Hotel room pricing and economic benefit for local economies: evidence from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to estimate the price premium for a sea view on room rent in a Nordic context, i.e. where proximity to the sea is not valued for the presence of swimmable beaches and suntanning activities. The analysis also explores regional and seasonal variations in price premiums. Design/methodology/approach To do so, the study uses information from a Web search of room rents during winter and summer peak seasons. The investigation is based on hotels located along the St. Lawrence River in the Province of Quebec (Canada), where about 40 to 60 km separate both shores. A matching procedure and hedonic pricing models are used to identify the causal impact of a sea view on individual room rents. Findings Results suggest that the view price premium varies between 0% and 20%. It is relatively stable on the North Shore, but varies highly on the South Shore, where touristic activities are mainly operating in summertime. The estimation suggests a median local economic benefit of about $30.1M/year. Practical implications The analysis reveals that a hedonic pricing model might fail to identify causal effects, especially if it does not account for hotel characteristics. A multiple linear regression model does not ensure a causal interpretation if it neglects unobserved characteristics correlated with the view. Originality/value The paper proposes a matching identification procedure accounting for spatial confounding to retrieve the causal impact of the view of the sea on hotel room rents. A heterogeneity analysis suggests that view price premium on room rent can vary within seasons but mainly across regions, even for the same amenities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".