<%BANNER%>

UFIR IFAS



Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential Property
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ ( Publisher's URL )
CITATION PDF VIEWER
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00001854/00001
 Material Information
Title: Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential Property
Physical Description: Fact sheet
Creator: Degner, Robert L.
Publisher: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2000
 Notes
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Melanie Mercer.
Publication Status: Published
General Note: "June 1998 Revised July 2000. Reviewed June 2003 and July 2009."
General Note: "FE 169"
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00001854:00001

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:

FE16900 ( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 1

Robert L. Degner and Susan D. Moss2 1. This document is FE 169, one of a series of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Originally published as FAMRC Industry Report 98-1, June 1998 Revised July 2000. Reviewed June 2003 and July 2009. The original report can be found on the FAMRC web site at: http://www.agmarketing.ifas.ufl.edu. Visit the EDIS web site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. 2. Robert L. Degner, professor and program director, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Department of Food and Resource Economics, and Susan D. Moss, former coordinator of economic analysis, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Professional nurserymen selected four single-family residences in the greater Orlando area that were judged to be in need of relandscaping. Local landscape architects worked with resident owners of the four properties to develop designs that were adapted to each micro environment and each homeowner's needs and preferences. Each homesite was photographed from the front (street) exposure before relandscaping and again after plant material had been allowed to "grow in," a period of approximately 60 days. The "before" and "after" photographs were shown to a random sample of 104 licensed real estate professionals. The photos were shown in random order interspersed throughout a portfolio of 35 photos of other single-family residences of varying ages in the central Florida area. The real estate professionals were asked to view each photo for 30 seconds and give an estimate of the current market value and number of days-to-sale. The average perceived market values of all four properties were greater after relandscaping, but the average increases in value were sufficient to cover the costs of relandscaping in only two of the four properties. Days-to-sale were significantly reduced for two properties. The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is a service of the Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Florida. Its purpose is to provide timely, applied research on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agricultural and marine industries. A basic goal of the Center is to provide marketing research and related information to producer organizations, trade associations, and governmental agencies concerned with improving and expanding markets for Florida's agricultural and marine producers. Client organizations are required to pay direct costs associated with their research projects. Such costs include labor for personnel and telephone interviewing, mail surveys, travel, and computer analyses. Professional time and support is provided to organized producer groups at no charge by IFAS.

PAGE 2

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 2 Professional agricultural economists with specialized training and experience in marketing participate in every Center project. Cooperating personnel from other IFAS units are also involved whenever specialized technical assistance is needed. Dr. Robert L. Degner, Director, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, 1083 McCarty Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0240, (352) 392-1871 (Voice), (352) 392-1886 (Fax), Degner@fred.ifas.ufl.edu (E-mail) Over the past several years, results of this research have been formally presented to members of the Action Chapter of the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association (FNGA), to hundreds of Central Florida residents at two annual Greater Orlando Home and Garden Shows, and to members of the Florida State Horticultural Society. Findings have been disseminated through a video tape entitled "Your Florida Home: The Value of Relandscaping," through a paper published in the Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, and a press release which was published by 23 newspapers nationwide. This report provides methodological and analytical detail not previously published. We are very indebted to the Action Chapter of the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association for their financial support of this pioneering effort to evaluate the economic benefits of relandscaping single family residences. We also appreciate the Chapter's collective patience with a project that had more than its share of setbacks and delays. We especially thank Action Chapter members Bob Wiederhold, Pat Dehlinger, Charlie Brown, Mark Byrd, and Mike Rinck for their help throughout the project. Charlie Brown deserves special thanks for his efforts in obtaining and providing plant material and installation labor for the four subject properties. Thanks are also due Garth Schweitzer of Schweitzer Design Group (Sanford) and Stephen Pategas of ASLA (Winter Park) for their design expertise in planning the relandscaping of the subject properties. Thanks are also extended to Dr. Robert Black, Consumer Horticulturist, University of Florida, and to Al Williamson and Bill Abrams of the Department of Educational Media and Services at the University of Florida for producing a video documentary of the relandscaping process. The documentary is entitled "Your Florida Home: The Value of Relandscaping" and is available through the Florida Agricultural Market Research Center. The authors express gratitude to the four homeowners for their cooperation throughout the entire relandscaping project. They are Mr. and Mrs. Keith Thomas, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Cutler, Mr. and Mrs. Earl Latham, and Dr. Isaac Angel. Without their cooperation, the project would not have been possible. We are also thankful for the cooperation of Belton Jennings and Mike Roth of the Greater Orlando Association of Realtors for their assistance in obtaining the cooperation of area realtors. This study evaluates the effect of relandscaping on the perceived market value of single-family residences. An "Ugly Yard" contest sponsored by the Action Chapter of the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association was advertised in the Orlando Sentinel. Participants submitted color photographs of their properties. Out of 300 entries, 10 finalists were selected by a committee from the Action Chapter. The committee then conducted on-site inspections to choose the final four properties to be used in the study. Local landscape architects worked with homeowners to develop designs adapted to each micro-environment and each homeowner's needs and preferences. Each homesite was then photographed from the front (street) exposure before relandscaping and again after plant material had been established for two months. The "before" and "after" photographs were shown to a sample of 104 licensed real estate professionals who had been randomly

