CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsHousing Market and EconomicsEconomic and Environmental Valuation

A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Studies to Assess the Property Value Effects of Low Impact Development

Open access
Mazzotta, Marisa, Besedin, Elena, Speers, Ann·2014·Resources
DOI 10.3390/resources3010031
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Stormwater runoff from urban areas is a significant source of water pollution in the United States. Many states are promoting low impact development (LID) practices, which provide a variety of direct and ancillary ecosystem services. We describe a meta-analysis designed to evaluate the property value benefits of LID practices that reduce impervious surfaces and increase vegetated areas in developments, and present an example application to a hypothetical land use scenario. From the many hedonic property valuation studies of the benefits of general open space, we identified 35 studies that valued open spaces that were similar in nature to the small, dispersed open spaces characteristic of LID. The meta-regression estimates the percent change in a home’s value for an observed percent change in open space within a specific radius of a parcel, based on changes expected to result from LID approaches that increase green spaces. Our results indicate that the design and characteristics of a project affect the magnitude of benefits, and that values decline with distance. More broadly, the meta-analysis shows percent change and proximity are robust determinants of household willingness to pay for aesthetic and other services associated with local availability of small, dispersed open spaces resulting from LID, but that values for other features, including type of vegetation and recreational use may be site-specific. Policymakers and developers could draw on our synthesis of site characteristics’ effects to maximize benefits from open space associated with LID.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/resources3010031

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Increased property values resulting from effective BMP implementation and landscape design, including green infrastructure, can benefit property owners and municipalities through increased tax revenue.

    “Increased property values resulting from effective BMP implementation and landscape design (including green infrastructure) can benefit property owners and municipalities through increased tax revenue (Ward et al. 2008;Odefey et al. 2012;Mazzotta et al. 2014).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Mazzotta et al. 2014

    Section 4.1.2 projects increased property values from low-impact development, and the Discussion links vegetated landscape features to those gains. The paper does not address whether municipalities benefit through increased tax revenue, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Homes in low-impact development (LID) neighborhoods with large quantities of greenspace and redesigned streets improved stormwater drainage while increasing home prices by 3.5-5% compared to similar homes in non-LID neighborhoods.

    “Homes in low-impact development (LID; a form of development that seeks to mimic the natural hydrology of the site) neighborhoods with large quantities of greenspace and redesigned streets improved stormwater drainage while increasing home prices by 3.5-5% compared to similar homes in non-LID neighborhoods (Ward et al. 2008;Mazzotta et al. 2014).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Mazzotta et al. 2014

    The Discussion describes LID as providing vegetated open space and potential stormwater-retention benefits, while §4.1.2 estimates modest increases in nearby property values under a hypothetical LID scenario. The paper does not report a 3.5–5% home-price increase for LID versus non-LID neighborhoods, nor does it establish that redesigned streets improved drainage in the neighborhoods described. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Property value increases from the benefits of open green space associated with LID were site-specific and depended on distance from LID features.

