Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T22:43:31.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hedonic Approach: No Panacea for Valuing Water Quality Changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Cleve E. Willis  and
John H. Foster
Cleve E. Willis
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
John H. Foster
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access

Abstract

The hedonic approach has been advanced recently as an important tool for assessing the value of non-market environmental attributes. In its most usual form, the method involves an attempt econometrically to capture differential prices for homes attributable to variations in the environmental characteristic. This technique has been applied with success for a variety of attributes – most notably the study of air pollution. However, the case studies reported here for water quality valuation were much less successful. We advance several reasons why the hedonic approach may be ill-suited to measuring the value of water quality.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 1983 , pp. 53 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was supported by a grant from the Office of Water Resources Research and Technology, WR B-076. The assistance of Ken Sewall, George Hunt, and Meg Postle and the helpful comments of Tom Stevens and the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. As always, remaining shortcomings are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

Anonymous, Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 96th Congress, Second Session, Publication No. 96–71, December 1980.Google Scholar
Bayless, Mark, “Measuring the Benefits of Air Quality Improvements: A Hedonic Salary Approach,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 9, 1982, pp. 81–99.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. C. and Heberlein, T. A., “Measuring Expected Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 1979, pp. 926–930.Google Scholar
Brookshire, David, Thayer, Mark, Schulze, William, and D'Arge, Ralph, “Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches,” American Economic Review, 72, 1982, pp. 165–177.Google Scholar
Brookshire, David, et al., “Experiments in Valuing Public Goods,” In Smith, V. K., ed., Advances in Applied Microeconomics, Greenwich: JAI Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Brown, James N. and Rosen, Harvey S., “On the Estimation of Structural Hedonic Price Models,” Econometrica, 50: 3: 765–768, May 1982.Google Scholar
Butler, Richard V., “The Specification of Hedonic Indexes for Urban Housing,” Land Economics, 58: 1: 96–108, 1982.Google Scholar
Dornbusch, D. and Barrager, S., Benefit of Water Pollution Control on Property Values, US EPA 600/5-73-005, 1973.Google Scholar
Epp, Donald J. and Al-Ani, K. S., “The Effect of Water Quality on Rural Non-Farm Residential Property Values,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 1979, pp. 529–534.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. Myrick, III, “Hedonic Prices, Property Values and Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Survey of the Issues,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81, 1979, pp. 154–173.Google Scholar
Miller, George, “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” Psycholgical Review, 63: 81–97, 1956.Google Scholar
Rosen, Sherwin, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economy, 82, 1974, pp. 34–55.Google Scholar
Scott, J. and Wright, P., “Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13: 211–214, 1976.Google Scholar
Smith, Vernon, “The Principal of Unanimity and Voluntary Consent in Social Choice,” Journal of Political Economy, 85, 1977, pp. 1125–1140.Google Scholar
Willis, Cleve Ε. and Perlack, Robert D., “Multiple Objective Decision Making: Generating Techniques or Goal Programming?” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 9, 1980, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Willis, Cleve Ε., Foster, John H., and Sewall, Kenneth, “Valuation of Intangibles: The Case of Water Quality,” Completion Report, Water Resources Research Center, 1982.Google Scholar
Witte, Ann, Sumka, Howard, and Erekson, Homer, “An Estimate of a Structural Hedonic Price Model of the Housing Market: An Application of Rosen's Theory of Implicit Markets,” Econometrica, 47, 1979, pp. 1151–1173.Google Scholar