MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Value of cleaner neighborhoods: Application of hedonic price model in low income context

2020· article· en· W3015301820 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mani Nepal, Madan S. Khadayat, E. Somanathan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCity, University of LondonInternational Development Research CentreNorth Carolina Central University
KeywordsMetropolitan areaContext (archaeology)Property valueSample (material)Value (mathematics)Property taxBusinessHousehold wasteHedonic pricingMunicipal solid wasteSurvey data collectionAgricultural economicsEconomicsGeographyFinanceEconometricsWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipal solid waste management is a challenging issue in developing countries. An unclean neighborhood could have a significant negative impact on housing property values too as it may lead to numerous diseases in addition to diminished aesthetic value. This study examines the effects of municipal solid waste collection services at the neighborhood level on housing property values using the hedonic price model. We use a sub-sample of nationally representative household survey data from urban areas as well as primary data collected from one of the metropolitan cities in Nepal. Our results suggest that city residents place a high price premium (between 25% and 57%) on cleaner neighborhoods and less (−11%) on open drains. These numbers indicate that better waste management will bring high returns to home owners, and also the municipality in cities where the tax base includes the assessed value of property.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld DevelopmentSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207