Assessing the impact of the Melancthon Phase I wind project on nearby agricultural property values: a hedonic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The government of Ontario initiated two programs in 2003 to stimulate the development of renewable energy sources in the province. The result has been an increase in renewable energy development in the province, particularly in the field of wind energy. In 2003, Ontario had 10 commercially operating wind turbines; by the end of 2009 there will be 589. On November 25, 2004 the government announced that Canadian Hydro Developers had qualified through one of the programs to construct a 45 turbine wind farm in Melancthon Township, Dufferin County. After the announcement, there was considerable debate amongst property owners in the community. The debate centred on the issue of loss in property value due to proximity to one or more turbines. This research study addresses this issue by examining the effects of the wind turbines on nearby property values in Melancthon and surrounding townships. To determine the effects of turbines on property values, a hedonic property model was constructed using property sales from Melancthon and the surrounding townships. The dataset, provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), included farmland sales from February 2002 until July 2006. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) was used to measure the distance between each of the 1,759 properties in the dataset and the nearest turbine. It is expected that if a turbine-generated disamenity exists, the magnitude would be greatest amongst properties very near a turbine; thus, the distance to the nearest turbine was used as a proxy for the disamenity effect. This distance variable was included in the hedonic property model, along with a dummy variable indicating the presence or absence of turbines, to account for the effect of the wind turbines on property values. The results of the hedonic analysis found both significant and insignificant negative results. It was found that vacant properties sold alter July 2005 had a decrease in value attributed to the existence of the turbines. However, aside from vacant parcels, the turbines were not found to reduce property values in Melancthon and the surrounding area.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".