We build on the intuitive (static) modeling framework of Rosen (1974) and specify a simple, forward-looking model of location choice. We use this model, along with a series of graphs, to describe the potential biases associated with the static model and relate these biases to the time series of the amenity of interest. We then derive an adjustment factor that allows the potentially biased static estimates to be converted into forwardlooking estimates. Finally, we illustrate these concepts with two empirical applications: the marginal willingness to pay to avoid violent crime and the marginal willingness to pay to avoid air pollution.

The hedonic model, which has been used extensively in the Environmental, Urban, and Real Estate literatures, allows for the estimation of the implicit prices of housing and neighborhood attributes, as well as households' demand for these non-marketed amenities. A recognized drawback of the existing hedonic literature is that the models assume a myopic decision-maker. In this paper, we estimate a dynamic hedonic model and find that the average household is willing to pay $472 per year for a ten percent reduction in violent crime. In addition, we find that the traditional, myopic model suffers from a 21 percent negative bias.

We study whether long-term cumulative exposure to airborne small particulate matter (PM2.5) affects the probability that an individual receives a new diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. We track the health, residential location, and PM2.5 exposures of Americans aged sixty-five and above from 2001 through 2013. The expansion of Clean Air Act regulations led to quasi-random variation in individuals’ subsequent exposures to PM2.5. We leverage these regulations to construct instrumental variables for individual-level decadal PM2.5 that we use within flexible probit models that also account for any potential sample selection based on survival. We find that a 1 µg/m3 increase in decadal PM2.5 increases the probability of a new dementia diagnosis by an average of 2.15 percentage points (pp). All else equal, we find larger effects for women, older people, and people with more clinical risk factors for dementia. These effects persist below current regulatory thresholds.