MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339466379 · doi:10.1002/2015wr017534

Valuing water resources in Switzerland using a hedonic price model

2016· article· en· W2339466379 on OpenAlexaff
Diana van Dijk, Rosi Siber, Roy Brouwer, Ivana Logar, Dorsa Sanadgol

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFederal Office of Topography swisstopo
KeywordsRecreationEconometricsSpatial dependenceSpatial analysisAbundance (ecology)Environmental scienceSpatial econometricsEconomicsGeographyStatisticsEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, linear and spatial hedonic price models are applied to the housing market in Switzerland, covering all 26 cantons in the country over the period 2005–2010. Besides structural house, neighborhood and socioeconomic characteristics, we include a wide variety of new environmental characteristics related to water to examine their role in explaining variation in sales prices. These include water abundance, different types of water bodies, the recreational function of water, and water disamenity. Significant spatial autocorrelation is found in the estimated models, as well as nonlinear effects for distances to the nearest lake and large river. Significant effects are furthermore found for water abundance and the distance to large rivers, but not to small rivers. Although in both linear and spatial models water related variables explain less than 1% of the price variation, the distance to the nearest bathing site has a larger marginal contribution than many neighborhood‐related distance variables. The housing market shows to differentiate between different water related resources in terms of relative contribution to house prices, which could help the housing development industry make more geographically targeted planning activities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207