PAGE 3

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 3 selected from the membership list of the Greater Orlando Association of Realtors. Trained interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews in respondents' offices. The eight photos of subject properties ("before" and "after" photos of the four properties) were strategically placed within a portfolio of 35 color photos of single-family residences of varying ages in the central Florida area. The order in which the portfolio was shown to respondents was rotated to reduce order bias. The real estate professionals viewed each photo for 30 seconds and were then asked to estimate the current market value and estimated days-to-sale for each property shown in the portfolio. Analyses were conducted for each property to determine if the "before" and "after" relandscaping values were statistically different. Days-to-sale were similarly evaluated. This study indicates relandscaping can have a positive effect on real estate professionals' perceived values and marketability of single family residences. While relandscaping increased the perceived value of all four properties and reduced the "time-to-sale" for three properties, the increased value recovered relandscaping costs for only two of the four properties. However, this finding is significant for homeowners contemplating reselling since real estate professionals can influence listing prices and potential home buyers' perception of value. This study was sponsored by the Action Chapter (Orlando area) of the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association (FNGA) to determine if relandscaping could be a viable market development option for the Central Florida woody ornamental plant industry. Many industry leaders are of the opinion that relandscaping, if aggressively promoted, could serve to beautify many residential areas of central Florida as well as improve financial returns to producers of outdoor landscaping plant materials. Observation of residential landscapes in Florida reveals that in a few short years many residential landscapes are overgrown and in need of rejuvenation or relandscaping. Many also show the results of poor initial design and plant selection. Nurseries in other areas of the U.S. have successfully used visual presentations of proposed relandscaping to increase revenues (Fenn, 1994). However, the effects of relandscaping on market values and marketability of residential real estate have received little attention. The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of relandscaping on the perceived market value and marketability of single-family residences. It was hypothesized that professionally designed and installed landscaping would have a positive effect on the perceived market values of single-family residential real estate. It was also hypothesized that relandscaping would reduce the period of time required to sell such property. The ultimate goal of this study was to provide Florida nurserymen and landscapers with research findings that could be used to promote relandscaping to homeowners. Confirmation of the study's hypotheses could serve as a powerful sales tool: relandscaping could not only serve to enhance properties' aesthetics and homeowners' satisfaction while residing on the property but, in the event of re-sale, relandscaping could have financial benefits as well. Professional landscapers selected four single-family residences in the greater Orlando area that were judged to be in need of relandscaping. Properties ranged in age from under 5-years to approximately 45-years. The property selection process involved participants in an "Ugly Yard" contest sponsored by the Action Chapter of the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association

PAGE 4

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 4 (FNGA) and publicized in the Orlando Sentinel. Participants in the contest were required to submit a minimum of two color photographs of their properties. Out of 300 submitted entries, a group of 10 finalists was selected by a committee from the Action Chapter. The committee visited each finalist's property for closer inspection and interviewed the homeowners. The committee was specifically looking for middle or upper middle income properties with relandscaping potential. Examination of tax assessment records revealed estimated market values of subject properties ranging from approximately $80,000 to $125,000. Homeowner cooperation with contractual conditions was also a consideration in the final selection process. Homeowners were not permitted to make any changes in the structure of their home for the duration of the project. They also agreed to remove vehicles, garbage cans, and other unsightly items from front-street view to facilitate photography, and they agreed to allow several photography sessions at different times of the day, if necessary. In return for their cooperation, homeowners received free design services. They also received plant material, automatic irrigation systems, and installation at cost. Several local landscape architects worked with resident owners of the four properties to develop designs that were adapted to each micro environment and each homeowner's needs and preferences. Each homesite was photographed from the front (street) exposure before relandscaping and again after plant material had been allowed to "grow in," a period of approximately 60 days. The "before" and "after" photographs of each property were carefully controlled for uniformity of exposure and viewpoint (see Appendix for Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4). The "before" and "after" photographs were shown to a random sample of 104 licensed real estate professionals who were selected from the membership list of the Greater Orlando Association of Realtors. Respondents were sent an official University of Florida letter to legitimize the study, but they were not told the exact purpose. Trained interviewers made appointments by telephone with the selected realtors, and conducted face-to-face interviews in respondents' offices using a questionnaire. The eight photos of subject properties ("before" and "after" photos of the four properties) were included in a portfolio of 35 5"x7" color photos of single family residences of varying ages in the central Florida area. Thus, there were eight subject photos and 27 photos of other properties. Each photograph was accompanied by a brief, generic description of the property that included the year built; the number of bedrooms, baths, and covered parking spaces; heated and cooled square footage; lot size; and the general income level of the neighborhood (Figures 1 and 2). These descriptions, which were brief and to the point, were provided to add a touch of realism and to preclude realtors' questions about such variables. The eight photos of subject properties were placed within the portfolio so that none attracted attention due to primacy. Further, the subject properties were strategically interspersed throughout the portfolio so that "before" and "after" photos of a given property were separated by 15 photos of other properties. The order in which the portfolio was shown to respondents was rotated to reduce order bias; thus half of the respondents were initially exposed to "after" photos of each subject property and half saw "before" photos first. The real estate professionals were allowed to view each photo for 30 seconds and then asked to estimate the current market value and days-to-sale. A paired t-test was conducted for each property using the difference between the "before" and "after" relandscaping value estimates to determine if the difference in value was statistically significant. This was defined as the "gross" change in values. The same statistical procedure was used to evaluate the difference after the costs were deducted from the "after" value estimate; this was defined as the "net" change in value. Changes in days-to-sale estimates were also evaluated with a paired t-test. In addition to examining the differences in overall property values, paired t-tests were used to evaluate responses for each subject property by various demographic categories of respondents. Finally, realtors' ages and years experience, education, and gender were all examined for possible associations with value and days-to-sale responses for each property using two multiple linear regression models.

PAGE 5

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 5 The general form of these two models was D-valueij or D-daysij = f (agei or experiencei, educationi, genderi) where D-valueij = differences in gross property values, i.e., post-relandscaping value minus pre-relandscaping value for individual i and property j, where j = properties A through D D-daysij = difference in days-to-sale estimates, i.e., post-relandscaping estimate minus pre-relandscaping estimate for individual i and property j agei = age of individual i in years experiencei = years experience in real estate profession for individual i educationi = years of formal education for individual i genderi = 1 if male, 0 if female for individual i Finally, each respondent was asked to name three characteristics, in order of importance, that contribute most to a property's curbside appeal. These open-ended responses were then categorized and ranked. The following sections address changes in the value of each of the four subject properties, hypothesized to be the result of relandscaping. The "gross" differences in "before" and "after" values ignore relandscaping costs, while the "net" differences reflect the net change in values after relandscaping costs were deducted from the "after" values. Relandscaping's effect on marketability was also examined. "Marketability" was defined as the change in realtors' estimated days-to-sale, calculated as days-to-sale post-relandscaping minus days-to-sale before relandscaping. Thus, negative values indicate a reduction in days-to-sale, hypothesized to be attributable to relandscaping. Results of t-tests for differences in preand post-relandscaping property values and days-to-sale estimates over all observations (n=104) are shown in Table 1. Results of t-tests for various demographic categories are found in Tables 4 through 11. Differences in perceived preand post-relandscaping values and days-to-sale estimates associated with respondents' demographic characteristics were examined using the ordinary least squares (OLS) models described in the methodology section. Realtors' ages and years experience in real estate were both obtained during the interviews. As expected, these variables were highly correlated. After examining various models containing either age or experience, it was found that it made little difference as to which was used. However, results for the models including "years experience" are reported because of slightly greater R2 values. In general, the OLS models explained little of the variation observed in the dependent variables, i.e. differences in preand post-relandscaping values and days-to-sale estimates. R2 values were very low; the explanatory variablesage (alternatively years experience), gender, and educationusually explained only one to five percent of the total variation in the variation in value differences or days-to-sale. Further, most t-tests on the parameter estimates were not statistically significant. Thus, there appears to be little or no evidence that the perceived effects of relandscaping were associated with realtors' ages, years experience, educational attainment, or gender. The following subsections present detailed findings for each of the subject properties that were evaluated in this study (see Appendix for Figures 5, 6, and 7). Built in the 1950s, Property A was the oldest subject property included in this study. It was also on the smallest lot and underwent a comparatively drastic change in landscaping. Changes in the plant material included new turf, woody ornamentals of varying sizes and species and colorful flowering annuals. In addition to changes in the plant materials used for property A, a retention wall was added along the front of the property, and a straight brick

PAGE 6

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 6 walkway was replaced by a curving concrete walkway running from the sidewalk paralleling the street to the front door. A privacy wall was also added on one side of the house, which impacted the front-street view (Figure 1). On average, the realtors estimated that property A would sell for $88,887 before relandscaping and $97,237 after relandscaping (Table 1, Figure 5). The perceived change in market value after relandscaping property A averaged $8,351. This was the largest difference in market value of the four subject properties. The cost of relandscaping property A was $4,722, which yielded a net increase in perceived market value of $3,629 (Figure 6). Property A was the only subject property to show a statistically significant change in perceived gross and net market values (Table 1). Property A also showed the largest reduction in days-to-sale estimates. Before relandscaping, the realtors' estimates of number of days-to-sale averaged 122 days. After relandscaping, the average days-to-sale estimate was 107 days, for a net reduction of 15 days (Table 1, Figure 7). Because of the relatively large differences in preand post-relandscaping values for property A, many of the demographic categories reflected statistically significant associations between preand post-relandscaping values or days-to-sale estimates and realtors' experience, gender, or educational attainment (Table 2). However, care must be used in interpreting the statistical significance of the t-tests associated with the individual demographic categories. For example, a statistically significant t-value on one age category and a non-significant t-value on another age category does not mean that the variables for the two categories are significantly different from each other. Rather, it signifies that the variable for the category with the statistically significant t-value is significantly different from zero. Property B was built in the early 1980s. It was situated on a corner lot that was approximately one-third of an acre in size, considerably larger than the other subject properties. Changes in the plant material included new turf and woody ornamentals of varying sizes and species. Because of the larger lot size and two street exposures, the changes were not as striking in the photographs as with property A (Figure 2). On average, the realtors estimated that property B would sell for $128,454 before relandscaping and $129,512 after relandscaping (Figure 5). Thus, the perceived change in market value after relandscaping property B averaged $1,058. This was the smallest change in market value of the four subject properties. The cost of relandscaping property B was $4,999, which yielded a net loss in perceived market value of $3,941. Property B did not show statistically significant changes in estimated gross or net market values (Table 1). However, property B did show a statistically significant reduction in days-to-sale estimates. Before relandscaping, the realtors' estimates of number of days-to-sale averaged 136 days. After relandscaping, the average days-to-sale estimate was 126 days for a net reduction of 10 days. Compared to the other three subject properties, only property A showed a greater reduction in days-to-sale (Table 1, Figure 7). Few statistically significant differences in preand post-relandscaping values were found for the various demographic categories (Table 7). Also, no statistically significant associations were found between value estimates and realtors' demographic variables. However, there was a statistically significant negative association between days-to-sale estimates and realtors' educational attainment (Table 2). This could mean that respondents with more formal education took greater note of the effects of relandscaping and reduced their days-to-sale estimates accordingly. Property C was built in the mid-1980s on a modest sized lot. Changes in plant material for property C were modest: two small trees were removed and a larger tree added near the road. The turf, already in good condition, was not replaced. Existing foundation plantings of woody ornamentals were replaced by newer, low-growing varieties and

PAGE 7

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 7 colorful annuals in a more aesthetically pleasing design (Figure 3). Realtors estimated on average that property C would sell for $108,730 before relandscaping and $111,211 after relandscaping, resulting in a change in the perceived gross market value after relandscaping of $2,481 (Table 1, Figure 5). The cost of relandscaping property C was $3,876, which yielded a net loss of $1,394. These changes in gross or net estimated market values were not statistically significant (Table 1). Pre-relandscaping, realtors' estimates of days-to-sale averaged 107. Post-relandscaping, the average estimated days-to-sale was 110, for a net increase of three days. However, this unexpected increase was not statistically significant (Table 1, Figure 7). There were no statistically significant gross or net preand post-relandscaping values for property C or for days-to-sale estimates for any of the demographic categories of respondents (Tables 8 and 9). Further, the OLS models revealed no statistically significant associations between changes in perceived property values or days-to-sale estimates and realtors' experience, gender, or educational attainment (Table 2). Property D was the newest subject property included in this study. Built in the early 1990s, it was also situated on a modest sized lot, 80'x120'. Like property A, the relandscaping effort was comparatively dramatic. Before relandscaping, the only plant material in front of the home was healthy turf and small foundation plantings along the street-side perimeter of the house and garage. The most noticeable relandscaping effort included the addition of pine trees, palm trees, and some low-growing perennial plant material situated in a large island in the center of the front yard and near the street. The monotonous foundation plantings were replaced with a greater variety of woody ornamentals as well (Figure 4). The realtors estimated that property D would sell for $103,208 before relandscaping and $110,757 after relandscaping (Table 1, Figure 5). The perceived change in market value after relandscaping property D averaged $7,549, the second highest difference in market value of the four subject properties. The cost of relandscaping property D was $5,870, which yielded net increase in perceived market value of $1,679. Property D showed a statistically significant change in perceived gross market value, but not after the cost of relandscaping was subtracted (Table 1). Before relandscaping, the realtors' estimates of number of days-to-sale averaged 117 days for property D. After relandscaping, the average days-to-sale estimate was 115 days for a net reduction in time-to-sale of two days. However, this difference was not statistically significant (Table 1, Figure 7). Because of the large variability for value and relatively small numbers of observations for days-to-sale estimates within the various demographic categories, few of the t-tests were statistically significant (Tables 7 and 8). However, the OLS model indicated that the change in property D's preand post-relandscaping value was positively associated with realtors' professional experience. On average, a one-year increase in realtors' experience was associated with an increase of nearly $660 in the gross value of property D. Another statistically significant finding was that males tended to evaluate property D rather harshly. On average, male realtors' perceived change in value for property D was about $10,000 lower than that of females (Table 2). One possible explanation for this large gender difference is thought to lie in the new relandscaped design; several casual observers (not respondents) have commented that the new design was "cutesy" and possibly high maintenance. Male respondents may have held similar views and, since males are frequently responsible for landscape maintenance, they may have consciously or subconsciously reduced their estimates of the relandscaped property D. There were no statistically significant relationships between days-to-sale estimates and any of the realtors demographic variables (Table 2). After viewing photos of all the properties in the study portfolio, respondents were asked to list the three most important characteristics, in order of importance, that contribute to the "curbside appeal"

PAGE 8

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 8 of any given property (Table 3). The question was posed as strictly open-ended. By far, landscaping ranked as the number one response, even though respondents had not been told the specific purpose of the study in an effort to reduce response bias. Out of 104 responses, 100 (96 percent) mentioned landscaping as the first, second, or third most important characteristic affecting curbside appeal. Fifty-four (52 percent) ranked landscaping as the one most important home characteristic affecting curbside appeal. Other commonly mentioned attributes included the condition of the paint, roof condition, general condition, and neatness and cleanliness of the exterior, each was mentioned by about 30 percent of all respondents. Other less commonly mentioned characteristics were architectural aspects, paint color, neighborhood condition, location, lot size, construction quality, age, and the front door (Table 3). In conclusion, this study indicates that relandscaping can have positive effects on real estate professionals' perceived values and the marketability of single-family residences. Relandscaping increased the perceived value of all four properties and reduced the estimated "time-to-sale" for three of the four properties. However, the increases in perceived values were sufficient to cover relandscaping costs for only two of the four properties. This finding is significant for homeowners contemplating selling their property because real estate professionals can influence listing prices and potential home buyers' perception of value as well. Further, the "Ugly Yard" contest used to select the subject properties for this study revealed considerable interest in relandscaping among central Florida residents. This interest may indicate an unmet need among homeowners for professional assistance with relandscaping. Experience among nursery operators in other areas has shown that homeowners are more likely to purchase relandscaping when dramatic "before" and "after" results can be demonstrated. Although it was unavailable for this study, the advent of digital photography has made customized "before" and "after" demonstrations practical and feasible for homeowners' specific properties. This technique has been used as a very effective sales tool (Fenn, 1995). Further, there was a strong consensus among realtors that landscaping was the most significant factor affecting curbside appeal. Thus, landscape probably warrants greater attention from homeowners preparing their properties for re-sale. The results of this study, coupled with appropriate relandscaping planning and digital photography, could be used as effective market development tools for the Florida nursery industry. Coulson, N. Edward and Eric W. Bond, "A Hedonic Approach to Residential Succession," The Review of Economics and Statistics 72 (August 1990): 433-444. Fenn, D., "Picture This." Inc. Magazine, Boston, Massachusetts, 1994. Gillmeister, William J., Robert D. Yonkers, and James W. Dunn, "Hedonic Pricing of Milk Components at the Farm Level," Review of Agricultural Economics 18 (May 1996): 181-192. Kim, Sunwoong, "Search, Hedonic Prices, and Housing Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics 74 (August 1992): 503-508. Ladd, George W. and Veraphol Suvannunt, "A Model of Consumer Goods Characteristics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (August 1976): 504-510. Lancaster, Kelvin J., "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," The Journal of Political Economy 74 (April 1966): 132-157. Palmquist, Raymond B., "Estimating the Demand for the Characteristics of Housing," The Review of Economics and Statistics 66 (August 1984): 394-404. Rosen, Sherwin, "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy 82 (January 1974): 34-55. Snedecor, George W. and William G. Cochran, Statistical Methods, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1967.

PAGE 9

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 9 Tronstad, Russell, Lori Stephens Huthoefer, and Eric Monke, "Market Windows and Hedonic Price Analyses: An Application to the Apple Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 17 (December 1992): 314-322. Waugh, Frederick V., "Quality Factors Influencing Vegetable Prices," Journal of Farm Economics 10 (1928): 185-196. Witte, Ann D., Howard J. Sumka, and Homer Erekson, "An Estimation of a Structural Hedonic Prices Model of the Housing Market: An Application of Rosen's Theory of Implicit Markets," Econometrica 47 (September 1979): 1151-1173. Property A before and after relandscaping. Property B before and after relandscaping.

PAGE 10

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 10 Property C before and after relandscaping. Property D before and after relandscaping. Average perceived changes in home values compared with relandscaping costs. Average perceived values of subject properties before and after relandscaping.

PAGE 11

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 11 Average estimated number of days-to-sale for subject properties before and after relandscaping.

