4.7 Article

Do residents care about urban dumps? Evidence from individual housing transaction data

Journal

LAND USE POLICY
Volume 109, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105604

Keywords

Hedonic price model; Difference-in-Difference model; Dumps; Negative externalities; Willingness to pay; Beijing

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71703166]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China [2072021049]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study combined housing transaction data and waste treatment plant data in Beijing from 2015 to 2018 to evaluate the effects of new waste dumps on nearby housing prices using a hedonic price model. The results showed that the establishment of new dumps would significantly decrease housing prices in surrounding areas, indicating that the government should take into consideration the adverse impacts on residents when building new waste dumps.
More waste dumps are urgently needed to better cope with the surge of urban garbage and alleviate the ecological pressure on existing dumps. However, such dumps have environmental externalities. Housing transaction data and waste treatment plant data in Beijing from 2015 to 2018 were combined in this study for use in the hedonic price model to evaluate these externalities. We focus on the effects of new dumps, rather than existing dumps, on housing prices in surrounding areas to better control for omitted variable bias. The results of the difference-in-differences model show that new dumps would significantly decrease nearby housing prices by 5.82%. Our results further infer that the economic loss of the district where these new dumps are located will be at least $46.3 billion (in 2015 U.S. dollars). The above results indicate that the government should consider the adverse impacts on the surrounding residents when building new dumps.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available