Real estate research provides evidence that properties potentially exposed to perceived or actual risks may experience price impacts. Looking Under the Hood reviews publications that illustrate the theoretical, methodological, and data challenges faced by scholars and practitioners studying detrimental conditions and their impacts on property values.
#hedonicpricingmethod #revealedpreference #adversion #residential #EPA #residential #disclosure #damages #litigationwaste #visual #realestatedamages #pvd #diminution #spa #orellanderson #hedonics #stigma #valuer #regression #climate #appraisal #exposure #classaction #economy #legaltech #urbanplanning #realestate #riskmanagement #bigdata #technology #econometrics #research #data #zoning #landuse #development #valuation #expertwitness #analytics #finance #defenses #housing #disclosure #regulation #insurance
Real estate research shows that when buyers and sellers perceive risk, prices can move, sometimes sharply. In this Looking Under the Hood installment, we look at how digital tools are changing the way we see those risks and what that means for valuation.
A recent review by Naeem, Rana, and Nasir maps the landscape of “digital real estate,” from online listing platforms and GIS, to drones, sensors, AI, and blockchain. The common thread is that every property now carries a growing digital shadow, imagery, hazard layers, transaction histories, and model outputs that follow it through the market. That creates opportunities for better analysis and temptations to trust the screen more than the market.¹
To keep this grounded, we pair that review with two older, still useful studies. Loomis looked at a Colorado community that did not burn in a nearby forest fire yet still saw prices drop around fifteen percent after the event.² Bin and Kruse used FEMA flood maps to show that being mapped into a flood zone can lower prices for many inland homes, while coastal amenity sometimes offsets part of the risk discount.³ Fire and rain, both reminding us that information and perception matter.
We read these studies with the CARCA lens in mind, completeness and adequacy of data, reliance, credibility, and appropriateness of data, analysis, and conclusion. None of them gives us a universal fifteen percent or ten percent adjustment to plug into every assignment. They show mechanisms and orders of magnitude, not discount tables. Digital tools can help us see patterns faster and link parcels to risk data more clearly, but they do not replace market research, local knowledge, or a transparent narrative about how buyers and sellers in this market, at this time, are actually responding.
Under the hood, technology changes the tools, not the duty. We still have to ask, are the data complete and adequate, can we rely on them, and are our conclusions appropriate to the evidence in front of us.
References: