Moving on to the coastal variables, the coefficient of the
variable OPENSH, in the first coastal specification C1, is
positive and significant at the 5% level and at the 1% level in
combination with L1 and L2 respectively. Therefore, districts
with a greater share of their coastline of the type open or flat
coast will have higher prices for their accommodation. The
coefficient of the variable CLIFFSH is not significant in either of
the landscape specifications; therefore, the share of the coastline
with cliffs plays no role in the determination of price.
In the second coastal specification, C2, the variable DIKESH,
the share of the coastline with dikes, is the only variable. In
both landscape combinations, the coefficient is negative. In
the L1 combination, it is only significant at the 10% level. For
the L2 combination, however, it is significant at the 5% level. In
contrast to the existence of open coast, the existence of dikes
has a negative effect on price.
The third coastal specification includes all of the coastal
types as absolute values. The coefficient of the variable
OPENTOT is positive and significant at the 5% level. As was
the case for the relative representations of the coastal
variables, CLIFFTOT is not significant. DIKETOT is negative
and significant at the 1% level. So not only does the length of
the coastal type relative to the total coastal length have an
effect on price, but so does the absolute length of the coastal
type. The results for this specification emphasise the positive
effect that coastlines that are free from hard coastal protection
measures such as dikes have on price