The Time and Spatial Effects of A “City-County Merger” on Housing Prices—Evidence from Fuyang
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Administrative Divisions Adjustment and City-County Merger
2.2. The Impact of City-County Merger on Urban Economic Growth
2.3. Influential Factors of House Prices
2.4. Literature Evaluation
3. Research Design
3.1. Hypothesis Proposal
3.2. Variable Description and Data Source
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variable
3.2.3. Control Variables
3.3. Establishing the Econometrics Model
4. An Empirical Test on the Influence of the City-County Merger of Fuyang City to Housing Prices
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. The Suitability Test of a Double Differences Model
4.3. Difference-In-Differences Regression and Result Analysis
4.3.1. The Time Effect of Fuyang’s City-County Merger on House Prices
4.3.2. The Spatial Effect of the City-County Merger of Fuyang on House Prices
5. Discussion
5.1. Topic, Goal, and Methods
5.2. Result
5.2.1. Time-Effect
5.2.2. Spatial-Effect
6. Conclusions
6.1. Key Findings
6.2. Public Policy Implications
6.3. Challenges
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yu, H.; Deng, Y.; Xu, S. Evolutionary Pattern and Effect of Administrative Divisions Adjustment during Urbanization of China: Empirical Analysis on Multiple Scales. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2018, 28, 758–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma Laurence, J.C. Urban administrative restructuring, changing scale relations and local economic development in China. Polit. Geogr. 2005, 24, 477–497. [Google Scholar]
- Chung, J.H.; Lam, T.C. China’s “City System” in Flux: Explaining Post-Mao Administrative Changes. China Q. 2004, 180, 945–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, S.; Li, L.; Zhang, X. Challenges of creating cities in China: Lessons from a short-lived county-to-city upgrading policy. J. Comp. Econ. 2012, 40, 476–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Liao, C. Scale Rescaling and Rescaling of Territoriality: 40 Years of Adjustment of China’s Urban Administrative Divisions; Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press: Shanghai, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, W.; Wang, Y. Administrative Boundary Adjustment and Urbanization of Population: Evidence from City-county Merger in China. Econ. Res. J. 2015, 50, 72–85. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Z.; Wang, X.; Geng, L. Stages and Characteristics of Metropolitan Administrative Division Adjustment in China since 1997. China City Plan. Rev. 2014, 3, 6–14. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X. Impact analysis of turning counties (cities) into districts to the urban economic growth in China. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2015, 70, 1202–1214. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, L.L.; Schiff, J.H. City–county consolidations: Promise versus performance. State Local Gov. Rev. 2011, 43, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKay, R.B. Reforming municipal services after amalgamation: The challenge of efficiency. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2004, 17, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, R.M.; Afonso, W.B. Fiscal Impact of Annexation Methodology on Municipal Finances in North Carolina. Growth Chang. 2016, 47, 664–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanson, B.E. Quandaries of pragmatic reform: A reassessment of the Jacksonville experience. State Local Gov. Rev. 2000, 32, 227–238. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, A.C.; Kathryn, A.F. Metropolitan governance structure and income growth. J. Urban. Aff. 1999, 21, 3309–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feiock, R.C.; Carr, J.B. A reassessment of city-county consolidation: Economic development impacts. State Local Gov. Rev. 1997, 29, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, J.B.; Feiock, R.C. Metropolitan government and economic development. Urban. Aff. Rev. 1999, 34, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forbes, K.F.; Zampelli, E.M. Is leviathan a mythical beast? Am. Econ. Rev. 1989, 79, 568–577. [Google Scholar]
- Savitch, H.V.; Vogel, R.K. Metropolitan consolidation versus metropolitan governance in Louisville. State Local Gov. Rev. 2000, 32, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyne, G.A. Local government structure and performance: Lessons from America. Public Adm. 1992, 70, 332–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hudnut, W. The Hudnut Years in Indianapolis; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Faulk, D.; Hicks, M. Local Government Consolidation in the United States; Cambria Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Savitch, H.V.; Vogel, R.K.; Ye, L. Beyond the Rhetoric Lessons from Louisville’s Consolidation. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2010, 40, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, Y.Y.; Weingast, B.R. Federalism as commitment to preserving market incentives. J. Econ. Perspect. 1997, 11, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Nie, H. Administrative divisions’ adjustment and economic growth. Manag. World 2010, 4, 42–53. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Y.; Xu, Y. Impact of adjustment of administrative divisions upon the changes of housing prices—the case of Nanhui district merged into Pudong new area. Econ. Geogr. 2011, 31, 1452–1457. [Google Scholar]
- Raymond, E.S.; Menifield, C.E. A Tale of Two Cities: An Exploratory Study of Consolidation and Annexation Policies in the Cities of Memphis and Nashville. Public Adm. Q. 2011, 35, 404–441. [Google Scholar]
- Vogiazas, S.; Alexiou, C. Determinants of housing prices and bubble detection: Evidence from seven advanced economies. Atl. Econ. J. 2017, 45, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kishor, N.K.; Marfatia, H.A. The dynamic relationship between housing prices and the macroeconomy: Evidence from OECD countries. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2017, 54, 237–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuang, W. Expectation, Speculation and Urban Housing Price Volatility in China. Econ. Res. J. 2010, 45, 67–78. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.R.; Hui, E.C.M.; Sun, J.X. Population migration, urbanization and housing prices: Evidence from the cities in China. Habitat Int. 2017, 66, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.; Zhang, C. Impacts of administrative division adjustment on housing price in urban China. Geogr. Res. 2017, 36, 913–925. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Fu, R. Integration and Dispersion: Administrative Division Reform in Regional Governance. Comp. Econ. Soc. Syst. 2017, 1, 145–154. [Google Scholar]
- Roesel, F. Do mergers of large local governments reduce expenditures? Evidence from Germany using the synthetic control method. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 2017, 50, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Steiner, R.; Kaiser, C.; Grétar Thór, E. A Comparative Analysis of Amalgamation Reforms in Selected European Countries. In Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Norton, A. International Handbook of Local and Regional Government; Edward Elgar Pub.: Cheltenham, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Alwyn, Y. The razor’s edge: Distortions and incremental reform in the People’s Republic of China. Q. J. Econ. 2000, 115, 1091–1135. [Google Scholar]
- Mai, J.; Yu, T.; Jiang, Z. The effect of China’s province governing the county system reform on urban-regional relationship of the Yangtze River Delta and some targeted counter measures. Urban Stud. 2010, 5, 80–85. [Google Scholar]
- Dolan, D. Fragmentation: Does it drive up the costs of government? Urban Aff. Q. 1990, 26, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selden, S.C.; Richard, W. The expenditure impacts of unification in a small Georgia county: A contingency perspective of city-county consolidation. Public Adm. Q. 2000, 24, 169–201. [Google Scholar]
- Faulk, D.; Grassmueck, G. City-county Consolidation and Local Government Expenditures. State Local Gov. Rev. 2012, 44, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, J.B.; Bue, S.; Lu, W. City-County government and promises of economic development: A tale of two cities. State Local Gov. Rev. 2006, 38, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stansel, D. Local decentralization and local economic growth: A cross-sectional examination of US metropolitan areas. J. Urban Econ. 2005, 57, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, C.C.A.V. Are Chinese Cities Too Small? Rev. Econ. Stud. 2006, 73, 549–576. [Google Scholar]
- Duranton, G.; Puga, D. Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. CEPR Discuss. Pap. 2003, 4, 2063–2117. [Google Scholar]
- Boarnet, M.G.; Haughwout, A. Do Highways Matter? Evidence and Policy Implications of Highways’ Influence on Metropolitan Development (Discussion Paper). Available online: https://escholarship.org/content/qt5rn9w6bz/qt5rn9w6bz.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2020).
- Fields, R. Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project. Louisville. Available online: https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=kVA3DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT231&lpg=PT231&dq=Response+to+the+draft+environmental+impact+statement+for+the+Louisville-Southern+Indiana+Ohio+River+Bridges+Project.+Louisville&source=bl&ots=ZGS_LPN-JN&sig=ACfU3U3YjXLxrbzowp2-pyBXArCdXTO4DA&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-zNXttt_nAhWZ7WEKHdhSDuYQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Response%20to%20the%20draft%20environmental%20impact%20statement%20for%20the%20Louisville-Southern%20Indiana%20Ohio%20River%20Bridges%20Project.%20Louisville&f=false (accessed on 20 February 2020).
- Wang, Z.; Zhang, Q. Fundamental factors in the housing markets of China. J. Hous. Econ. 2014, 25, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaeser, E.L.; Gyourko, J.; Saks, R.E. Why have housing prices gone up? Am. Econ. Rev. 2005, 95, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saiz, A. The geographic determinants of housing supply. Q. J. Econ. 2010, 125, 1253–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mankiw, N.G.; Weil, D.N. The baby boom, the baby bust, and the housing market. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 1989, 19, 235–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Drachal, K. Property Prices and Regional Labor Markets in Poland. Singidunum J. Appl. Sci. 2014, 11, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Égert Balázs Mihaljek, D. Determinants of House Prices in Central and Eastern Europe. Comp. Econ. Stud. 2007, 49, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iacoviello, M. House Prices and the Macroeconomy in Europe: Results from a Structural VAR Analysis. Eur. Cent. Bank Work. Paper Ser. 2000, 18, 1–42. [Google Scholar]
- Tse, R.Y. Estimating neighborhood effects in house prices: Towards a new hedonic model approach. Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 1165–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, A.C.; Thibodeau, T.G. Housing market segmentation and hedonic prediction accuracy. J. Hous. Econ. 2003, 12, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Freeman, A.M. Hedonic prices, property values and measuring environmental benefits: A survey of the issues. Scand. J. Econ. 1981, 81, 13–32. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, H.; Lu, J.; Fu, Y. Product differentiation and hedonic prices: An empirical analysis. In Proceedings of the ICSSSM ’05—2005 International Conference on Services Systems and Services Management, Chongquing, China, 13–15 June 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, H.Z.; Sheng-hua, J.; Xiao-yu, G. Hedonic price analysis of urban housing: An empirical research on Hangzhou, China. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 2005, 6, 907–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chay, K.Y.; Greenstone, M. Does air quality matter? Evidence from the housing market. J. Polit. Econ. 2005, 113, 376–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grainger, C.A. The distributional effects of pollution regulations: Do renters fully pay for cleaner air? J. Public Econ. 2012, 96, 840–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, S.; Kahn, M.E. Land and residential property markets in a booming economy: New evidence from Beijing. J. Urban Econ. 2008, 63, 743–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamper-Rabindran, S.; Mastromonaco, R.; Timmins, C. Valuing the benefits of superfund site remediation: Three approaches to measuring localized externalities. Natl. Bureau Econ. Res. 2011, 16655, 1–78. [Google Scholar]
- Yue, W.; Ni, C.; Tian, C.; Wen, H.; Fang, L. Impacts of an Urban Environmental Event on Housing Prices: Evidence from the Hangzhou Pesticide Plant Incident. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222077522_Impacts_of_urban_environmental_element_on_residential_housing_prices_in_Guangzhou_China (accessed on 20 February 2020).
- Mahan, B.L.; Polasky, S.; Adams, R.M. Valuing urban wetlands: A property price approach. Land Econ. 2000, 76, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, H.; Bu, X.; Qin, Z. Spatial effect of lake landscape on housing price: A case study of the West Lake in Hangzhou, China. Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peiser, R.B.; Schwann, G.M. The private value of public open space within subdivisions. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 1993, 10, 91–104. [Google Scholar]
- Dubin, R.A.; Goodman, A.C. Valuation of education and crime neighborhood characteristics through hedonic housing prices. Popul. Environ. 1982, 5, 166–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bishop, K.C.; Murphy, A.D. Estimating the willingness to pay to avoid violent crime: A dynamic approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101, 625–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogart, W.T.; Cromwell, B.A. How Much Is a Neighborhood School Worth? J. Urban Econ. 2000, 47, 280–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, H.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, L. School district, education quality, and housing price: Evidence from a natural experiment in Hangzhou, China. Cities 2017, 66, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sah, V.; Conroy, S.J.; Narwold, A. Estimating school proximity effects on housing prices: The importance of robust spatial controls in hedonic estimations. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2016, 53, 50–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, C.A.; Kaplan, E.K. Capitalization of School Quality in Housing Prices: Evidence from Boundary Changes in Shelby County, Tennessee. Am. Econ. Rev. 2017, 107, 628–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajic, V. The Effects of a New Subway Line on Housing Prices in Metropolitan Toronto. Urban Stud. 1983, 20, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billings, S. Estimating the Value of a New Transit Option. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2011, 41, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, H.; Gui, Z.; Tian, C.; Xiao, Y.; Li, F. Subway Opening, Traffic Accessibility, and Housing Prices: A Quantile Hedonic Analysis in Hangzhou, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dubé, J.; Thériault, M.; Rosiers, F.D. Commuter rail accessibility and house values: The case of the Montreal South Shore, Canada, 1992–2009. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 54, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, C.; Guttentag, D.; Gretzel, U. Pricing in the sharing economy: A hedonic pricing model applied to Airbnb listings. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 35, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Housing Characteristics | Variable Name | Variables Description | Data Sources | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Architectural characteristics | M1 | House space | Housing transaction information | |
Location characteristics | M2 | Distance to the nearest bus stop | ArcGISmeasure | |
M3 | Distance to the West Lake | |||
M4 | Distance to Qianjiang New CBD | |||
M5 | Distance to Qiantang River | |||
Neighbourhood characteristics | M6 | Is there a subway nearby | Dummy variable, if any, will have a value of 1; otherwise, it is 0. Referring to the existing research [69,74], the "nearby" range is defined as 1000 m. | Electronic map |
M7 | Is there a school nearby | |||
M8 | Is there a third-grade hospital nearby | |||
M9 | Is there a shopping centre nearby | |||
M10 | Is there a bank nearby |
Fuyang City | West Lake District | Hangzhou City | |
---|---|---|---|
Population (million) | 0.73 | 0.84 | 6.39 |
Employment (million) | 0.25 | 0.64 | 3.84 |
GDP (billion yuan) | 60.14 | 80.2 | 737.59 |
