Determinants of forest land prices in northern Minnesota: A hedonic pricing approach

Forest Science

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 25-36

  Snyder, Stephanie A ^a   Kilgore, Michael A ^b   Hudson, Rachel ^a   Donnay, Jacob ^b  

^a USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Forest finance; Forest land prices; Forest markets; Hedonic analysis; Price function

Indexed keywords

FINANCE; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; LAKES; TIMBER;

FOREST FINANCE; FOREST LAND PRICES; FOREST MARKETS; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; PRICE FUNCTION;

FORESTRY;

FINANCE; FORESTS; LAKES; LAND; PRICES; SALES;

EID: 33847016413     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. ARONSSON, T., AND O. CARLEN. 2000. The determinants of forest land prices: An empirical analysis. Can. J. For. Res. 30:589-595.
2. BASTIAN, C.T., D.M. MCLEOD, M.J. GERMINO, W.A. REINERS, AND B.J. BLASKO. 2002. Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: A hedonic model using geographic information systems data. Ecol. Econ. 40:337-349.
3. BAUGHMAN, M.J. 1988. Natural resource characteristics preferred by woodland buyers in northern Minnesota. Nor. J. Applied For. 5(1):69-70.
4. BIRCH, T.W. 1994. Private forest-land owners of the northern United States. USDA For. Serv. Res. Bulletin NE-136.
5. BOX, G., AND D. COX. 1964. An analysis of transformations. J. Royal Stat. Soc., Ser. B. 26:211-243.
6. BUCHTA, J., AND R. MEYHEW. 2005. Subdividing the north country. The Star Tribune [Minneapolis], Oct. 16, 2005. p. A1.
7. BUTLER, B.J., AND E.C. LEATHERBERRY. 2005. National woodland owner survey: 2004 preliminary results. USDA Forest Service, available online at www.fs.fed.us/woodlandowners/. Last accessed May 2, 2006.
8. ERVANTES, J.C. 2003. Characteristics of Minnesota's nonindustrial private forest landowners. PhD Dissertation, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
9. HATTERJEE, S., A. HADI, AND B. PRICE. 2000. Regression analysis by example, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 359 p.
10. HICOINE, D.L. 1981. Farmland values at the urban fringe: An analysis of sale prices. Land Econ. 57(3):353-362.
11. ROPPER, M.L., L. DECK, AND K.E. MCCONNELL. 1988. On the choice of functional form for hedonic price functions. Rev. Econ. and Stats. 70(4):668-675.
12. AVID, E.L. 1968. Lakeshore property values: A guide to public investment in recreation. Resources Res. 4:697-707.
13. DEL SAZ-SALAZAR, S., AND L. GARCIA-MENÉNDEZ. 2005. Public provision versus private provision of industrial land: A hedonic application. Land Use Policy 22:215-223.
14. ONNAY, J.S., M.A. KILGORE, AND S.A. SNYDER. 2005. A look at past and present forest landowner preferences and intentions in northern Minnesota, Staff Paper #184. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. 79 p.
15. FAUX, J., AND G.M. PERRY. 1999. Estimating irrigation water value using hedonic price analysis: A case study in Malheur county, Oregon. Land Econ. 75(3):440-452.
16. GARROD, G.D., AND K.G. WILLIS. 1992a. The environmental economic impact of woodland: A two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Econ. 24:715-728.
17. GARROD, G.D., AND K.G. WILLIS. 1992b. Valuing goods' characteristics: An application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. J. Env. Man. 34:59-76.
18. GARTNER, W.C., D.E. CHAPPELLE, AND T.C. GIRARD. 1996. The influence of natural resource characteristics on property value: A case study. J. Travel Res. 35:64-71.
19. GEOGHEGAN, J., L.A. WAINGER, AND N.E. BOCKSTAEL. 1997. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: An ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol. Econ. 23:251-264.
20. GRAVES, P., J. MURDOCH, M. THAYER, AND D. WALDMAN. 1988. The robustness of hedonic price estimation: Urban air quality. Land Econ. 64:220-233.
21. HALVORSEN, R., AND R. PALMQUIST. 1980. The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Amer. Econ. Rev. 70(3):747-775.
22. HANCOCK TIMBER RESOURCE GROUP. 2000. Taking advantage of the wholesale discount for large timberland tracts. Hancock timber research report, R-00-1. Hancock Timber Resource Group, Boston, MA.
23. HOBDEN, D.W., G.E. LAUGHTON, AND K.E. MORGAN. 2004. Green space borders-A tangible benefit? Evidence from four neighborhoods in Surrey, British Columbia, 1980-2001. Land Use Policy 21(2):129-138.
24. RWIN, E. 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ. 78(4):465-480.
25. KENDRA, A., AND R.B. HULL. 2005. Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For. Sci. 51(2):142-154.
26. KENNEDY, P. 1985. A guide to econometrics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 238 p.
27. KENNEDY, G.A., L.R. VENDEVEER, S.A. HENNING, N. HUIZHEN, AND D.L. DECKARD. 2002. Estimating tract value relationships in the north Louisiana timberland market. Southwestern Econ. Rev. 28(1):123-134.
28. KILGORE, M.A. 2006. The impact of contract for deed financing on Minnesota forest land markets. In Review.
29. KILGORE, M.A., AND D.G. MACKAY. 2007. Trends in Minnesota's forest land real estate market: potential implications for forest land uses. Nor. J. Applied For. In press.
30. KRYSEL, C., E.M. BOYER, C. PARSON, AND P. WELLE. 2003. Lakeshore property values and water quality: Evidence from property sales in the Mississippi Headwaters region. Report of the Mississippi Headwaters Board, Bemidji, MN. Available online at www.mississippiheadwaters.org, last accessed Dec. 15, 2006. 56 p.
31. ANSFORD, N., AND L. JONES. 1995. Marginal price of lake recreation and aesthetics: An hedonic approach. J. Agric. Applied Econ. 27(1):212-223.
32. AHAN, B.L., S. POLASKY, AND R.M. ADAMS. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: A property price approach. Land Econ. 76:100-113.
33. INNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 2003. Minnesota's forest resources. Division of Forestry, St. Paul, MN.
34. NFLS. 1990. Northern forest lands study of New England and New York. USDA For. Serv., Rutland, VT.
35. RADELOFF, V.C., R.B. HAMMER, S.I. STEWART, J.I. FRIED, S.S. HOLCOMB, AND J.F. MCKEEFRY. 2005. The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecol. Applic. 15(3): 799-805.
36. RATHKE, D.M. 1993. An evaluation of Minnesota's timber property tax laws. M.S. thesis, University of Minnesota, Dept. of Forest Resources, St. Paul, MN.
37. ROOS, A. 1996. A hedonic price function for forest land in Sweden. Can. J. For. Res. 26:740-746.
38. ROSEN, S. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in perfect competition. J. Polit. Econ. 82(1):34-55.
39. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 2005. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from www.co.st-louis.mn.us/index.htm.
40. SCARPA, R., J. BUONGIORNO, J. HSEU, AND K.L. ABT. 2000. Assessing the non-timber value of forests: A revealed-preference, hedonic model. J. of Forest Econ. 6(2):83-107.
41. SPRITZER, J. 1982. A primer on Box-Cox estimation. Rev. Econ. and Stats. 64(2):307-313.
42. TAYLOR, L. 2003. The hedonic method. P. 331-393 in A primer on nonmarket valuation, Champ, P., K. Boyle, and T. Brown (eds.). Kluwer Academic Press, The Netherlands.
43. TURNER, R., C.M. NEWTON, AND D.F. DENNIS. 1991. Economic relationships between parcel characteristics and price in the market for Vermont forestland. For. Sci. 37(4):1150-1162.
44. TYRVÄINEN, L., AND A. MIETTINEN. 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. J. Env. Econ. and Man. 39:205-223.
45. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. 2004. Department of Forest Resources, Minnesota Forest Resources Information Cooperative. Available online at mfric.cfans.umn.edu/allstats.html, last accessed Dec. 15, 2006.
46. US BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. 2004. Consumer price indexes. Retrieved December 16th, 2004, from www.bls.gov/cpi/ cpifaq.htm.
47. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1990. Minnesota forest statistics, 1990, Revised. Resource Bulletin NC-158, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.
48. WEAR, D.N., AND D.H. NEWMAN. 2004. The speculative shadow over timberland values in the U.S. south. J. of Forestry 102(8):25-31.