Effects of Transportation Infrastructure and Location on Residential Real Estate Values: Application of Spatial Autoregressive Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proximity to transportation infrastructure (highways and public transit) influences residential real estate values. Housing values also are influenced by propinquity to a shopping facility or a recreational amenity. Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models were used to estimate the impact of locational elements on the price of residential properties sold during 1995 in the Greater Toronto Area. A large data set consisting of 27,400 freehold sales was used in the study. Moran’s I was estimated to determine the effects of spatial autocorrelation that existed in housing values. SAR models, using a combination of locational influences, neighborhood characteristics, and structural attributes, explained 83 percent variance in housing values. Using the “comparable sales approach,” a spatiotemporal lag variable was estimated for every property in the database. This research discovered that SAR models offered a better fit than nonspatial models. This study also discovered that in the presence of other explanatory variables, locational and transportation factors were not strong determinants of housing values. On the other hand, the number of washrooms and the average household income in a neighborhood were found to be significant determinants of housing values. Stepwise regression techniques were used to determine reduced spatial hedonic models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".