GDP per capita (1000 yuan/person) | 82.38 | 95.48 | 115.43 |
Area of jurisdiction (km2) | 1808 | 263 | 2068 |
Variable | Variable Description |
---|---|
The explained variable that represents the transaction price of second-hand house i. | |
A staged dummy variable, reflecting the time effect of the policy. It is taken as 1 after the merger (15 February 2015), otherwise, it is 0. | |
A grouped dummy variable reflecting whether the city in which the second-hand house i is located is to be merged. If it is implemented, the value is 1, otherwise, it is 0. | |
, which is used to measure the impact of the city-county merge on urban housing prices. | |
Control variables. |
Variable | Variable Description |
---|---|
The explained variable that represents the transaction price of second-hand house i. | |
A staged dummy variable, reflecting the time effect of the policy. It is taken as 1 after the merger (15 February 2015), otherwise, it is 0. | |
A grouped dummy variable reflecting whether the second-hand house is located in the benchmark group. The value in the benchmark group is 0, otherwise, it is 1. | |
, which is used to measure the spatial effect of the merger of Fuyang City on Fuyang house prices. | |
Control variables. |
Variable | Before Merger (2014.1–2015.2.14) | After Merger (2015.2.15–2015.12) | After Merger (2019.3) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuyang District | West Lake District | Fuyang District | West Lake District | Fuyang District | West Lake District | |
Observations | 2057 | 3672 | 3164 | 4941 | 2519 | 2858 |
Contract price (yuan/m2) | 7764 | 22829 | 7194 | 22973 | 22410 | 48359 |
(2602) | (6696) | (3293) | (7046) | (7615) | (13552) | |
Area (m2) | 143.0 | 86.83 | 133.5 | 90.23 | 201.0 | 90.47 |
(91.48) | (35.32) | (662.13) | (36.46) | (95.76) | (36.22) | |
Subway | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.773 |
(0) | (0) | (0) | (0) | (0) | (0.419) | |
School | 0.701 | 1 | 0.842 | 1 | 0.475 | 1 |
(0.458) | (0) | (0.365) | (0) | (0.499) | (0) | |
3rd grade hospital | 0 | 0.541 | 0 | 0.540 | 0 | 0.556 |
(0) | (0.498) | (0) | (0.498) | (0) | (0.497) | |
Shopping mall | 0.357 | 0.526 | 0.357 | 0.518 | 0.146 | 0.522 |
(0.479) | (0.499) | (0.479) | (0.500) | (0.353) | (0.500) | |
Bank | 0.850 | 1 | 0.917 | 1 | 0.624 | 1 |
(0.357) | (0) | (0.277) | (0) | (0.484) | (0) | |
Distance to the nearest bus station (m) | 269.5 | 184.8 | 211.9 | 190.3 | 351.4 | 177.2 |
(183.5) | (64.91) | (164.9) | (65.97) | (186.9) | (65.31) | |
Distance to the West Lake (km) | 21.94 | 4.592 | 23.86 | 4.657 | 17.91 | 4.408 |
(6.171) | (2.379) | (6.447) | (2.340) | (4.318) | (2.216) | |
Distance to Qianjiang New CBD (km) | 29.70 | 11.03 | 31.63 | 11.13 | 26.27 | 10.94 |
(5.588) | (2.383) | (6.198) | (2.407) | (4.045) | (2.284) | |
Distance to the Qiantang River (km) | 3.782 | 10.24 | 3.000 | 10.28 | 6.777 | 10.04 |
(3.289) | (2.380) | (3.190) | (2.312) | (3.085) | (2.195) | |
Distance to the administrative boundary (km) | 6.971 | 15.48 | 8.680 | 15.42 | 4.463 | 15.28 |
(4.880) | (1.462) | (5.672) | (1.485) | (3.354) | (1.423) |
Variable | Variable Description |
---|---|
The explained variable that represents the transaction price of second-hand house i. | |
H | A dummy variable. If the city-county merger is implemented in t0+k month, the value is 1, otherwise, it is 0. |
Control variables. | |
t0 is the month of implementation of the policy. −10 ≤ k ≤ 10, when k < 0, it refers that t0+k is the k-month before the merger; when k ≥ 0, it refers that t0+k is the k-month after the merge. |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Explanatory variable Control sample area | Ln (P) West Lake District | Ln (P) West Lake District | Ln (P) Binjiang District | Ln (P) Binjiang District | Ln (P) West Lake+ Binjiang | Ln (P) West Lake+ Binjiang |
T × A | −0.129 *** | −0.0961 *** | −0.177 *** | −0.146 *** | −0.135 *** | −0.103 *** |
(0.0143) | (0.0131) | (0.0166) | (0.0162) | (0.0125) | (0.0118) | |
Before and after the merger (T) | 0.00377 | 0.00526 | 0.0518 *** | 0.0525 *** | 0.00968 | 0.0174 *** |
(0.00871) | (0.00791) | (0.0120) | (0.0115) | (0.00659) | (0.00611) | |
Merged district (A) | −1.111 *** | −0.979 *** | −0.822 *** | −0.364 *** | −1.013 *** | −0.406 *** |
(0.0110) | (0.0295) | (0.0130) | (0.0311) | (0.00972) | (0.0228) | |
Constant | 9.994 *** | 10.55 *** | 9.704 *** | 9.571 *** | 9.896 *** | 9.613 *** |
(0.00660) | (0.0343) | (0.00942) | (0.0288) | (0.00506) | (0.0227) | |
Control Variables | × | √ | × | √ | × | √ |
Observations | 13,834 | 13,834 | 10,128 | 10,128 | 18,741 | 18,741 |
R-squared | 0.676 | 0.734 | 0.567 | 0.601 | 0.631 | 0.683 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Explanatory variable Control sample area | Ln (P) West Lake District | Ln (P) West Lake District | Ln (P) Binjiang District | Ln (P) Binjiang District | Ln (P) West Lake+ Binjiang | Ln (P) West Lake+ Binjiang |
T × A | 0.331 *** | 0.338 *** | 0.319 *** | 0.263 *** | 0.335 *** | 0.235 *** |
(0.0129) | (0.0157) | (0.0148) | (0.0152) | (0.0120) | (0.0131) | |
Before and after the merger (T) | 0.755 *** | 0.724 *** | 0.767 *** | 0.780 *** | 0.751 *** | 0.719 *** |
(0.00828) | (0.0123) | (0.00871) | (0.0113) | (0.00669) | (0.00831) | |
Merged district (A) | −1.111 *** | −1.007 *** | −0.822 *** | −0.374 *** | −1.013 *** | −0.540 *** |
(0.00914) | (0.0250) | (0.0113) | (0.0306) | (0.00862) | (0.0221) | |
Constant | 9.994 *** | 10.61 *** | 9.704 *** | 9.566 *** | 9.896 *** | 9.689 *** |
(0.00548) | (0.0273) | (0.00775) | (0.0212) | (0.00449) | (0.0180) | |
Control Variables | × | √ | × | √ | × | √ |
Observations | 11,106 | 11,106 | 8108 | 8108 | 14,638 | 14,638 |
R-squared | 0.773 | 0.835 | 0.735 | 0.784 | 0.735 | 0.781 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
chi2(1) = | 1161.31 | 701.86 | 1183.44 | 672.18 | 1296.38 | 487.54 |
Prob > chi2 = | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
Explanatory variable | ln(P) | ln(P) | ln(P) |
West Lake area distance (km) | 3–6 | 6–9 | > 9 |
T × D | 0.0624 ** | −0.110 *** | −0.140 *** |
(0.0265) | (0.0304) | (0.0299) | |
Before and after the merge (T) | 1.074 *** | 1.073 *** | 1.078 *** |
(0.0147) | (0.0178) | (0.0181) | |
Distance to West Lake District (D) | −0.123 *** | 0.194 *** | 0.479 *** |
(0.0395) | (0.0635) | (0.0371) | |
Constant | 10.30 *** | 5.229 *** | 9.034 *** |
(0.471) | (0.389) | (0.0761) | |
Control variables | √ | √ | √ |
Observations | 2,599 | 2,248 | 2,529 |
R-squared | 0.793 | 0.780 | 0.756 |
(1) (2) | (1) (3) | (2) (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
result | chi2(1) = 19.61 | chi2(1) = 23.87 | chi2(1) = 0.91 |
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 | Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 | Prob > chi2 = 0.3393 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tian, C.; Ji, W.; Chen, S.; Wu, J. The Time and Spatial Effects of A “City-County Merger” on Housing Prices—Evidence from Fuyang. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041639
Tian C, Ji W, Chen S, Wu J. The Time and Spatial Effects of A “City-County Merger” on Housing Prices—Evidence from Fuyang. Sustainability. 2020; 12(4):1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041639
Chicago/Turabian StyleTian, Chuanhao, Wenjun Ji, Sijin Chen, and Jinqun Wu. 2020. "The Time and Spatial Effects of A “City-County Merger” on Housing Prices—Evidence from Fuyang" Sustainability 12, no. 4: 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041639
APA StyleTian, C., Ji, W., Chen, S., & Wu, J. (2020). The Time and Spatial Effects of A “City-County Merger” on Housing Prices—Evidence from Fuyang. Sustainability, 12(4), 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041639