Is urban decay bad? Is urban revitalization bad too?
Jacob Vigdor ()
Journal of Urban Economics, 2010, vol. 68, issue 3, 277-289
Neighborhood revitalization could, in theory, harm some existing residents if it leads to price increases that exceed their willingness-to-pay. I use data from the American Housing Survey to estimate a discrete choice model identifying households' willingness-to-pay for neighborhood quality. These willingness-to-pay estimates are then compared to the actual price changes that accompany observed changes in neighborhood quality. The results suggest that price increases associated with revitalization are smaller than most households' willingness to pay for neighborhood improvements. Conversely, declines in neighborhood quality are generally not accompanied by rent declines sufficient to compensate the typical resident. For the majority of the population, then, neighborhood revitalization is beneficial and decline detrimental.
Keywords: Neighborhood; change; Capitalization; Amenities; Gentrification (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
Working Paper: Is Urban Decay Bad? Is Urban Revitalization Bad Too? (2007)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:juecon:v:68:y:2010:i:3:p:277-289
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Urban Economics is currently edited by S.S. Rosenthal and W.C. Strange
More articles in Journal of Urban Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dana Niculescu ().