This model tests whether local housing supply elasticity governs crash severity inside a single metropolitan housing market. Saiz (2010) established that across US metros, regions constrained by geography and regulation experience deeper boom-bust cycles than flexible ones. That finding is routinely applied downward to neighborhoods and ZIP codes as though the mechanism scaled without qualification.

The empirical record for the Washington DC and Northern Virginia region says it does not. Across 84 ZIP codes, measured supply elasticity ranges from 0.35 to 4.95 with a median of 1.21. The worst single-year price decline between 2007 and 2012 averaged 9.6 percent in constrained ZIP codes and 9.0 percent in flexible ones, a gap that cannot be distinguished from noise. Wide variation in the proposed cause, no meaningful separation in the proposed effect.

The model embeds households, houses and a metro-wide credit condition in the real ZIP geography of the region using three GIS layers and an empirical price panel. Local elasticity governs construction, exactly as theory predicts. Prices are driven by a shared macro drift schedule and, under the credit-amplified mode, by a leverage cycle with a financial accelerator and a deviation penalty. The design question is whether those shared forces are sufficient to override local supply differences at the sub-metropolitan scale.

…

The NIER model is intended to add qualitative variables of building owner types and peer group scales to existing energy efficiency retrofit adoption models. The model was developed through a combined methodology with qualitative research, which included interviews with key stakeholders in Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The concepts that the NIER model adds to traditional economic feasibility studies of energy retrofit decision-making are differences in building owner types (reflecting strategies for managing buildings) and peer group scale (neighborhoods of various sizes and large-scale Districts). Insights from the NIER model include: large peer group comparisons can quickly raise the average energy efficiency values of Leader and Conformist building owner types, but leave Stigma-avoider owner types as unmotivated to retrofit; policy interventions such as upgrading buildings to energy-related codes at the point of sale can motivate retrofits among the lowest efficient buildings, which are predominantly represented by the Stigma-avoider type of owner; small neighborhood peer groups can successfully amplify normal retrofit incentives.