Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:10:41.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hedonic Estimation Applied to the Farmland Market in Georgia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

R.L. Elad ,
I.D. Clifton  and
J.E. Epperson
R.L. Elad
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia
I.D. Clifton
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia
J.E. Epperson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Farmland offered for its productive or consumptive value may be viewed as a class of goods characteristic of product differentiation. Using the generalized Box-Cox transformation, an unrestricted hedonic model was employed to derive implicit valuations of parcel attributes. Results suggest that the significance and level of importance of attributes on land pricing depends on the spatial extent of markets in Georgia. Differences in the productive or consumptive use of farmland may imply that different factors and functional forms are appropriate to different farmland markets.

Keywords

farmland pricesfunctional formhedonic pricing
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 1994 , pp. 351 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bachtel, D.C., and Boatright, S.R.. The Georgia County Guide. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, Athens, 1992.Google Scholar
Box, G.E.P., and Cox, D.R.. “An Analysis of Transformations.” J. Roy. Stat. Soc, Series B, 26 (1964): 211–243.Google Scholar
Brown, C.K., and Brown, D.J.. “Heterogeneous Expectations and Farmland Prices.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66 (1984): 164–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, E. L. “Using Hedonic Pricing to Explain Farmland Prices.” The Farm Real Estate Market. Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, Southern National Resource Economic Committee. (1984):57–74.Google Scholar
Downing, H.R., and Gamble, H.B.. “Pennsylvania Farmland as a Function of Land Quality and Distance from Metropolitan Areas.” J. Northeast. Agr. Econ. Council, 12 (1983):67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunford, W. R., Marti, E.C., and Mittelhammer, C.R.. “A Case Study of Rural Land Prices at the Urban Fringe Including Subjective Buyer Expectations.” Land Econ. 61,1 (1985): 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epple, D. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions for Differentiated Products.” J. Polit. Econ., 95 (1987): 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, A.K.An Economic Application of Hedonic Pricing to Georgia Farmland Submarkets. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia. 1986.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. M. “Hedonic Prices, Property Values and Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Survey of Issues.” Scandinavian J. Econ., 81 (1979):81:154–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgia Agricultural Facts. Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service, Athens, Georgia, 1992.Google Scholar
Georgia Department of Agriculture. Farmers and Consumers Market Bulletin. Vol. 73, No. 38, 1990.Google Scholar
Georgia Statistical Abstract. Akioka, L. M., ed., Selig Center for Economic Growth, College of Business Administration, The University of Georgia, Athens, 1987-1990.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. “Introduction: Hedonic Price Indexes Revisited.” Griliches, Zvi, ed., Price Indexes and Quality Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorsen, R., and Pollakowski, H.O.. “Choice of Form for Hedonic Price Equations.” J Urban Econ., 10 (1981):37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranowski, A.J., and Hammes, B.D.. “Implicit prices of Soil Characteristics for Farmland in Iowa,” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66 (1984):746–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, K. C, and Meyers, W.H.. “Predictive Econometric Modeling of the U.S. Farmland Market: An Empirical Test of the Rational Expectations Hypothesis.” The Center for Agricultural and Rural Development. Iowa State University, 1986.Google Scholar
Moore, K.C. “Modeling the United States Farmland Market: A Test of the Rational Expectations Hypothesis.” Selected Paper Presented at the AAEA Annual Meetings, 1987.Google Scholar
Palmquist, B.R. “Land as a Differential Factor of Production: A Hedonic Model and Its Implications for Welfare Measurements.” Land Econ., 65 (1989): 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, B.R. “Heterogeneous Commodities, Hedonic Regressions, and the Demand for Characteristics.” The Farm Real Estate Market. Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, Southern Natural Resource Economics Committee, 1984: 45–56.Google Scholar
Pope, C.A. III, and Gordon, I.L. Jr. “Impact of Consumptive Demand on Rural Land Values.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66 (1984): 750–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J.E. “Analytical Studies of Factors Affecting Farm Real Estate Values.” The Farm Real Estate Market. Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, Southern Natural Resource Economics Committee, 1984:29–42.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.” J. Polit. Econ., 82 (1974):34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shideed, H.K., Brannen, J.S., and Glover, R.. Trends in the Structure of Georgia Agriculture, 1950 to 1984: An Emphasis on Major Field Crops. Georgia Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. No. 355, 1987.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States (FATUS), Washington, D.C., 1983-1989.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Census of Agriculture. Department of the Census. Vol. 1, Part 10, 1987.Google Scholar
Zeimer, F.R., and White, F.C.. “A Tobit Model of the Demand for Farmland.” S. J. Agr. Econ., 13, 2 (1981):105–109.Google Scholar