Market value of the view restriction

Open access


Based on the international literature, the effect of an existing panoramic view on the market value of properties is positive and significant. This value-adding factor varies by location and by type of view. In Central Europe, no such evaluation study has been elaborated until now. New building construction may restrict the existing panorama, and this is the other side of the same phenomenon. View restriction may result in stigmatization, which is a negative effect on the property. There are two major methodologies to observe the effect: revealed preference method (RPM) and stated preference method (SPM). One SPM approach is contingent valuation (CV), wherein well-informed stakeholders give their opinion about the impact caused by the investigated effect. The CV methodology, using the Delphi approach, was employed to observe the market value decrease in the cases of several restricted panorama situations in Budapest. Based on the research, this effect in Budapest is in line with the published western results. The result of the study can be used to support real estate developers and architects in their development decisions. This is an extended version of the article titled “The impact of view-restriction: a Delphi case study from Budapest”, presented at Creative Construction Conference 2018, CCC 2017, 30 June to 3 July 2018, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Baranzini A. & Schaerer C. (2011). A sight for sore eyes: Assessing the value of view and land use in the housing market. Journal of Housing Economics 20(3) pp. 191-199.

  • Benson E. D. Hansen J. L. Schwartz A. L. & Smersh G. T. (1998). Pricing residential amenities: The value of a view. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 16(1) pp. 55-73.

  • Bourassa S. C. Hoesli M. & Sun J. (2004). What’s in a view? Environment and Planning A 36(8) pp. 1427-1450.

  • Brown G. M. & Pollakowski H. O. (1977). Economic valuation of shoreline. The Review of Economics and Statistics 59 pp. 272-278.

  • Chau K. W. Yiu C. Y. E. Wong S. K. & Lai L. W. C. (2002). Hedonic price modelling of environmental attributes: A review of the literature and a Hong Kong case study. In: Ng Y. K. & Wills I. (eds.) Welfare Economics and Sustainable Development. I-II. Eolss Publishers Company Limited Oxford UK.

  • Damigos D. & Anyfantis F. (2011). The value of view through the eyes of real estate experts: A Fuzzy Delphi Approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 101(2) pp. 171-178.

  • Fan Q. Hansz J. A. & Yang X. (2016). The pricing effects of open space amenities. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 52(3) pp. 244-271.

  • Fleischer A. (2012). A room with a view – A valuation of the Mediterranean Sea view. Tourism Management 33(3) pp. 598-602.

  • Fung Y. W. & Lee W. L. (2012). Developing a simplified parameter for assessing view obstruction in high-rise high-density urban environment. Habitat International 36(3) pp. 414-422.

  • Hajnal I. (2017a). Evaluation of stigmatized properties. Organization Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal 9(1) pp. 1615-1626.

  • Hajnal I. (2017b). An investigation of property value impairment caused by noise in the case of the Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport Using a Hedonic Model. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences 25(1) pp. 49-55.

  • Hamilton S. E. & Morgan A. (2010). Integrating LIDAR GIS and hedonic price modeling to measure amenity values in urban beach residential property markets. Computers Environment and Urban Systems 34(2) pp. 133-141.

  • Horváth K. & Hajnal I. (2014). Value impairment of contaminated real estate. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences 22(2) pp. 141-148. doi: 10.3311/PPso.7389.

  • Hsu C. C. & Sandford B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 12(10) pp. 1-8.

  • Hui E. C. Zhong J. W. & Yu K. H. (2012). The impact of landscape views and storey levels on property prices. Landscape and Urban Planning 105(1) pp. 86-93.

  • Isenstadt S. (1999). The visual commodification of landscape in the real estate appraisal industry 1900-1992. Business and Economic History 28(2) pp. 61-69.

  • Jim C. Y. & Chen W. Y. (2009). Value of scenic views: Hedonic assessment of private housing in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 91(4) pp. 226-234.

  • Kutasi D. (2016). Value components of historic residential properties: Evidence from Budapest real estate market. Open House International 41(1) pp. 101-106.

  • Li S. P. & Will B. F. (2005). A fuzzy logic system for visual evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32(2) pp. 293-304.

  • Malyusz L. & Pem A. (2014). Predicting future performance by learning curves. Procedia- Social and Behavioural Sciences 119 pp. 368-376.

  • Mothorpe C. & Wyman D. (2017). Appraisal of residential water view properties. Appraisal Journal 85(2) pp. 130-141.

  • Mundy B. 1992. The impact of hazardous materials on property value revisited. The Appraisal Journal 60(4) pp. 463-471.

  • Potgieter R. M. & Cloete C. E. (2010). The impact of a view on the value of vacant residential lots. Appraisal Journal 78(4) pp. 333-349.

  • Rodriguez M. & Sirmans C. F. (1994). Quantifying the value of a view in single-family housing markets. Appraisal Journal 62 pp. 600-600.

  • Sander H. A. & Polasky S. (2009). The value of views and open space: Estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County Minnesota USA. Land Use Policy 26(3) pp. 837-845.

  • Yamagata Y. Murakami D. Yoshida T. Seya H. & Kuroda S. (2016). Value of urban views in a bay city: Hedonic analysis with the spatial multilevel additive regression (SMAR) model. Landscape and Urban Planning 151 pp. 89-102.

  • Yu S. Yu B. Song W. Wu B. Zhou J. Huang Y. et al. (2016). View-based greenery: A three-dimensional assessment of city buildings’ green visibility using floor green view index. Landscape and Urban Planning 152 pp. 13-26.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 136 136 10
PDF Downloads 105 105 9