Wireless Towers and Home Values: An Alternative Valuation Approach Using a Spatial Econometric Analysis

Article
  • 155 Downloads

Abstract

This is the first study to use an hedonic spatial autoregressive model to assess the impact of wireless communication towers on the value of residential properties. Using quantile analyses based on minimum distances between sold properties and visible and non-visible towers, we examine the relationship between property values and wireless tower proximity and visibility within various specified radii for homes sold after tower construction. For properties located within 0.72 kilometers of the closest tower, results reveal significant social welfare costs with values declining 2.46% on average, and up to 9.78% for homes within tower visibility range compared to homes outside tower visibility range; in aggregate, properties within the 0.72-kilometer band lose over $24 million dollars.

Keywords

Hedonic analysis Housing value Land planning Public planning Spatial econometrics Urban externalities Wireless tower impacts 

JEL Classifications

C5 K32 Q51 R21 R32 R38 R58 

References

  1. Airwave Management, LLC (2013). Cell tower lease rates exposed. http://www.cell-tower-leases.com/Cell-Tower-Lease-Rates.html. Accessed 6 March 2016.
  2. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin, L., Bera, A. K., Florax, R., & Yoon, M. J. (1996). Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26(1), 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, S. (2007a). Cell phone tower proximity impacts on house prices: a New Zealand case study. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 13(1), 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond, S. (2007b). The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida. The Appraisal Journal, 75(4), 362–370.Google Scholar
  6. Bond, S., & Beamish, K. (2005). Cellular phone towers: perceived impact on residents and property values. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 11(2), 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond, S., & Wang, K. K. (2005). The impact of cell phone towers on house prices in residential neighborhoods. The Appraisal Journal, 73(3), 256–262.Google Scholar
  8. Bowes, D. R., & Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2001). Identifying the impacts of rail transit stations on residential property values. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caudill, S. B., Affuso, E., & Yang, M. (2014). Registered sex offenders and house prices: an hedonic analysis. Urban Studies, 52(13), 2425–2440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015) CDC data predicts death of landline home phones. http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/02/25/cdc-data-predicts-death-of-landline-home-phones. Accessed 5 March 2016.
  11. Cisco (2013). VNI mobile forecast highlights, 2013–2018, United States – 2013 Year in Review. http://cisco.com/assets/sol/sp/vni/forecast_highlights_mobile. Accessed 2 March 2016.
  12. CTIA - The Wireless Association® (2015). Annual Wireless Industry Survey. http://ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless-works/annual-wireless-industry-survey. Accessed 6 Feb 2017.
  13. Entner, R. (2012). The Wireless Industry: The Essential Engine of U.S. Economic Growth. Recon Analytics, May, 30–33.Google Scholar
  14. Federal Communications Commission (1996). Telecommunications Act of 1996. https://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  15. Filippova, O., & Rehm, M. (2011). The impact of proximity to cell phone towers on residential property values. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 4(3), 244–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Florax, R. J., & De Graaff, T. (2004). The performance of diagnostic tests for spatial dependence in linear regression models: a meta-analysis of simulation studies (pp. 29–65). Berlin-Heidelberg: Advances in Spatial Econometrics, Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Grass, R. G. (1992). The estimation of residential property values around Transit Station sites in Washington, D.C. Journal of Economics and Finance, 16(2), 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen, C. U., Panduro, T. E., & Lundhede, T. H. (2014). The vindication of don Quixote: the impact of noise and visual pollution from wind turbines. Land Economics, 90(4), 668–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LeSage, J., & Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  20. Locke, S. L., & Blomquist, G. C. (2016). The cost of convenience: estimating the impact of communication antennas on residential property values. Land Economics, 92(1), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mahan, B. L., Polasky, S., & Adams, R. M. (2000). Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Economics, 76(1), 100–113.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, S. L. (1997). Communications tower Sitings: the telecommunications act of 1996 and the battle for community control. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 12(2), 483–501.Google Scholar
  23. McDonough, C. C. (2003). The impact of wireless towers on residential property values. Assessment Journal, 10(3), 25–32.Google Scholar
  24. Nelson, A.C., & McCleskey, S.J. (1990). Improving the effects of elevated transit stations on neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record (1266), 173–180.Google Scholar
  25. Paterson, R. W., & Boyle, K. J. (2002). Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Economics, 78(3), 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearce, A.P., Carlson, J.R. & Pagano, M. (2013). Wireless broadband infrastructure: catalyst for GDP and job growth 2013-2017. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520949630. Accessed 6 March 2016.
  27. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Summers, L. (2010). Technological opportunities, job creation, and economic growth. Remarks at the New America Foundation, June 29, 2010. http://larrysummers.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/Technological-Opportunities_6.28.2010.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2016.
  29. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. United Nations, International Communication Union (2015). ICT Facts and Figures. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx. Accessed 11 April 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Finance, Mitchell College of BusinessUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Finance, Mitchell College of BusinessUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  3. 3.Department of Economics and Finance, Mitchell College of BusinessUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA

Personalised recommendations