PAGE 12

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 12 Gross and net changes in perceived market value and differences in days-to-sale for the four residential properties. A B C D Difference in gross value (dollars)a 8,351 1,058 2,481 7,549 t-value 4,622* 0.499 0.1253.386** Cost of relandscaping (dollars) 4,722 4,999 3,876 5,870 Difference in net value (dollars)b 3,629 -3,941-1,394 1,679 t-value 2.008***-1.859-0.869 0.753 Difference in days-to-sale (days) -15 -10 +3 -2 t-value 3.217** 2.140*** -0.952 0.556 a Difference in gross value ignores relandscaping costs. b Relandscaping costs are deducted from "after" values, resulting in a net change in value. Note: denotes statistical significance at the 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at the 0.05 level, *** denotes significance at the 0.10 level. Estimated effects of realtors' experience, gender, and education on perceived differences in preand post-relandscaping and days-to-sale. Explanatory variables ExperienceGenderEducation Mean =14.70.4815.1 Range =1-500,112-20 D-value, A 8,351 -6,140-593,4819070.0226 D-days, A -14.69 -68.230.538.852.750.0447 D-value, B 1,058 31,591-4195,065-1,7750.0500 D-value, B -10.38 101.96-0.068.12-7.64*0.0773 D-value, C 2,481 -6,268182-8524290.0125 D-value, C 3.39 -8.670.25-2.060.620.0047 D-value, D 7,549 503559**-10,296**2490.0793 D-value, D -2.21 16.09 -0.02 -6.45 -0.99 0.0109 a "D-value" refers to the difference between post-relandscaping values and pre-landscaping values. "D-days" refers to the difference in days-to-sale. A negative value indicates a reduction in days-to-sale. Note: denotes statistical significance at the 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at the 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at the 0.10 level.

PAGE 13

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 13 Realtors' rankings of "curbside appeal" characteristics. Ranking of curbside appeal characteristics Number of respondents Landscaping 542521 100 96.2 General Maintenance: Paint condition 8 17 8 33 31.7 Roof condition 6 1513 32 30.8 General condition 6 1513 32 30.8 Neatness, cleanliness 12 5 8 25 24.0 Front door 1 2 2 5 4.8 Design, Quality and Age: Architectural aspects 9 4 11 24 23.1 Paint color 3 9 4 16 15.4 Construction quality 1 2 1 4 3.8 Age 1 2 1 4 3.8 Neighborhood condition 2 3 11 16 15.4 Location 3 1 2 6 5.8 Lot Characteristics 0 1 5 6 5.8 Size of Lot 0 1 0 1 1.0 a Percentages are based on 104 respondents.

PAGE 14

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 14 Realtors' estimates of "before" and "after" values by demographic categories, Property A. (dollars) (dollars) (dollars)(dollars) tProb>ttProb>t Female 5451.9 91,302 97,628 6,326 1,6042.3339**0.02340.59170.5565 Male 5048.1 86,278 96,816 10,5385,8164.4916*0.00012.4789**0.0167 Age: 28-39 2120.2 86,381 99,476 13,0958,3735.4534*0.00013.4869*0.0023 40-49 2826.9 88,286 95,429 7,143 2,4211.7769***0.08680.60220.5520 50-64 4644.2 89,465 96,846 7,381 2,6582.5435**0.01450.91620.3645 65-80 98.7 93,644 99,644 6,000 1,2781.06170.31930.22620.8268 Education: High school 1312.5 86,500 88,615 2,115 -2,6070.32430.7513-0.39960.6965 Some college 3735.6 91,184 98,189 7,005 2,2832.1687**0.03680.70690.4842 College graduate 4139.4 85,534 96,651 11,1176,3954.0930*0.00022.3545**0.0235 Post-baccaulareate1312.5 95,308 105,000 9,692 4,9703.2049*0.00761.6435**0.0126 Years Experience: 1-5 1514.4 87,333 93,867 6,534 1,8111.7698***0.09850.49070.6313 6-10 2221.2 88,136 97,818 9,682 4,9601.7977***0.08660.92090.3676 11-15 2726.0 94,500 100,778 6,278 1,5562.4045**0.02360.59590.5564 16-20 2120.2 83,090 95,804 12,7147,9922.7324**0.01281.71760.1013 21-25 76.7 75,571 89,143 13,5728,8493.0424**0.02271.9800***0.0945 26-30 54.8 103,980 107,600 3,620 -1,1020.36640.7326-0.11150.9166 Over 30 76.7 92,843 93,971 1,128 -3,5930.26350.8010-0.83890.4336 All respondents 104 100.0 88,887 97,238 8,351 3,629 4.6218* 0.0001 2.0084** 0.0472 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.

PAGE 15

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 15 Demographic categorization of realtors participating in the study and their average responses regarding days-to-sale for Property A. (days) (days) (days) t Prob>t Female 5451.9 135 113 -22 -2.8300*0.0065 Male 5048.1 108 101 -7 -1.57530.1216 Age: 28-39 2120.2 128 111 -17 -1.27490.2170 40-49 2826.9 117 103 -14 -2.4721**0.0200 50-64 4644.2 119 107 -12 -1.8368***0.0728 65-80 9 8.7 134 111 -23 -2.4009**0.0431 Education: High school 1312.5 142 116 -26 -1.43380.1772 Some college 3735.6 126 107 -19 -2.6838**0.0109 College graduate 4139.4 113 101 -12 -1.7225***0.0927 Post-baccaulareate1312.5 116 116 0 0.00001.0000 Years Experience: 1-5 1514.4 132 102 -30 -2.7844**0.0146 6-10 2221.2 115 114 -1 0.11150.9123 11-15 2726.0 125 99 -26 -2.6278**0.0142 16-20 2120.2 107 102 -5 -0.58810.5631 21-25 7 6.7 150 120 -30 -1.94060.1004 26-30 5 4.8 120 108 -12 -1.00000.3739 Over 30 7 6.7 121 128 7 0.31690.7621 All respondents 104 100.0 122 107 -15 -3.2167* 0.0017 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.

PAGE 16

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 16 Realtors' estimates of "before" and "after" values by demographic categories, Property B. (dollars)(dollars)(dollars)(dollars) tProb>ttProb>t Female 5451.9130,619131,182563-4,4360.11680.8681-1.31450.194 Male 5048.1126,116127,7081,592-3,4070.63210.5302-1.35280.182 Age: 28-39 2120.2125,381127,0951,714-3.2850.53700.5972-1.02890.3150 40-49 2826.9124,496130,4295,9339331.3080.20190.20580.838 50-64 4644.2130,967129,857-1,110-6,109-0.31960.7508-1.7578***0.085 65-80 98.7135,089130,533-4,556-9,555-0.83480.4281-1.75080.118 Education: High school 1312.5125,423131,5386,1151,1160.87890.39670.16040.875 Some college 3735.6127,403131,7244,321-6771.14020.2617-0.17870.859 College graduate 4139.4130,900126,851-4.049-9,048-1.43570.1589-3.2084*0.002 Post-baccaulareate1312.5126,762129,5772,815-2,1840.43310.6726-0.33590.742 Years Experience: 1-5 1514.4122,667126,1333,466-1,5320.54280.5958-0.23990.813 6-10 2221.2133,000136,3643,364-1,6350.96670.3447-0.47000.643 11-15 2726.0128,944132,0003,056-1,9430.75590.4565-0.48070.634 16-20 2120.2121,757122,138381-4,6180.06060.9522-0.73510.470 21-25 76.7125,429123,429-2,000-6,999-0.37140.7231-1.29970.241 26-30 54.8140,580132,280-8,300-13,299-1.08160.3403-1.73300.158 Over 30 76.7139,129131,843-7,286-12,285-0.99690.3573-1.68090.143 All respondents 104 100.0 128,454 129,512 1,058 -3,941 0.4988 0.6190 -1.8588*** 0.065 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.

PAGE 17

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 17 Demographic categorization of realtors participating in the study and their average responses regarding days-to-sale for Property B. (days) (days) (days) tProb>t Female 5451.9 151 141 -10 -1.22280.2268 Male 5048.1 120 109 -11 -2.1706**0.0348 Age: 28-39 2120.2 143 141 -2 -0.12590.9011 40-49 2826.9 137 113 -24 -2.47210.2000 50-64 4644.2 128 122 -6 -1.06830.2911 65-80 98.7 155 143 -12 -0.76440.4666 Education: High school 135 126 143 17 0.83270.4213 Some college 3735.6 144 137 -7 -0.91580.3659 College graduate4139.4 134 119 -15 -2.2699**0.0287 Post-baccaulareate1312.5 126 96 -30 -3.4520*0.0048 Years Experience: 1-5 15 14.4 173 148 -25 -1.9508***0.0714 6-10 2221.2 129 123 -6 0.80190.4315 11-15 2726.0 127 119 -8 -0.62000.5406 16-20 2120.2 130 119 -11 -0.98400.3369 21-25 76.7 141 128 -13 -1.16190.2894 26-30 54.8 126 132 6 -0.40820.7040 Over 30 76.7 129 118 11 -0.63590.5483 All respondents 104 100.0 136 126 -10 -2.1397** 0.034 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.

PAGE 18

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 18 Realtors' estimates of "before" and "after" valued by demographic categories, Property C. (dollars)(dollars)(dollars)(dollars)t Prob>ttProb>t Female 5451.9110,048112,2792,231-1,6430.88070.3825-0.64860.5194 Male 5048.1107,306110,0562,750-1,1251.41920.1622-0.58060.5642 Age: 28-39 2120.2108,185106,943-1,242-5,118-0.44600.6604-1.8363***0.0812 40-49 2826.9104,461108,6044,1432681.43160.16370.09260.9269 50-64 4644.2110,637113,0692,432-1,4420.88560.3803-0.52530.6019 65-80 9 8.7113,533119,7786,2452,3691.22040.25710.46310.6556 Education: High school 1312.5112,523110,500-2,023-5,898-0.77430.4537-2.2574**0.0434 Some college 3735.6106,116111,5895,4731,5981.7100***0.09590.49930.6206 College graduate 4139.4111,022111,946924-2,9510.38680.7009-1.23500.2241 Post-baccaulareate1312.5105,146108,5233,377-4980.79670.44110.11750.9084 Years Experience: 1-5 1514.4110,200112,6672,467-1,4080.41250.6862-0.23550.8172 6-10 2221.2110,586108,318-2,268-6,143-0.76230.4543-2.0647***0.0515 11-15 2726.0110,144114,4224,2784031.48480.14960.13980.8899 16-20 2120.2101,919108,0336,1142,2391.61910.12110.59290.5598 21-25 7 6.7101,429102,8431,414-2,4610.46590.6577-0.81060.4485 26-30 5 4.8114,960109,780-5,180-9,055-0.96940.3872-1.69460.1654 Over 30 7 6.7117,571123,7146,1432,2680.90090.40240.33260.7508 All respondents 104 100.0 108,730 111,211 2,481 -1,394 1.5460 0.1252 -0.8689 0.3869 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.

PAGE 19

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 19 Demographic categorization of realtors participating in the study and their average responses regarding days-to-sale for Property C. (days) (days) (days) tProb>t Female 5451.9 117 120 3 0.62480.5348 Male 5048.1 96 99 3 0.74720.4585 Age: 28-39 2120.2 103 106 3 0.44520.6609 40-49 2826.9 102 107 5 0.68100.5017 50-64 4644.2 107 112 5 1.03990.3039 65-80 9 8.7 131 121 -10 -0.55470.5943 Education: High school 1312.5 121 117 -4 -0.34320.7374 Some college 3735.6 114 125 11 1.62770.1123 College graduate 4139.4 100 97 -3 -0.67790.5017 Post-baccaulareate 1312.5 92 100 8 1.23490.2405 Years Experience: 1-5 1514.4 118 119 1 0.11850.9073 6-10 2221.2 107 115 8 1.35590.1895 11-15 2726.0 103 102 -1 -0.23360.8171 16-20 2120.2 107 105 -2 -0.27690.7846 21-25 7 6.7 97 115 18 1.43620.2010 26-30 5 4.8 120 114 -6 -0.21820.8379 Over 30 7 6.7 97 117 20 1.61780.1568 All respondents 104 100.0 107 110 3 0.9516 0.3435 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.

PAGE 20

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 20 Realtors' estimates of "before" and "after" values by demographic categories, Property D. (dollars)(dollars)(dollars)(dollars) tProb>t t Prob>t Female 5451.9100,756111,81111,0555,1863.1976*0.00231.49980.1396 Male 5048.1105,856109,6183,762-2,1081.40190.1672-0.78560.4359 Age: 28-39 2120.2107,571105,971-1,600-7,470-0.40160.6923-18.750***0.0755 40-49 2826.996,889104,3537,4641,5942.4142**0.02280.51560.6103 50-64 4644.2103,235113,0009,7653,8952.4055**0.02030.95950.3424 65-80 98.7112,544130,37717,83311,9633.1614**0.01342.1210***0.0667 Education: High school 1312.5109,467103,2699,3073,4371.64430.12600.60730.5550 Some college 3735.6102,859113,17011,1355,2653.1616*0.00321.49490.1437 College graduate4139.4106,949111,3174,368-1,5011.06000.2955-0.36440.7175 Post-baccaulareate1312.5103,992109,6085,616-2551.30620.2160-0.05920.9537 Years Experience: 1-5 1514.4109,467111,6002,133-3,7370.28930.7766-0.50670.6202 6-10 2221.2102,859108,1595,300-5700.93050.3627-0.10010.9212 11-15 2726.0104,481110,6666,1853153.1691*0.00390.16150.8730 16-20 2120.295,800106,37610,5764,7051.9277***;0.06820.85780.4012 21-25 76.793,000107,12814,1288,2591.24860.25830.72990.4930 26-30 54.8109,980124,58014,6008,7303.3442**0.02871.99960.1162 Over 30 76.7113,571124,35710,7864,9161.06180.32920.48390.6456 All respondents 104 100.0 103,208 110,757 7,549 1,679 3.3863* 0.0010 0.7532 0.4531 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** denotes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.

PAGE 21

Effects of Relandscaping on the Perceived Market Value of Single Family Residential.... 21 Demographic categorization of realtors participating in the study and their average responses regarding days-to-sale for Property D. (days) (days) (days) tProb>t Female 5451.9 127 128 1 0.21920.8273 Male 5048.1 107 101 -6 -1.5170.1357 Age: 28-39 2120.2 122 118 -4 -0.35080.7294 40-49 2826.9 111 102 -9 -1.19960.2407 50-64 4644.2 113 117 4 0.88610.3803 65-80 9 8.7 143 138 -5 -0.29800.7733 Education: High school 1312.5 118 123 5 0.59620.5621 Some college 3735.6 124 124 0 0.00001.0000 College graduate 4139.4 115 107 -8 -1.06890.2750 Post-baccaulareate1312.5 103 105 2 0.35260.7305 Years Experience: 1-5 1514.4 123 137 14 0.93790.4161 6-10 2221.2 125 119 -6 -1.20850.2403 11-15 2726.0 119 110 -9 -1.05630.3005 16-20 2120.2 103 103 0 0.0001.0000 21-25 7 6.7 117 116 -1 -0.08220.9372 26-30 5 4.8 132 114 -18 -1.50000.2080 Over 30 7 6.7 100 105 5 0.54530.6052 All respondents 104 100.0 117 115 -2 -0.5559 0.5795 Note: denotes statistical significance at 0.01 level, ** dentoes statistical significance at 0.05 level, *** denotes statistical significance at 0.10 level.