I have a question about using stated-preference methods like conjoint analysis for valuing a landscape type - derelict industrial lands with spontaneous wild vegetation.
As I have not found specific papers related to valuing this contested landscape type, I want to know is it a prerequisite for economic value research that the object we evaluate needs to have sufficient “recognized” values rather than “potential” values like ones in derelict wild spaces? Also, is there a possibility that the result is that values of one landscape are not high in public perspective?
I have just sold my undeveloped property. It was blessed with non-alien, spontaneous wild vegetation. My initial wish was to sell it on its potential for development and subdivision. However I had to drop my price to sell it at a lower value, the market value, not far above the evaluation of it by cold bodies such as municipalities and banks. Real Estate agents in practice sell the property first, and the sizzle (view) last. Logic, then emotion.
So I would give the opinion that market price is a hard-headed price that is only slightly moderated by potential. I maintain therefore that a smart buyer needs to be insightful to see valuable potential that the seller has not thought of, or cannot operationalise. I say that in order to make a profit, the buyer must know the true potential, and act on it. E.g., he/she may know that subdivision and densification or parklanding is now favoured by the municipality, but the seller may not know this.
See also my paper on the value of a view.
I have just sold my undeveloped property. It was blessed with non-alien, spontaneous wild vegetation. My initial wish was to sell it on its potential for development and subdivision. However I had to drop my price to sell it at a lower value, the market value, not far above the evaluation of it by cold bodies such as municipalities and banks. Real Estate agents in practice sell the property first, and the sizzle (view) last. Logic, then emotion.
So I would give the opinion that market price is a hard-headed price that is only slightly moderated by potential. I maintain therefore that a smart buyer needs to be insightful to see valuable potential that the seller has not thought of, or cannot operationalise. I say that in order to make a profit, the buyer must know the true potential, and act on it. E.g., he/she may know that subdivision and densification or parklanding is now favoured by the municipality, but the seller may not know this.
See also my paper on the value of a view.
Thank you for your answer Ian. Ian Kennedy Market value is slightly moderated by potential. Experts may see the ecological value in these sites as the Fourth Nature in urban areas like Kowarik's theories. Some research papers also show that the notion of these sites being potential benefits providers is relatively new and that is one reason for the absence of economic valuation of them.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers