Assessing the variability in house prices and

proximity to Light Rail Transit stations in Calgary, Alberta

Erika Martinez (Christina Kostandi)

May 3, 2014
GEOG 457

Article has been submitted for consideration to the Journal of Spatial Economic Analysis

1. Introduction
The addition or expansion of municipal Light Rail Transit (LRT) structures is an issue that can often divide
communities. It is becoming clear both that urban public transit is necessary and also that researchers and
policy makers remain unsure as whether or not the presence of light rail transit affects house prices. Accessible
transit is an affordable, environmentally sustainable transportation option for urban communities (Hewitt &
Hewitt, 2012; Hess & Almeida, 2007). The importance of determining LRT effects on house prices is growing,
all urban centers need more public transit options meaning that if LRT does negatively affect nearby
homeowners then it becomes an issue that municipal authorities must address. Of secondary importance is a
need to add to the growing body of literature regarding the addition of spatiality to the traditional hedonic linear
regression models currently being applied to housing datasets. One of the biggest issues with traditional hedonic
model is the assumption of homogenous model parameters across the study region (, 201).

The null hypothesis is that housing prices within City of Calgary communities are not affected by the presence
of or proximity to light rail transit (LRT) stations. Instead, housing prices are strictly dictated by the various
other variables taken into account during this study. The alternate hypothesis is that housing prices within the
City of Calgary communities are affected by the presence of or proximity to light rail transit (LRT) stations. In
addition to the above stated hypothesis this paper will also address the following questions: To what degree
does proximity to LRT stations affect housing prices within surrounding communities? Is the relationship
between this dependent and independent variable inherently positive or negative? Does accessibility to LRT
contribute substantially to housing prices or does it exert negligible influence? To what degree do other
variables, such as # of bedrooms, # of bathrooms and proximity to the CBD affect housing prices? Does the
cumulative effect of these additional variables vastly supersede the associative influence of LRT station
proximity?

The following analysis uses the city of Calgary, Alberta as a general study area and applies advanced spatial
regression techniques to a subset of the city consisting of homes near LRT stations. Utilizing a dataset of 1242
observed transaction prices, we will conduct a spatial analysis exploring a possible relationship between sold
house prices and proximity to LRT stations. The paper is organized into five sections. Section one first
introduces the study followed by section two which lays out the methodology of the analysis. Section three
presents the statistical results and section four contains a discussion of model results and the last section
concludes the study by summarizing the results.

2. Study Area, Data and Methodology

2.1 Study Area
Figure 1. Study area Calgary, Alberta

2.2 Data
The following data was obtained from the City of Calgary Open Data Catalogue in shapefile format including
City Community Districts, Schools, Amenities, Census 2006 and Major Road Networks. Median income for
Calgary communities in 2006 was downloaded from the Statistics Canada website. LRT Line and Station data
was obtained from Calgary Transit and the University of Calgary SANDS Desk. Initially, an attempt was made
to acquire the raw sold house price data through the Calgary Real Estate Board (CREB) and then later through
the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA). Unfortunately, despite extensive communications with both
organizations the data was not released and instead obtained from a personal real estate contact of one of the
authors. The data provided by the personal contact included information on style, type of house and other
housing characteristics which may affect house prices.

2.3 Methodology
This section will layout the process used to select, prepare and create data as well as the steps taken to generate
the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Geographically Weighted (GWR) and Moving Wnidows Kriging (MWK)
regression models presented below.

2.3.1. Variable selection

Property Variables
Area, Age, Bathrooms, Bedrooms, Basement, Garage, Building type were chosen as variables that can be
assumed to affect house prices (Hewitt & Hewitt, 2012).

Locational ??Variables

Transportation Accessibility Variables

Distance to station, line, CBD, schools, amenities, roadways

Neighbourhood Quality Variables

Median Income it is generally assumed that homes located in high-income communities will sell at higher
prices than comparable homes in lower-income communities
Percent ownership
Disamnenity effects of being located too near a transit line or roadway are negatively capitalized into
property values and therefore homes located adjacent to such facilities should sell at a discount when
compared with comparable homes located at a distance (ref 6)

2.3.2 Data preparation

The raw data was transformed into a usable format by geocoding the addresses of the observations, reformatting
the data into a database and then importing the data into ArcGIS as a shapefile. ArcGISs Geocoding
functionality was intended to be utilized in order to convert the address data to a tangible geographical location
but unfortunately, this functionality was discontinued and therefore an online service, GeoVisualizer was
used. Due to an unknown error, the software generated several duplicate sets of geographical coordinates which
were manually deleted. There remained 1242 observations after duplicates are removed.

2.2.3 Variable creation

Create study area from master dataset
Using several previous studies as a conceptual template, it was concluded that our study would be
founded on housing data for all houses sold in 2013 within residential communities located within a
certain distance from Calgarys LRT lines.
Given the limited breadth of our study and the number of entities returned for a more substantial buffer,
for our purposes, we decided to create a buffer of approximately 2 kilometers.

Clip all data and variables to relevant communities in the study area
Once this buffer was created, a select by location strategy was used in order locate all communities
falling within or along the buffer zone.
Given that our study would only be concerned with residential communities, any industrial or
principally commercial regions falling within this buffer were systematically removed from our study
area.

Calculate proximity variables

We needed to calculate house proximity to nearest LRT station, LRT line, major roadway, school, local
amenities and the CBD.
This was completed using the ArcGIS Near tool.

Calculate adjacency variables

Adjacencies were calculated by creating a 300 m buffer around transit lines and roadways and then
using the ArcGIS Near tool..

Calculate neighbourhood variables

Percentage of households that are owners was calculated as number of owners divided by total number
of households in the community.

Figure 2. Cartographic model of variable creation methods

Figure 3. Location of observations, transit lines and transit stations in study area

Table 1. Complete set of initial study variables

Variable Type
Dependent Variable
Independent Variables
Property Characteristic
Variables

Variable
PRICE

Definition
Sale price

Units
$

Source
Industry contact

BDRMS

Number of bedrooms

Count

Industry contact

BATHS
M_SQ

Number of bathrooms
Area of property
Dummy - Type of house:
Duplex = 3;
Detached = 2;
Attached = 1;
Otherwise = 0
Dummy - Basement type:
Walk-out = 4;
Dugout = 3;
Full = 2;
Partial = 1;
None = 0
Dummy - Presence of garage:
Garage = 1;
Otherwise = 0

Count
m2

Industry contact
Industry contact

Value

Industry contact

Value

Industry contact

Value

Industry contact

AGE

Age of property

# years

Calculated from
YEAR

Dist_CBD

Distance to Central Business District

Calculated

Dist_SCL
Dist_AMN

Distance to nearest school

Distance to amenities

m
m

Calculated
Calculated

Dist_STN

Distance to nearest LRT station

Calculated

Dist_LINE
Dist_RDWYS

Distance to LRT line

Distance to major roadway

m
m

Med_INC

Median income

Calculated
Calculated
Statistics
Canada
Statistics
Canada

Type_BLDG

BSMNT

GAR

Location Dependent
Variables

Transportation
Accessibility Variables

Neighbourhood Quality
Variables

Percentage of households that are

owners
Dummy - Adjacency to nearest LRT
line:
Adj_LINE
House lies within 300m of transit line
= 1; Otherwise = 0
Dummy: Adjacency to nearest
roadway:
Adj_ RDWYS
House lies within 300m of roadway =
1; Otherwise = 0
Pct_OWNER

Calculated

Calculated

2.2.4 Initial model selection

The main advantage of a hedonic house price model is the ability to decompose all relevant phenomena which
affects house values into individual parts. This maked the hedonic model ideal for exploratory modelbuilding.; However, this model does not control for either spatial heterogeneity or spatial autocorrelation (ESRI,
2011). The hedonic model is a global regression model which imposes the restriction that the marginal effects
of independent variables be constant across the study region. Traditional hedonic linear regression violates two
major OLS assumptions. The first is the assumption of homoskedasticity. Spatial heterogeneity is caused by
the different spatial processes operating in local housing markets or from varying household preferences (Long
et al, 2010). The second assumption is that the errors are normally distributed. Spatial autocorrelation means
that due to locational and adjacency effects, the errors are spatially correlated (Long et al, 2010). Moving
window Kriging is a modification of general Kriging which allows for a non-uniform spatial structure and by
estimating a new set of parameters for each prediction site using only observations within the immediate
neighbourhood (ESRI, 2012b). MWK makes use of a local spatial covariance structure that varies from site to
site which leads to a more accurate portrayal of the observed spatial phenomena (Long et al, 2010)

2.2.5

Analyses and Statistics

Exploratory data analysis

The initial data analysis was performed in Stata 12 in order to visually examine a histogram of house prices and
also the linearity of the price observations. Summary statistics were generated for the price variable and several
housing characteristic variables.

Modelbuilding: Stepwise OLS regression

To begin the model building process, a correlation matrix was created in Stata to examine any potential
correlations between the dependent variable and all of the independent variables. Correlations were also
examined within all possible pairs of independent variables and removed if > +0.4 or < -0.4 (Long et al, 2010).
Next, an initial OLS regression was done on the base model including all of the study variables as listed in
Table 1. All variables were considered statistically significant at the 95% confidence level if the t-statistic was
> +1.96 or < -1.96 and if the p-value was < 0.05. Due to the changes in variable coefficients and significance
during the model-building process which indicated that transformation and interaction variables may be
necessary, logged price, age2 and bed*bath were added to the regression but not kept.

OLS model diagnostics and visualization

Model #1 Hedonic OLS
The OLS regression tool in ArcGIS was used to compare the generated OLS coefficients to those generated in
Stata in order to ensure that the software parameters of both programs were similar before continuing.
Using the output generated by the OLS tool, the significant variable distributions and relationships and residuals
from Model #1 were further examined visually.

Geographically Weighted Regression and visualization

Model #2 GWR
The following paramter settings were used in the GWR tool:
Kernel type- ADAPTIVE: bandwidth distance will change according to the spatial density of the input features
Bandwidth method ; AICc: automatically generates the optimal number of neighbours
Number of Neighbours: OPTIMALLY DETERMINED
(ESRI, 2012b)

Moving Windows Kriging regression and visualization

Model #3 MWK
First, a geostatistical layer was created in Geostatistical Wizard using the simple kriging method.
The second step was intended to be a MWK but unfortunately was not not completed due to technical software
errors.

3. Results
Exploratory data analysis
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of price

Within the study area, higher priced homes are clustered in the central and west-central parts of the city, middle
priced homes are scattered throughout including two substantial groupings in the north-west and south-central
areas and lastly, lower priced homes dominate the north-east portion of Calgary and are also present in the
south-central area.

Histogram
Transformation: None
Figure 5. Histogram of Price

Frequency 10
2.37

Count
: 1242
Min
: 31800
Max
: 2500000
Mean
: 503440
Std. Dev. : 255980

1.9

Skewness
Kurtosis
1-st Quartile
Median
3-rd Quartile

: 3.0929
: 17.363
: 350000
: 436750
: 579000

1.42
0.95
0.47
0
0.03

0.28

0.53

0.77

1.02

1.27

1.51

1.76

2.01

2.25

2.5

Dataset 10

: Obs_1242_WGS19843TM
Sale_Price
Figure Dataset
5 shows a histogram
of the observations which reveals that the sale Attribute:
price is approximately
normally
distributed and is slightly skewed to the right. .

Normal QQPlot
Figure 6. Scatterplot of Price
Transformation: None
Dataset 10
2.5
2.01

1.51
1.02

0.53
0.03
-3.35

-2.68

-2.01

-1.34

-0.67

0.67

1.34

2.01

2.68

3.35

Standard Normal Value

Dataset : Obs_1242_WGS19843TM Attribute: Sale_Price

Price is roughly linear in the middle but skewed on either end.

Normal
QQPlot
Figure 7. Scatterplot of logged price
Transformation: Log
Dataset 10
1.47
1.39

1.3
1.21

1.12
1.04
-3.35

-2.68

-2.01

-1.34

-0.67

0.67

1.34

2.01

2.68

3.35

Standard Normal Value

Dataset : Obs_1242_WGS19843TM Attribute: Sale_Price

Price becomes more linear, especially at each end after having been logged.

Table 2. Summary statistics

Mean

Std Dev

Min

Median

Max

Price

503440

255980

31800

436750

2500000

Area

141.800

55.373

53.9

122.21

510.48

# Beds

3.752

0.924

# Baths

2.259

0.788

2.1

Age

31.531

22.162

25

106

Table 2 presents the average house in this study which was built around 1982, is 141.8 m2, has 3.8 bedrooms,
2.3 bathrooms and on average sold for approximately $503,440. The median house price was $436,750 while
the least expemsive home in the study area sold for $31,800 and the most expensive for $2,500,000.

Modelbuilding: Stepwise OLS regression (Stata)

Correlations between dependent and all independents (see Appendix A)

0.00

Sale_Price
1000000.00
2000000.00
1500000.00
2500000.00
500000.00

Figure 8. Price vs Distance to station

0.00

500.00

1000.00
1500.00
DISTSTATION

2000.00

2500.00

The principle variable of interest, distance to stations does not visually appear to be correlated with price, the
correlation coefficient is 0.0474. Area, baths, med income are moderately positively correlated with price while
basement, beds and garage are mildly positively correlated with price. Distance to line, school, roadway,
amenities and building type are all positive but very small.. Distance to central business district is mildly
negatively correlated with price while percent owned and age are negative but very small.

Correlations within all independent pairs (See Appendix B):

1) Distance to line and distance to station
2) Age and distance to central business district
3) Percent owned and distance to central business district

Five variables were removed including beds, building type, distance to schools and roadways, adjacency to
roadway.
Final model: -Model #1 Hedonic OLS (see Appendix B):
Price = Area + Baths + Age + Bsmt _ garage + percent owner + median income + distance

to

station + distance to amenities + adjacency to line

Table 3. Model #1 OLS regression results (Stata)
Variable

Coefficient [a]

StdError

t-Statistic

Probability

AREA

2767.86

115.95

23.87

0.000

BATHS

32175.15

7420.61

4.34

0.000

AGE

922.4979

253.05

3.65

0.000

BSMT

21936.87

7698.17

2.85

0.004

GARAGE

37150.08

12397.93

3.00

0.003

PERC_OWNED

-2185.59

252.22

-8.67

0.000

MED_INCOME

4.366

0.33

13.38

0.000

DISTSTATIO

-32.25

10.03

-3.21

0.001

DIST_AMN

-28.45

9.59

-2.967

0.003

ADJ_LINE

-22370.92

10914.42

-2.05

0.041

Intercept

-24568.16

32620.61

-0.75

0.452

For every additional meter squared of living area, price increases on average by $2767.86. Across the study
area, house prices increase on average by $32.175.15 for each additional bathroom.. Basement type is
positively related to house price. The presence of a garage is positively related to house price. As the
percentage of units in the study area which are owned increases, house prices decrease by $2185.58. As median
neighbourhood income increases, house prices increase on average by $4.37. As distance to station increases,
each additional meter lowers house prices by $32.25. As distance to amenities increases, each additional meter
lowers house prices by $28.45. Homes that are located within the adjacency to line buffer zone are associated
on average with a $22,370.92 decrease in house prices which is what we expected to see as a result of
disamenity affects of noise and pollution etc.
Table 4. Model #1 Summary of OLS model results (Stata)
Metric

Metric Values

R2

0.6026

F-statistic

186.84

Prob(>F)

0.000000

Model diagnostics and visualization (ArcMap)

Model #1 Hedonic OLS
Table 5. Model #1 OLS regression results (ArcMap)
Variable

Coefficient

Standard Error

t-statistic

p-value

AREA

2768.47

116.20

23.83

0.000

BATHS

32172.91

7423.64

4.33

0.000

AGE

922.958

253.20

3.65

0.000

BSMT

21877.77

7730.17

2.83

0.005

GARAGE

37122.45

12397.93

2.99

0.003

PERC_OWNED

-2185.39

252.22

-8.66

0.000

MED_INCOME

4.366

0.33

13.36

0.000

DISTSTATIO

-32.22

10.05

-3.21

0.001

DIST_AMN

-28.42

9.60

-2.96

0.003

ADJ_LINE

-22389.72

10920.87

-2.05

0.041

Intercept

-24522.21

32637.85

-0.75

0.453

Coefficents, standard errors, t-statistics, and pvalues are all similar to the values obtained from OLS in Stata.
Table 6. Model #1 Summary of OLS model results (ArcMap)
Metric

Metric Values

AICc

33334.59

R2

0.602615

F-statistic

186.675499

Prob(>F)

0.000000

Koenker (BP) statistic

65.436437

BP Prob(>chi-squared)

0.000000

Jarque-Bera statistic

49454.709984

JB Prob(>chi-squared)

0.000000

Figure 9. Significant variable distributions and relationships

Figure 10. Histogram of standardized residuals

Figure 11. Residuals vs. Predicted plot

Figure 12. Spatial Autocorrelation diagnostic Morans I

Table 7. Global Morans I summary

Morans I Metric

Metric Values

Morans Index

0.143652

Expected Index

-0.000806

Variance

0.000045

z-score

21.435641

p-value

0.000000

Distance Threshold

1828.52 (m)

Figure 13. Model #1 Distribution of residuals

Model #2 GWR

Table 9. Model #2 Summary of model results (ArcMap)

GWR Regression

Summary Statistics

AICc

53500.47

R2

0.762

Bandwidth

1828.35

Residuals

362563.93

Sigma

135522.63

Figure 14. Model 2 Distribution of residuals

Model #3 MWK

Figure 15. Geostatistical layer (Simple Kriging)

4. Discussion
It would have been possible to have tried to account for spatial heterogeneity by disaggregating the data but
without expert knowledge of the local real estate micro-markets in each community, we would almost certainly
do it incorrectly. Disaggregating to the neighbourhood level is not a viable option because neighbourhood
boundaries are often arbitrary and do not accurately reflect actual spatial groupings on the ground. In either
case, if linear regression is performed at the incorrect level of aggregation then the resulting estimates have the
potential to be severely biased. (Sundig et al, 2008)

Modelbuilding: Stepwise OLS regression

Five insignificant variableswere removed: beds, building type, distance to schools and roadways, adjacency to
roadway. Using logged price lowered the overall significance of the model; age squared wasnt significant and
adding bed*bath caused several variables that had been consistently significant to become insignificant.
Two variable were removed due to multicollinearity. Distance to line was removed because this study is more
interested in the relationship between distance to station and house prices, central business district was removed
because is correlated with two other independent variables and it is preferred to remove one variable rather than
two wherever possible.

The fact that the Koenker (BP) statistic is statistically significant indicates that the relationships between price
and the independent variables in Model #1 are not consistent (either due to non-stationarity or
heteroskedasticity). (ESRI, 2013) It is likely that Koenker statistic is indicating an error arising from using
global (stationary) models to estimate local (non-stationary) phenomena. GWR improves predictions and
sometimes reveals the type of non-stationarity. The fact that the Jarque-Bera statistic is statistically significant
indicates that the model predictions are biased (the residuals are not normally distributed).
(ESRI, 2013)
Despite the extensive literature regarding the determinants of house prices in North America and globally, most
of the popular variables utilized are reported as varying between being positively significant, negatively
significant or insignificant (Zietz et al, 2008; Landis et al, 1995) which is consistent with the results above.

Literature Cited
Bowes, D.R. and Ihlanfeldt, K.R. (2001). Identifying the Impacts of Rail Transit Stations on
Residential Property Values. Journal of Urban Economics. 50: 1-25.
Brandt, S. and Maennig W. (2012). The impact of rail access on condominium prices in
Hamburg. Transportation. 39: 997-1017.
Calgary Transit (n.d.). Technical Data. Available at: http://www.calgarytransit.com/
html/technical_information.html
ESRI, (2011). Interpreting OLS regression results. Available at: http://resources.arcgis.com
/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#/Interpreting_OLS_results/005p00000030000000/
ESRI. (2012a). Geographically weighted regression (GWR). Available at: http://resources
.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#/Geographically_Weighted_Regression_GWR/005p0000002
1000000/
ESRI. (2012b). Moving Windows Kriging (Geostatistical Analyst). Available at: http://resources
.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//00300000000m000000
ESRI. (2013). Modeling spatial relationships. Available at: http://resources.arcgis.com/en
/help/main/10.1/index.html#/Modeling_spatial_relationships/005p00000005000000/
Hess, D.B. and Almeida, T.M. (2007). Impact of Proximity to Light Rail Rapid Transit on
Station-area Property Values in Buffalo, New York. Urban Studies. 44: 1041-1068.
Hewitt, C.M. and Hewitt, W.E. (2012). The Effect of Proximity to Urban Rail on Housing Prices
in Ottawa. Journal of Public Transportation. 15(4): 43-62.
Landis, J., Guhathakurta, S., Zhang, M. (1995). Rail transit investments, real estate values and
land use change: A comparative analysis of five California rail transit systems. University
of California at Berkeley. 27-41. Available at: http://www.fltod.com/research/housing
/rail_transit_investments_real_estate_values_and_land_use_change.pdf
Long, F., Paez, A., Farber, S. (2007). Spatial effects in hedonic price estimation: A case study in
the city of Toronto. Center for Spatial Analysis, McMaster University. Available at:
http://sciwebserver.science.mcmaster.ca/cspa/papers/CSpA%20WP%20020.pdf
Sundig, D., Swoboda, A. (2008). Hedonic analysis with locally weighted regression: An
application to the shadow cost of housing regulation in Southern California. Journal of
Regional Science and Urban Economics. 40:550-573
Zietz, J., Norman-Zietz, E. (2008). Determinants of house prices: A quantile regression
approach. Journal of Real Estate Financial Economics. 37:317-333

Appendix
Appendix A - Correlation matrix of independent variables
. . correlate sale_price area beds baths diststation distschool distline distcbd age perc_owned med_income b
> smt garage bldg_type dist_rdwy dist_amn
(obs=1242)

sale_price
area
beds
baths
diststation
distschool
distline
distcbd
age
perc_owned
med_income
bsmt
garage
bldg_type
dist_rdwy
dist_amn

med_income
bsmt
garage
bldg_type
dist_rdwy
dist_amn

sale_p~e

area

beds

1.0000
0.6890
0.1589
0.4445
0.0474
0.0982
0.0731
-0.2727
-0.0340
-0.0454
0.4376
0.2034
0.3016
0.0134
0.0499
0.0167

1.0000
0.2025
0.5633
0.1930
0.2006
0.2146
0.0822
-0.3279
0.1324
0.3233
0.2262
0.2773
0.0312
0.0249
0.0714

1.0000
0.3572
0.0205
0.0025
0.0036
0.0074
-0.0680
-0.0168
-0.0291
0.0877
0.1070
-0.0319
0.0130
-0.0365

med_in~e

bsmt

1.0000
0.1979
0.1589
-0.1084
0.1094
0.2970

1.0000
0.0567
-0.0336
-0.0115
0.1125

baths distst~n distsc~l distline

1.0000
0.1043
0.1058
0.1333
0.0555
-0.2709
0.0882
0.1482
0.1976
0.2611
0.0650
0.0478
0.0408

1.0000
0.1713
0.9332
0.3277
-0.2461
0.1250
0.0722
0.1288
0.0903
-0.1140
0.0072
0.0494

1.0000
0.1362
0.2839
-0.2548
0.2051
0.1612
0.1657
0.0182
-0.0945
-0.0167
0.0714

garage bldg_t~e dist_r~y dist_amn

1.0000
-0.1556
0.0387
0.0132

1.0000
-0.0004
-0.1118

1.0000
0.1198

1.0000

1.0000
0.3092
-0.2334
0.1256
0.0736
0.1337
0.1109
-0.1123
0.0013
0.0581

distcbd

1.0000
-0.5453
0.5331
-0.0270
0.1353
-0.0634
-0.2259
-0.0440
0.1363

age perc_o~d

1.0000
-0.3271
0.0878
-0.1876
0.0252
-0.0654
0.0567
-0.0952

1.0000
0.3405
0.1723
-0.0568
-0.2255
0.0662
0.2653

Appendix B - Model #1 regression output (Stata)

. reg Sale_Price Area Baths AGE BSMT Garage Perc_OWNED MED_INCOME DISTSTATION Dist_AMN Adj_LINE
Source

SS

df

MS

Model
Residual

4.9006e+13
3.2314e+13

10
1232

4.9006e+12
2.6229e+10

Total

8.1319e+13

1242

6.5475e+10

Sale_Price

Coef.

Area
Baths
AGE
BSMT
Garage
Perc_OWNED
MED_INCOME
DISTSTATION
Dist_AMN
Adj_LINE
_cons

2767.86
32175.15
922.4979
21936.87
37150.08
-2185.584
4.366606
-32.24929
-28.45044
-22370.92
-24568.16

Std. Err.
115.9448
7420.606
253.0472
7698.334
12389.03
252.1045
.3263052
10.03949
9.593748
10914.42
32620.61

t
23.87
4.34
3.65
2.85
3.00
-8.67
13.38
-3.21
-2.97
-2.05
-0.75

Number of obs
F( 10, 1232)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE

P>|t|
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.041
0.452

=
=
=
=
=
=

1243
186.84
0.0000
0.6026
0.5994
1.6e+05

[95% Conf. Interval]

2540.389
17616.73
426.0468
6833.573
12844.15
-2680.186
3.726431
-51.94568
-47.27233
-43783.82
-88566.24

2995.331
46733.57
1418.949
37040.16
61456.01
-1690.982
5.006782
-12.5529
-9.628551
-958.0202
39429.93

Appendix C - Correlation Matrix Model #1

. correlate Area Baths AGE BSMT Garage Perc_OWNED MED_I
> NCOME DISTSTATION Dist_AMN Adj_LINE
(obs=1242)

Area
Baths
AGE
BSMT
Garage
Perc_OWNED
MED_INCOME
DISTSTATION
Dist_AMN
Adj_LINE

Area

Baths

AGE

BSMT

1.0000
0.5633
-0.3279
0.2262
0.2773
0.1324
0.3233
0.1930
0.0714
0.0335

1.0000
-0.2709
0.1976
0.2611
0.0882
0.1482
0.1043
0.0408
0.0163

1.0000
-0.1876
0.0252
-0.3271
0.0878
-0.2461
-0.0952
-0.0873

1.0000
0.0567
0.1723
0.1979
0.1288
0.1125
0.0361

Garage Perc_O~D MED_IN~E DISTST~N

Garage
Perc_OWNED
MED_INCOME
DISTSTATION
Dist_AMN
Adj_LINE

1.0000
-0.0568
0.1589
0.0903
0.0132
-0.0493

1.0000
0.3405
0.1250
0.2653
0.1322

Dist_AMN Adj_LINE
Dist_AMN
Adj_LINE

1.0000
0.1833

1.0000

1.0000
0.0722
0.2970
0.1133

1.0000
0.0494
0.0500