    “Mazzotta et al. (2014) found that property value increases from the benefits of open green space associated with LID were site-specific and depended on distance from LID features.”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Mazzotta et al. 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. National Research Council. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States; National Academy of Sciences Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; p.vii.
  2. Lee, J.S.; Li, M.H. The impact of detention basin design on residential property value: Case studies using GIS in the hedonic price modeling. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 89, 7-16.
  3. Zielinski, J. The benefits of better site design in residential subdivisions. Watershed Prot. Tech. 2000, 3, 633-646.
  4. Kopits, E.; McConnell, V.; Walls, M. The trade-off between private lots and public open space in subdivisions at the urban-rural fringe. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 89, 1191-1197.
  5. Cho, S.H.; Clark, C.D.; Park, W.M.; Kim, S.G. Spatial and temporal variation in the housing market values of lot size and open space. Land Econ. 2009, 85, 51-73.
  6. Cho, S.H.; Lambert, D.M.; Roberts, R.K.; Kim, S.G. Moderating urban sprawl: Is there a balance between shared open space and housing parcel size? J. Econ. Geogr. 2010, 10, 763-783.
  7. Williams, E.S.; Wise, W.R. Economic impacts of alternative approaches to storm-water management and land development. J. Water Res. Plan. Manag. ASCE 2009, 135, 537-546.
  8. Wise, S.; Braden, J.; Ghalayini, D.; Grant, J.; Kloss, C.; MacMullan, E.; Morse, S.; Montalto, F.; Nees, D.; Nowak, D.; et al. Integrating valuation methods to recognize green infrastructure's multiple benefits. In Low Impact Development 2010: Redefining Water in the City, Proceedings of the 2010 International Low Impact Development Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 11-14 April 2010.
  9. Kearney, A.R. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction-Impacts of density and nearby nature. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 112-139.
  10. Mohamed, R. The economics of conservation subdivisions-Price premiums, improvement costs, and absorption. Urban Aff. Rev. 2006, 41, 376-399.
  11. Bowman, T.; Thompson, J.; Colletti, J. Valuation of open space and conservation features in residential subdivisions. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 321-330.
  12. Heintzelman, M.A. Measuring the property-value effects of local land use and preservation referenda. Land Econ. 2010, 86, 22-47.
  13. Netusil, N.R. Economic valuation of riparian corridors and upland wildlife habitat in an urban watershed. J. Contemp. Water Res Educ. 2006, 134, 39-45.
  14. Reynolds, J.E.; Regalado, A. The effects of wetlands and other factors on rural land values. Apprais. J. 2002, 70, 182-182.
  15. Netusil, N.R. The effect of environmental zoning and amenities on property values: Portland, Oregon. Land Econ. 2005, 81, 227-246.
  16. Thompson, R. Cost Benefit Analysis of Conservation Developments in Western North Carolina. Master's Thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, April 2008.
  17. Williams, E.S. Hydrologic and Economic Impacts of Alternative Residential Land Development Methods. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2003.
  18. Nassauer, J.I.; Allan, J.D.; Johengen, T.; Kosek, S.E.; Infante, D. Exurban residential subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public perception. Urban Ecosyst. 2004, 7, 267-281.
  19. Nassauer, J.I.; Wang, Z.; Dayrell, E. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 282-292.
  20. Boyle, K.J.; Parmeter, C.F.; Boehlert, B.B.; Paterson, R.W. Due diligence in meta-analyses to support benefit transfers. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2013, 55, 357-386.
  21. Bergstrom, J.C.; Taylor, L.O. Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 351-360.
  22. Rosenberger, R.S.; Stanley, T.D. Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 372-378.
  23. Shrestha, R.K.; Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. Benefit transfer using meta-analysis in recreation economic valuation. In Environmental Values Transfer: Issues and Methods; Navrud, S., Ready, R., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2007; pp. 22-43.
  24. Woodward, R.T.; Wui, Y.S. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37, 257-270.
  25. Bateman, I.J.; Jones, A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values. Land Econ. 2003, 79, 235-258.
  26. Johnston, R.J.; Besedin, E.Y.; Iovanna, R.; Miller, C.; Wardell, R.; Ranson, M. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: A meta-analysis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 53, 221-248.
  27. Johnston, R.J.; Rosenberger, R.S. Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J. Econ. Surv. 2010, 24, 479-510.
  28. Vladich, H.V. Participatory Spatial Analysis, Ecosystem Services Valuation and The Development of An Integrated Modular Landscape Based on Stormwater Management Framework: A Case Study of A Neighborhood in South Burlington, Vermont. In Proceedings of 7th Bi-annual Meeting of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics, Burlington, VT, USA, 9-12 June 2013.
  29. Smith, V.K.; Huang, J.C. Can markets value air quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property value models. J. Polit. Econ. 1995, 103, 209-227.
  30. Munroe, D.K. Exploring the determinants of spatial pattern in residential land markets: Amenities and disamenities in Charlotte, NC, USA. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Design 2007, 34, 336-354.
  31. Doss, C.R.; Taff, S.J. The influence of wetland type and wetland proximity on residential property values. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 1996, 21, 120-129.
  32. Bin, O.; Polasky, S. Evidence on the amenity value of wetlands in a rural setting. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2005, 37, 589-602.
  33. Bark, R.H.; Osgood, D.E.; Colby, B.G.; Katz, G.; Stromberg, J. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1465-1475.
  34. Cho, S.H.; Lambert, D.; Kim, S.; Roberts, R.; Park, W. Relationship between value of open space and distance from housing locations within a community. J. Geogr. Syst. 2011, 13, 393-414.
  35. Smith, V.K.; Poulos, C.; Kim, H. Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resour. Energy Econ. 2002, 24, 107-129.
  36. Abbott, J.K.; Klaiber, H.A. Is all space created equal? Uncovering the relationship between competing land uses in subdivisions. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70, 296-307.
  37. Acharya, G.; Bennett, L.L. Valuing open space and land-use patterns in urban watersheds. J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 2001, 22, 221-237.
  38. Anderson, S.T.; West, S.E. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2006, 36, 773-789.
  39. Bin, O. A semiparametric hedonic model for valuing wetlands. Appl. Econ. Letters 2005, 12, 597-601.
  40. Bolitzer, B.; Netusil, N.R. The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 59, 185-193.
  41. Lutzenhiser, M.; Netusil, N.R. The effect of open spaces on a home's sale price. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2001, 19, 291-298.
  42. Cho, S.H.; Bowker, J.M.; Park, W.M. Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: An application and comparison of spatially-weighted hedonic models. In Proceedings of American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, USA, 23-26 July, 2006.
  43. Cho, S.H.; Poudyal, N.C.; Roberts, R.K. Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 403-416.
  44. Cho, S.H.; Roberts, R.K.; Kim, S. Negative externalities on property values resulting from water impairment: The case of Pigeon River watershed. In Proceedings of Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2011 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association & Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 24-26 July 2011.
  45. Donovan, G.H.; Butry, D.T. Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 77-83.
  46. Geoghegan, J.; Wainger, L.A.; Bockstael, N.E. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: An ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 23, 251-264.
  47. Hardie, I.; Lichtenberg, E.; Nickerson, C.J. Regulation, open space, and the value of land undergoing residential subdivision. Land Econ. 2007, 83, 458-474.
  48. Irwin, E.G. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ. 2002, 78, 465-480.
  49. Kaufman, D.; Cloutier, N. The impact of small brownfields and greenspaces on residential property values. J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 2006, 33, 19-30.
  50. Mahan, B.L.; Polasky, S.; Adams, R.M. Valuing urban wetlands: A property price approach. Land Econ. 2000, 76, 100-113.
  51. Netusil, N.R.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Kovacs, K.F. Estimating the demand for tree canopy: A second-stage hedonic price analysis in Portland, Oregon. Land Econ. 2010, 86, 281-293.
  52. Sander, H.A.; Polasky, S. The value of views and open space: Estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County, Minnesota, USA. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 837-845.
  53. Sander, H.; Polasky, S.; Haight, R.G. The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1646-1656.
  54. Saphores, J.D.; Li, W. Estimating the value of urban green areas: A hedonic pricing analysis of the single family housing market in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 373-387.
  55. Shultz, S.D.; King, D.A. The use of census data for hedonic price estimates of open-space amenities and land use. J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 2001, 22, 239-252.
  56. Stetler, K.M.; Venn, T.J.; Calkin, D.E. The effects of wildfire and environmental amenities on property values in northwest Montana, USA. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2233-2243.
  57. Thorsnes, P. The value of a suburban forest preserve: Estimates from sales of vacant residential building lots. Land Econ. 2002, 78, 426-441.
  58. Towe, C. A valuation of subdivision open space by type. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 1319-1325.
  59. Troy, A.; Grove, J.M. Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 87, 233-245.
  60. White, E.M.; Leefers, L.A. Influence of natural amenities on residential property values in a rural setting. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2007, 20, 659-667.
  61. Nelson, J.P.; Kennedy, P.E. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: An assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42, 345-377.
  62. Hoehn, J.P. Methods to address selection effects in the meta-regression transfer of ecosystem values. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 389-398.
  63. Leamer, E.E. Let's take the con out of econometrics. Am. Econ. Rev. 1983, 73, 31-43.
  64. Clean Water America Alliance. Barriers and Gateways to Green Infrastructure; Clean Water America Alliance: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 1-37.
  65. Rosenberger, R.S.; Phipps, T.T. Correspondence and convergence in benefit transfer accuracy: A meta-analytic review of the literature. In Environmental Values Transfer: Issues and Methods;
  66. Dougherty, A.; van Order, R. Inflation, housing costs, and the consumer price index. Am. Econ. Rev. 1982, 72, 154-164.
  67. Abelson, P.W.; Markandya, A. The interpretation of capitalized hedonic prices in a dynamic environment. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1985, 12, 195-206.
  68. Meese, R.; Wallace, N. Testing the present value relation for housing: Should I leave my house in San Francisco? J. Urban Econ. 1994, 35, 245-266.
  69. Diewert, W.E.; Nakamura, A.; Nakamura, L. The housing bubble and a new approach to accounting for housing in a CPI. J. Hous. Econ. 2009, 18, 156-171.
  70. Shiller, R. Irrational Exuberance; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2000.
  71. Homer, C.; Dewitz, J.; Fry, J.; Coan, M.; Hossain, N.; Larson, C.; Herold, N.; McKerrow, A.; VanDriel, J.N.; Wickham, J. Completion of the 2001 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2007, 73, 337-341.
  72. Nelson, J.P. Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values: Problems and prospects. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 2004, 38, 1-27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mazzotta, M., Besedin, E., & Speers, A.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Abt Associates Inc., 55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
Corresponding author
Mazzotta, Marisa
ORCID
Mazzotta, Marisa
Venue
Resources
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2014-01-21
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
31-61
ISSN
2079-9276 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/resources3010031
OpenAlex
W2132390394
Cited by
31
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Resources (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Office of Research and Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Housing Market and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
low impact development, property values, hedonic pricing, stormwater runoff, urban water pollution, ecosystem services, impervious surfaces, green spaces, willingness to pay, proximity effect, land use planning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review