> the homes outside <strong>of</strong> one mile (n = 4,812) that sold after wind-facility construction
commenced cannot see the turbines (n = 4,189, 87%), and a considerably larger portion have – at
worst – a minor view <strong>of</strong> the turbines (n = 4,712, 98%). Others have found that the sales prices
for homes situated at similar distances from a disamenity (e.g., HVTL) depend, in part, on the ,
view <strong>of</strong> that disamenity (Des-Rosiers, 2002). Similarly, research has sometimes found that
annoyance with a wind facility decreases when the turbines cannot be seen (Pedersen and Waye,
2004). <strong>The</strong>refore, for the overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> homes outside <strong>of</strong> a mile that have either a
minor rated view or no view at all <strong>of</strong> the turbines, the turbines may simply be out <strong>of</strong> sight, and
therefore, out <strong>of</strong> mind.
8.2. Scenic Vista Stigma
Scenic Vista Stigma is defined as concern that a home may be devalued because <strong>of</strong> the view <strong>of</strong> a
wind energy facility, and the potential impact <strong>of</strong> that view on an otherwise scenic vista. It has as
its basis an admission that home values are, to some degree, derived from the quality <strong>of</strong> what can
be seen from the property and that if those vistas are altered, sales prices might be measurably
affected. <strong>The</strong> Base, View Stability, Continuous Distance, All Sales, Temporal Aspects,
Orientation, Overlap, and Repeat Sales Models each test whether Scenic Vista Stigma is present
in the sample.
<strong>The</strong> Base Model, as well as subsequent Alternative Hedonic Models, demonstrates persuasively
that the quality <strong>of</strong> the scenic vista – absent wind turbines – impacts sales prices. Specifically,
compared to homes with an AVERAGE VISTA, those having a POOR or a BELOW
AVERAGE rating are estimated to sell for 21% (p value 0.00) and 8% (p value 0.00) less, on
average. Similarly, homes with an ABOVE AVERAGE or PREMIUM rating are estimated to
sell for 10% (p value 0.00) and 13% (p value 0.00) more than homes with an AVERAGE vista
rating. Along the same lines, homes in the sample with water frontage or situated on a cul-desac
sell for 33% (p value 0.00) and 10% (p value 0.00) more, on average, than those homes that
lack these characteristics. Taken together, these results demonstrate that home buyers and sellers
consistently take into account what can be seen from the home when sales prices are established,
and that the models presented in this report are able to clearly identify those impacts. 103
103 Of course, cul-de-sacs and water frontage bestow other benefits to the home owner beyond the quality <strong>of</strong> the
scenic vista, such as safety and privacy in the case <strong>of</strong> a cul-de-sac, and recreational potential and privacy in the case
<strong>of</strong> water frontage.
71