Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:49:53.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing Vineyards: A Directional Distance Function Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2013

Robin Cross ,
Rolf Färe ,
Shawna Grosskopf  and
William L. Weber
Robin Cross
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oregon State University.
Rolf Färe
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Department of Agricultural Economics, Oregon State University.
Shawna Grosskopf
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Oregon State University.
William L. Weber
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Finance, Southeast Missouri State University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We exploit the duality between the cost function and the directional distance function in value space to recover hedonic prices of product or asset characteristics. An application is offered for 96 Oregon vineyards located in the Willamette Valley of Oregon that sold between 1995 and 2007. Specifically, we recover hedonic prices for the number of high-, medium-, and low-quality vineyard acres and the number of nonvineyard acres sold in the parcel. Not surprisingly, higher-quality vineyard acres have a higher estimated hedonic price than medium- or low-quality acres, but as the number of high-quality acres increases, the hedonic price falls. (JEL Classification: D24, C61, Q10)

Keywords

Hedonic pricesdirectional distance function
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , May 2013 , pp. 69 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aigner, D.J. and Chu, S.J. (1968). On estimating the industry production functions. American Economic Review, 58, 826–839.Google Scholar
Chambers, R.G. (1998). Input and output indicators. In Färe, R., Grosskopf, S. and Russell, R.R. (eds.), Index Numbers: Essays in Honour of Sten Malmquist. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R.G., Chung, Y. and Färe, R. (1996). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.Google Scholar
Chambers, R.G., Chung, Y. and Färe, R. (1998). Profit, directional distance functions and Nerlovian efficiency. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 95(2), 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, R., Plantinga, A. J. and Stavins, R.N. (2011a). What is the value of terroir? American Economic Review, 101(3), 152–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, R., Plantinga, A.J. and Stavins, R.N. (2011b). The value of terroir: Hedonic estimation of vineyard sale prices. Journal of Wine Economics, 6(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, M., Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K. and Yaisawarng, S. (1993). Output allocative and technical efficiency of banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 17, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Färe, R. and Primont, D. (1995). Multi-Output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S. and Weber, W.L. (2001). Shadow prices of Missouri public conservation land. Public Finance Review, 29(6), 444–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Färe, R., Martins-Filho, C. and Vardanyan, M.C. (2010). On functional form representation of multi-output production technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 33(2), 1534–1544.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Noh, D.W. and Weber, W.L. (2005). Characteristics of a polluting technology: Theory and practice. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 469–492.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Roland, B.-E. and Weber, W.L. (2009). License fees: The case of Norwegian salmon farming. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 13(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Sheng, C. and Sickles, R. (2012). Pricing characteristics: An application of Shephard's dual lemma,” mimeo. Rice University and Oregon State University.Google Scholar
Farrell, M.J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, 120, Part 3, 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luenberger, D.G. (1992). Benefit functions and duality. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 21, 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luenberger, D.G. (1995). Microeconomic Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Paul, C.J.M., Johnston, W.E. and Frengley, G.A.G. (2000). Efficiency in New Zealand sheep and beef farming: The impacts of regulatory reform. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 81(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shephard, R.W. (1953). Cost and Production Functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shephard, R.W. (1970). Theory of Cost and Production Functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Veseth, M. (2011). Wine Wars: The Curse of the Blue Nun, the Miracle of Two Buck Chuck, and the Revenge of the Terroirists. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar