In this paper, land prices for nonresidential real estate listings in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, are analyzed with the use of ordinary least squares regression models. Location and transportation attributes are used in the analysis to explain observed land prices. Seven models were estimated to control the heterogeneity in the land use types. The results show differences in factors explaining land prices of the models, indicating that caution should be used when land use types are aggregated together. The role of transportation carried mixed results. Rail had a positive effect for industrial properties but was negative for commercial and food services. Transit had a positive effect on vacant land. Direct proximity to highway ramps had a negative correlation for vacant land, but indirect variables such as potential (residential) accessibility and time to the central business district indicated the positive effects that roads and highways had. Testing showed that although spatial autocorrelation was present in the price data, the independent regressors used in the modeling partially mitigated that effect. Multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity were also accounted for throughout the modeling process. The results obtained provide a useful account of various spatial and transportation-related phenomena for a midsize Canadian metropolitan area. Moreover, the empirical analysis is particularly valuable given the lack of modeling done on the commercial and industrial prices when compared with that done for residential properties.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DuH., and MulleyC.Relationship Between Transport Accessibility and Land Value: Local Model Approach with Geographically Weighted Regression. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1977, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 197–205.
2.
ChalermpongS.Rail Transit and Residential Land Use in Developing Countries: Hedonic Study of Residential Property Prices in Bangkok, Thailand. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2038, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 111–119.
3.
IaconoM., LevinsonD., and El-GeneidyA.Models of Transportation and Land Use Change: A Guide to the Territory. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2008, pp. 323–340.
4.
WaddellP.UrbanSim: Modeling Urban Development for Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 68, No. 3, 2002, pp. 297–343.
5.
WaddellP., and UlfarssonG. F.Dynamic Simulation of Real Estate Development and Land Prices Within an Integrated Land Use and Transportation Model System. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
6.
NothM., BorningA., and WaddellP.An Extensible, Modular Architecture for Simulating Urban Development, Transportation, and Environmental Impacts. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2003, pp. 181–203.
7.
MartinezF.MUSSA: Land Use Model for Santiago City. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 126–134.
8.
HuntJ. D., KrigerD. S., and MillerE. J.Current Operational Urban Land Use–Transport Modelling Frameworks: A Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2005, pp. 329–376.
9.
KockelmanK. M.Effects of Location Elements on Home Purchase Prices and Rents in San Francisco Bay Area. In Transportation Research Record 1606, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 40–50.
10.
IaconoM., and LevinsonD.Location, Regional Accessibility, and Price Effects: Evidence from Home Sales in Hennepin County, Minnesota. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2245, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 87–94.
11.
MartínezL. M., and ViegasJ. M.Effects of Transportation Accessibility on Residential Property Values: Hedonic Price Model in the Lisbon, Portugal, Metropolitan Area. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2115, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 127–137.
12.
SrourI. M., KockelmanK. M., and DunnT. P.Accessibility Indices: Connection to Residential Land Prices and Location Choices. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 25–34.
13.
TuY., YuS., and SunH.Transaction-Based Office Price Indexes: A Spatiotemporal Modeling Approach. Real Estate Economics, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2004, pp. 297–328.
14.
Montero-LorenzoJ. M., Larraz-IribasB., and PáezA.Estimating Commercial Property Prices: An Application of Cokriging with Housing Prices as Ancillary Information. Journal of Geographical Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2009, pp. 407–425.
15.
ColwellP. F., MunnekeH. J., and TrefzgerJ. W.Chicago's Office Market: Price Indices, Location and Time. Real Estate Economics, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1998, pp. 83–106.
16.
FüssR., SteinM., and ZietzJ.A Regime-Switching Approach to Modeling Rental Prices of U.K. Real Estate Sectors. Real Estate Economics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2012, pp. 317–350.
17.
DunseN., JonesC., BrownJ., and FraserW. D.The Spatial Pattern of Industrial Rents and the Role of Distance. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2005, pp. 329–341.
18.
Ten SiethoffB., and KockelmanK. M.Property Values and Highway Expansion Timing, Size, Location, and Use Effects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1812, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 191–200.
19.
OzusE.Determinants of Office Rents in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area. European Planning Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2009, pp. 621–633.
20.
PáezA., UchidaT., and MiyamotoK.Spatial Association and Heterogeneity Issues in Land Price Models. Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 9, 2001, pp. 1493–1508.
21.
HannonenM.Predicting Urban Land Prices: A Comparison of Four Approaches. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2008, pp. 217–236.
22.
HarpelE. D.Services in the Detroit Regional Economy: Implications for a City in Transition. Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2011, pp. 597–612.
MaohH., KanaroglouP., and KoroniosM.Developed Housing Types at the Land Parcel Level: A Micro-Analytical Modeling Approach. Submitted to Journal of Geographical Systems.
25.
AnselinL., SyabriJ., and KhoY.Geoda: An Introduction to Spatial Analysis. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 5–22.
26.
LongJ. S., and ErvinL. H.Using Heteroscedasticity Consistent Standard Errors in the Linear Regression Model. The American Statistician, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2000, pp. 217–224.
CaseB., ClappJ., DubinR., and RodriguezM.Modeling Spatial and Temporal House Price Patterns: A Comparison of Four Models. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2004, pp. 167–191.
