Pricing the Homebuyer’s Countryside View

  • Jean Cavailhès
  • Thierry Brossard
  • Mohamed Hilal
  • Daniel Joly
  • François-Pierre Tourneux
  • Céline Tritz
  • Pierre Wavresky

In most developed nations big cities are expanding ever farther into the countryside. Rural populations are growing, whether with workers - commuters or the self-employed - retired people, or temporary residents. In France a “periurbanization” movement began in Ile-de-France in the 1960s and spread to the large provincial cities in the next decade before becoming a nationwide phenomenon (Le Jeannic 1997; Schmitt et al. 1998; Cavailhès and Schmitt 2002). So successful was this movement that by 1999 33% of the land area of France was periurban with 12.3 million people living there. Progression from 1990 to 1999 was remarkable, with the area concerned increasing by half (more than 6 million hectares) and an additional 3.5 million inhabitants being involved.


Geographic Information System House Price Landscape Variable Conjoint Analysis Digital Elevation Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson ST, West SE (2003) The value of open space proximity and size: city versus suburbs. Working paper, Macalester College, St. Paul, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  2. Baranzini A, Schaerer C (2007) A sight for sore eyes. Assessing the value of view and landscape use on the housing market. Working paper, Geneva School of Business Administration, Switzerland, available at SSRN:
  3. Bastian CT, McLeod DM, Germino MJ, Reiners WA, Blasko BJ (2002) Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data. Ecological economics 40: 337-349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson ED, Hansen JL, Schwartz AL, Smersch GT (1998) Pricing residential amenities: the value of a view. Journal of real estate finance and economics 16: 55-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolitzer B, Netusil NR (2000) The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of environmental management 59: 185-193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brossard T, Wieber JC (1980) Essai de formulation systémique d’un mode d’approche du paysage. Bulletin de l’association des géographes français 468-469: 103-111Google Scholar
  7. Brossard T, Wieber JC (1984) Le paysage, trois définitions ; un mode d’analyse et de cartographie. L’espace géographique: 5-12Google Scholar
  8. Cavailhès J, Brossard T, Foltête JC, Joly D, Hilal M, Tourneux FP, Tritz C, Wavresky P (2007) GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape. Working paper, INRA, CNRS, Dijon, Besançon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavailhès J, Schmitt B (2002) Les mobilités résidentielles entre villes et campagnes. In: Perrier-Cornet P (ed) Repenser les campagnes. L’aube DATAR (edn), Gémenos, pp 35-65Google Scholar
  10. Cheshire P, Sheppard S (1995) On the price of land and the value of amenities. Economica 62: 247-267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dachary-Bernard J (2005) Une évaluation économique du paysage. Une application de la méthode des choix multi-attributs aux Monts d’Arrée. Economie et statistique, pp 57-80Google Scholar
  12. Des Rosiers F, Thériault M, Kestens Y, Villeneuve P (2002) Landscaping and house values: an empirical investigation. Journal of real estate research 23: 139-161Google Scholar
  13. Dumas E, Geniaux G, Napoléone C (2005) Les indices de l’écologie du paysage à l’épreuve du marché foncier. Revue d’économie régionale et urbaine 1: 83-106Google Scholar
  14. Epple D (1987) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: estimating demand and supply functions for differentiated products. Journal of political economy 95: 59-80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleischer A, Tsur Y (2000) Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. European review of agricultural economics 27: 385-398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Follain JR, Jimenez E (1985) Estimating the demand for housing characteristics. Regional science and urban economics 15: 77-107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land economics 78: 465-480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garrod GD, Willis KG, Saunders CM (1994) The benefits and costs of the Somerset Levels and Moors ESA. Journal of rural studies 10: 131-146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrod GD, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment. Methods and case studies, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  20. Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological economics 23: 251-264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gobster PH, Chenoweth RE (1989) The dimensions of aesthetics preference: a quantitative analysis. Journal of environment management 29: 47-72Google Scholar
  22. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiment to value the environment. Environmental and resource economics 11:413-428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobden DW, Laughton GE, Morgan KE (2004) Green space borders - a tangible benefit? Evidence from four neighbourhoods in Surrey, British Columbia, 1980-2001. Land use policy 21: 129-138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land economics 78: 465-480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston RJ, Swallow SK, Bauer DM (2002) Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land economics: 481-500Google Scholar
  26. Joly D, Brossard T, Tourneux FP, Tritz C, Cavailhès J, Hilal M, Wavresky P (2007) Using modeling to make a quantitative valuation of landscape. Working paper, CNRSThéMA, INRA-CESAER, Besançon, Dijon, pp 1-28Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan R, Austin ME (2004) Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape and urban planning 69: 235-243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Bown T (1989) Environmental preferences. A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and behavior 21: 509-530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lake IR, Lovett AA, Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1998) Modelling environmental influences on property prices in an urban environment. Computers, environments and urban systems 22: 121-136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lake IR, Lovett AA, Bateman IJ, Day B (2000) Using GIS and large-scale digital data to implement hedonic pricing studies. International journal of geographical information science 14: 521-541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of political economy 74: 132-156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Le Jeannic T (1997) Trente ans de périurbanisation : extension et dilution des villes. Economie et statistique 307: 21-41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land economics 76: 100-113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mieszkowski P, Mills ES (1993) The causes of metropolitan suburbanization. Journal of economic perspectives: 135-147Google Scholar
  35. Palmer JF (2003) Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and urban planning 69: 201-218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paterson RW, Boyle KJ (2002) Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land economics 78: 417-425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roe B, Irwin EG, Morrow-Jones HA (2004) The effects of farmland, farmland preservation, and other neighborhood amenities on housing values and residential growth. Land economics: 55-75Google Scholar
  38. Rosen S (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of political economy 82: 34-55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmitt B, Perrier-Cornet Ph, Blanc M, Hilal M (Eds) (1998) Les campagnes et leurs villes, Contours et caractères, INRA-INSEEGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheppard S (1999) Hedonic analysis of housing markets. In: Mills ES, Cheshire P (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics. Applied urban economics, pp 1595-1635Google Scholar
  41. Smith VK, Poulos C, Kim H (2002) Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resource and energy economics 24: 107-129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thorsnes P (2002) The value of a suburban forest preserve: estimates from sales of vacant residential building lots. Land economics 78: 626-441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tyrväinen L, Miettinen A (2000) Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of environmental economics and management 39: 205-223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weicher J, Zerbst R (1973) Externalities of neighbourhood parks: an empirical investigation. Land economics 49: 99-105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Willis KG, Garrod GD (1993) Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. Journal of environmental management 37: 1-22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Cavailhès
    • 1
  • Thierry Brossard
    • 2
  • Mohamed Hilal
    • 1
  • Daniel Joly
    • 2
  • François-Pierre Tourneux
    • 2
  • Céline Tritz
    • 2
  • Pierre Wavresky
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA-CESAERDijonFrance
  2. 2.CNRS-ThéMABesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations