MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587282158

The Impact of Mature Trees on House Values and on Residential Location Choices in Quebec City

2002· article· en· W2587282158 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marius Thériault, Yan Kestens, François Des Rosiers

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)LandscapingNeighbourhood (mathematics)Socioeconomic statusDiscrete choiceGeographyEnvironmental economicsMarketingBusinessEconomicsEconometricsPopulationSociologyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: When choosing their home, households are willing to maximize their satisfaction and utility while trying to avoid noise and inconvenience. Along with economic constraints, this decision process involves several types of criteria, including preferences and perception of environment in the neighbourhood. Previous research in spatial economy has addressed the impact of vegetation and environment quality on single-family house values, using hedonic price models. However, assessing the economic valuation of trees is not sufficient to fully understand the choice-setting mechanisms behind the conversion of environmental preferences into residential location choices. New modelling approaches integrating behaviour, attitudes, tradeoffs and motivations could certainly improve our understanding of people’s valuation of nature. This paper develops such a behavioural model considering a housing market which was firstly analysed using the hedonic modelling approach. Logistic regression was then used in order to model households ' propensity for buying a house on a wooded lot (with mature trees). Our purpose is to highlight the potential of combining economic and behavioural modelling to enhance understanding of landscaping in urban regions. Our research integrates various data sets collected in Quebec City from 1993 to 2001: an opinion poll of 640-home buyers; a summary of their transactions (sale price); in-site surveys of properties to assess vegetation status; socio-economic attributes of families; census data; accessibility to services modelled using GIS; finally, a full

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.169 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)Same topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207