Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics

, Volume 144, Issue 4, pp 655–678 | Cite as

The Impact of Housing Market Segmentation between Tourists and Residents on the Hedonic Price for Landscape Quality

  • Nils Soguel
  • Marc-Jean Martin
  • Alexandre Tangerini
Open Access


Market segmentation is an important issue when estimating the implicit price for an environmental amenity from a surrogate market like property. This paper tests the hypothesis of a segmentation of the housing market between tourists and residents and computes the implicit price for natural landscape quality in Swiss alpine resorts. The results show a clear segmentation between both groups of consumers, although tests also show that the estimated coefficient for landscape is similar in the tourists’ model and in the residents’. However, since the functional form is non linear, the nominal — rather than relative — value of a change in natural landscape quality is higher in the tourist housing market than in the residents’. Hence, considering the segmentation of the market between tourists and residents is essential in order to provide valid estimates of the nominal implicit price of natural landscape quality.


Hedonic prices method Market segmentation Landscape quality Landscape value MACBETH 


D49 Q26 Q51 


  1. Allen, Markus T., Thomas M. Springer and Neil G. Waller (1995), “Implicit Pricing across Residential Rental Markets”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 11, pp. 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, Scott. E., and Thomas D. Crocker (1987), “A Baysian Approach to Assessing the Robustness of Hedonic Property Value Studies”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2, pp. 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bana e Costa, Carlos A., and Jean-Claude Vansnick (1999), “The MACBETH Approach: Basic Ideas, Software, and an Application”, in Nadine Meskens and Marc Roubens (eds), Advances in Decision Analysis, Dordrecht, pp. 131–157.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, Earl D., Julia L. Hansen, Arthur L. Schwartz and Greg T. Smersh (1998), “Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of a View”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16(1), pp. 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourassa, Steven C., Foort Hamelink, Martin Hoesli and Bryan D. MacGregor (1999), “Defining Residential Submarkets”, Journal of Housing Economics, 8, pp. 160–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourassa, Steven C., Martin Hoesli and Jian Sun (2003), What’s in a View?, Geneva: Research Paper Nº 79, FAME-International Center for Financial Asset Management and Engineering, Geneva.Google Scholar
  7. Box, George E., and David R. Cox (1964), “An Analysis of Transformations”, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 2, pp. 211–252.Google Scholar
  8. Brush, Robert O., and Elwood L. Shafer, (1975), “Application of a Landscape-Preference Model to Land Management”, in Ervin H. Zube, Robert O. Brush and Julius G. Fabos (eds), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, pp. 168–181.Google Scholar
  9. Cavailhès, Jean, Thierry Brossard, Mohamed Hilal, Daniel Joly, François-Pierre Tourneux, Céline Tritz and Pierre Wavresky (forthcoming), “Pricing the Homebuyer’s Countryside View”, in Andreas Baranzini, José Ramirez, Caroline Schaerer and Philippe Thalmann (eds), Hedonic Methods in Housing Markets. Pricing Environmental Amenities and Segregation, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Cropper, M. L., L. B. Deck and K. E. McConnell (1988), “On the Choice of Functional Form for Hedonic Price Functions”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(4), pp. 668–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dale-Johnson, D. (1983), “Clientele Effects on the Demand For Housing Price Appreciation”, Real Estate Economics, 11, pp. 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Des Rosiers, F., M. Thérault, Y. Kestens and P. Villeneuve (2002), “Landscaping and House Values: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Real Estate Research, 23, pp. 139–161.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, A. M. (1979), “Hedonic Prices, Property Values and Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Survey of the Issues”, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81(2), pp. 154–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodman, A. C. (1977), “A Comparison of Block Group and Census Tract Data in a Hedonic Housing Price Model”, Land Economics, 53, pp. 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman, A. C., and T. G. Thibodeau (1998), “Housing Market Segmentation”, Journal of Housing Economics, 7, pp. 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodman, A. C., and T. G. Thibodeau (2003), “Housing Market Segmentation and Hedonic Prediction Accuracy”, Journal of Housing Economics, 12(3), pp. 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grosclaude, Pascal, and Nils Soguel (1992), «Coûts externes du trafic routier: Evaluation en milieu urbain», Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 128(3), pp. 453–469.Google Scholar
  18. Hidano, N. (2002), The Economic Valuation of the Environment and Public Policy: A Hedonic Approach, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, M. M., and H. J. Brown (1980), “Micro-Neighbourhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices”, Land Economics, 56, pp. 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linneman, P. (1980), “Some Empirical Results on the Nature of the Hedonic Price Function for the Urban Housing Market”, Journal of Urban Economics, 8(1), pp. 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Michaels, R. G., and V. K. Smith (1990), “Market Segmentation and Valuing Amenities with Hedonics Models: The Case of Hazardous Waste Sites”, Journal of Urban Economics, 28, pp. 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nasar, J. L. (1983), “Environmental Factors, Perceived Distance and Spatial Behavior”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 10, pp. 275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pictet, J., and D. Bollinger (2005), “The Silent Negotiation or How to Obtain Collective Information for Group MCDA without Excessive Discussion”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 13(5–6) pp. 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Powe, N. A., G. D. Garrod, C. F. Brunsdon and K. G. Willis (1997), “Using a Geographical Information System to Estimate an Hedonic Price Model of the Benefits of Woodland Access”, Forestry, 70, pp. 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schaerer, C., A. Baranzini, J. V. Ramirez and P. Thalmann (2007), “Using the Hedonic Approach to Value Natural Land Uses in an Urban Area: An Application to Geneva and Zurich”, Economie publique, 20(1), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  26. Schafer, R. (1979), “Racial Discrimination in the Boston Housing Market”, Journal of Urban Economics, 6, pp. 176–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salvi, M., P. Schellenbauer and H. Schmidt (2004), Preise, Mieten und Renditen: Der Immobilienmarkt transparent gemacht, Zürcher Kantonalbank, Zürich.Google Scholar
  28. Sirmans, G. S., D. A. MacPherson and E. N. Zietz (2005), “The Composition of Hedonic Pricing Models”, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13(1), pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
  29. Soguel, N., A. Tangerini and J. Pictet (2007), “How to Measure Scope Variables when no Metrics Exist: Application to Landscape Quality Measurement and Hedonic Price Evaluation”, Revue d’économie politique, 117(5), pp. 829–844.Google Scholar
  30. Straszheim, M. R. (1975), An Econometric Analysis of the Urban Housing Market, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, L. O. (2003), “The Hedonic Method”, in P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle and T. C. Brown (eds), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 331–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nils Soguel
    • 1
  • Marc-Jean Martin
    • 2
  • Alexandre Tangerini
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de hautes études en administration publique-IDHEAP/Swiss Graduate School of Public AdministrationUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Service cantonal de recherche et d’information statistiques-SCRIS/Statistical Office of the Canton of VaudLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations