1992
DOI: 10.1016/0166-0462(92)90038-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatial autocorrelation and neighborhood quality

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
190
0
9

Year Published

2002
2002
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 311 publications
(199 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
190
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Early empirical studies using the monocentric model reported that the distance variable in house price models produced the expected negative coefficient, indicating that constant-quality house prices go down in value when houses are located further away from the city centre. However, Bender and Hwang (1985), Dubin (1992), Dubin and Sung (1987) and Olmo (1995), among many others, show that subsequent studies produced contradictory results. These studies point to the polycentric agglomeration of cities as a possible reason for this controversy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Early empirical studies using the monocentric model reported that the distance variable in house price models produced the expected negative coefficient, indicating that constant-quality house prices go down in value when houses are located further away from the city centre. However, Bender and Hwang (1985), Dubin (1992), Dubin and Sung (1987) and Olmo (1995), among many others, show that subsequent studies produced contradictory results. These studies point to the polycentric agglomeration of cities as a possible reason for this controversy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The former incorporates a spatial process into the error term to account for omitted variables (e.g. Dubin 1992;Dubin et al 1999), whereas the latter uses a spatially lagged dependent variable to account for spatial spillovers (e.g. Can and Megbolugbe 1997;Kim et al 2003).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These local public goods together create varying levels of neighborhood quality, which in turn impacts the well-being of neighborhood residents and is capitalized into neighborhood home prices. Although neighborhoods are but one piece of the puzzle, when neighborhoods improve many improved outcomes are more easily attained--property values increase (Dubin, 1992), neighborhoods become more aesthetically pleasing (Leonard et al, 2010), socializing among residents is more likely (Sampson, 2003), neighborhood children often benefit from improved stability (Shaefer-McDaniel 2009), physical activity is more likely as the neighborhood is more "walkable" (Saelens et al 2003;Sallis & Glanz, 2006), and communities benefit from increased tax revenue.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%