1SOURCE EXTRACT — arxiv-2603.03260v22Title: Does Entry of Food-and-Drink Establishments Raise Local House Prices? Event-Study Evidence from London3Authors: Wanqi Liu; Rong Zhao4Bibliographic record: arXiv:2603.03260v2 [physics.soc-ph, econ.GN], version 1 submitted 3 Mar 2026, version 2 (this extract) submitted 2 Apr 2026. Abstract page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03260v25Retrieved: https://arxiv.org/html/2603.03260v2 on 2026-10-30T03:23:18Z (SHA-256 of the retrieved HTML: 6e9a3c5fead449da09a981b0bacc36e1a4f652750caef972a173c3193525c327)6License: CC BY 4.0 (license shown on the arXiv abstract page; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Reproduced in part with attribution.7Extract contents: title, authors and abstract; Section 3 'Empirical Strategy and Main Results' in full (equation (1), Table 2, Table 3 with notes, Figure 2 caption, Section 3.3); Section 5 'Conclusion'.8Omitted: Sections 1-2 and 4, the appendix (Tables 4-5), the references.9Rendering note: converted from the HTML rendering to plain text. Tables are rendered one row per line with " | " separating cells; in regression tables the line following a coefficient row holds the standard errors in parentheses, exactly as printed. Mathematical expressions appear as LaTeX source; non-breaking spaces were replaced by ordinary spaces. No numbers were altered.10================================================================1112# Does Entry of Food-and-Drink Establishments Raise Local House Prices? Event-Study Evidence from London1314Wanqi Liu, Rong Zhao (Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London)1516###### Abstract1718Restaurants, cafes, pubs, and takeaways are among the most visible markers of neighborhood change, yet whether their arrival is capitalised into nearby housing values remains empirically unsettled. We assemble a London-wide panel linking Land Registry prices, non-domestic EPC lodgement timings for food-and-drink establishments, and neighborhood amenity measures at the LSOA level. Our preferred annual event-study design defines treatment as the first clean-onset year in which an LSOA records at least two eligible EPC lodgements for food-and-drink establishments, after a two-year lookback with no prior entries. In this specification, pre-trend tests are not rejected in either the stacked or Sun-Abraham estimators, and log house prices rise gradually from about 0.5% in the event year to roughly 3.4–3.7% by years four and five. The results are consistent with local amenity capitalization following commercial entry, while remaining appropriately cautious about endogenous siting and concurrent redevelopment.1920## 3 Empirical Strategy and Main Results2122### 3.1 Empirical Strategy2324Our main estimand is the reduced-form change in local log house prices following the first clean entry wave of food-and-drink establishments in an LSOA, relative to untreated LSOAs that remain at risk in the relevant event-time comparisons. It is best interpreted as a local capitalization estimand: it bundles direct amenity value, signaling, and related neighborhood revaluation, rather than isolating a single structural channel.2526The central identification threat is endogenous siting. If businesses open where appreciation was already accelerating, post-entry coefficients will confound commercial entry with prior neighborhood change. To trace the dynamic price response while reducing that concern, we exploit the staggered timing of openings of food-and-drink establishments using EPC lodgement records for restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, and takeaways. In the preferred specification, treatment begins in the first year an LSOA records at least two such EPC lodgements after a two-year lookback window with no prior eligible entry. Let E_{i} denote the treatment year for LSOA i (undefined for never-treated units). This clean-onset rule is intended to capture a discrete local entry wave rather than ongoing turnover. Our annual event-study specification is:2728y_{it}=\alpha_{i}+\delta_{t}+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau=-5\\29\tau\neq-1\end{subarray}}^{5}\beta_{\tau}\,\mathbf{1}\{t-E_{i}=\tau\}+\varepsilon_{it} | | | (1)3031where \mathbf{1}\{t-E_{i}=\tau\} equals one when LSOA i is observed \tau years relative to its treatment date, with \tau=-1 as the omitted reference period. The coefficients \{\beta_{\tau}\} trace out the dynamic treatment effect, while the pre-period coefficients \beta_{-5},\ldots,\beta_{-2} provide the main visual and joint-test check on parallel trends.3233#### Estimator comparisons.3435Because staggered treatment timing can induce negative weighting in conventional TWFE [22], we treat the stacked design as the main estimator and compare it with a Sun and Abraham [23] interaction-weighted estimator. The point of this comparison is to check whether the post-entry path survives an alternative treatment-timing aggregation scheme, not to elevate a broad specification horse race into the main text.3637### 3.2 Main Event-Study Results3839Using EPC lodgement records, we construct an annual design for entry of food-and-drink establishments in which treatment begins when an LSOA first records at least two eligible lodgements after a two-year clean-onset window with no prior entry. The preferred stacked sample contains 657,197 LSOA-year observations, 774 treated-role LSOAs, and 4,459 control-role LSOAs across risk sets. Treatment is distributed across sixteen cohorts from 2008 to 2023, with the largest cohort in 2009 (178 treated units) and meaningful support throughout the subsequent decade. Appendix cohort tables report the full cohort composition.4041#### Support across event time.4243Table 2 summarizes the support behind the stacked sample. Treated observations are most numerous near event time and then decline as the window moves farther into the tails, but support remains substantial even at \tau=5 , where 546 treated observations from 11 contributing stacks remain in the estimating sample. This pattern matters for interpretation: medium-run coefficients are identified from fewer cohorts than the event-year effect, so later horizons should be read as economically informative but mechanically noisier.4445Table 2: Event-Time Support in the Stacked Sample4647Event Time | Treated Obs. | Treated LSOAs | Contributing Stacks4849-5 | 572 | 572 | 145051-4 | 751 | 751 | 155253-3 | 769 | 769 | 165455-2 | 763 | 763 | 165657-1 | 761 | 761 | 1658590 | 756 | 756 | 1660611 | 689 | 689 | 1562632 | 648 | 648 | 1464653 | 610 | 610 | 1366674 | 586 | 586 | 1268695 | 546 | 546 | 117071•7273Notes: Support counts from the preferred clean-onset stacked design for entry of food-and-drink establishments. “Contributing stacks” records how many cohort-specific risk sets identify each event-time coefficient.7475#### Headline dynamic pattern.7677Figure 2 reports the preferred clean-onset event-study path and overlays the event-time support behind each coefficient. Pre-treatment coefficients are small and imprecise, and the stacked joint pre-trend test does not reject ( p=0.241 ). The estimated effect is close to zero at event time and then turns positive: the stacked coefficient is 0.005 at \tau=0 , 0.012 at \tau=1 , 0.018 at \tau=2 , 0.037 at \tau=4 , and 0.034 by \tau=5 . Interpreted in logs, these magnitudes correspond to a gradual appreciation of roughly 0.5% in the event year and about 3.4–3.7% after four to five years. The pattern is notable for its slope as much as for its level: prices do not jump immediately, but instead drift upward as the new commercial entry becomes part of the local amenity bundle.7879#### Estimator comparison and design diagnostics.8081For the preferred clean-onset design, the Sun-Abraham interaction-weighted path closely tracks the stacked path in the post-treatment period. The Sun coefficients are 0.005 at \tau=0 , 0.012 at \tau=1 , 0.016 at \tau=2 , 0.036 at \tau=4 , and 0.033 at \tau=5 , and its joint pre-trend test is not rejected ( p=0.472 ). Table 3 places the preferred specification next to two nearby alternatives. Relative to the broader baseline threshold-2 design, clean-onset imposes more discipline on timing while preserving a similar medium-run magnitude. Relative to the neighbor-buffer variant, it avoids an extra layer of spatial pruning that mechanically strengthens post-treatment coefficients but yields tighter pre-trend p -values. We therefore retain the unbuffered clean-onset design as the headline specification.8283Table 3: Main Design Diagnostics for the Headline Event-Study Specification8485[Extract editor's note: the header row of Table 3 is garbled in the HTML rendering; the six columns are, in order: Specification | Treated-role LSOAs | Stacked pre-trend p | Sun pre-trend p | tau=4 coefficient | tau=5 coefficient.]8687p p \tau=4 \tau=5 Specification | Treated-role LSOAs | Stacked pre-trend | Sun pre-trend | |8889Baseline threshold-2 | 1,084 | 0.342 | 0.223 | 0.029 | 0.0229091Clean-onset threshold-2 | 774 | 0.241 | 0.472 | 0.037 | 0.0349293Clean-onset + neighbor buffer | 774 | 0.126 | 0.239 | 0.042 | 0.0409495•9697Notes: Entries in the last two columns are log-point coefficients relative to \tau=-1 . The baseline row uses the broader threshold-2 treatment without the clean-onset restriction. The preferred row uses the clean-onset threshold-2 treatment with a two-year lookback window and no prior eligible entry. The buffer row applies a first-order neighboring-control exclusion to the preferred design.9899Figure 2: Preferred clean-onset event-study estimates for entry of food-and-drink establishments. Point estimates are reported relative to the year before treatment ( \tau=-1 ), which is shown as the open reference marker at zero, and plotted with 95% confidence intervals. Gray bars report the number of treated observations contributing to each event-time coefficient. The estimated path rises gradually from near zero in the event year to roughly 3.4–3.7% by years four and five after entry.100101### 3.3 Robustness Checks102103The main robustness question is whether the positive post-entry path survives plausible threats from spatial spillovers and concurrent redevelopment. Excluding first-order neighboring controls leaves the qualitative pattern intact and slightly strengthens post-treatment coefficients, but it also yields tighter pre-trend p -values. We therefore treat the buffer variant as a supporting robustness check rather than as a replacement for the headline design. Planning-start outcome diagnostics are reported in Appendix Table 5 and are not used to select the preferred specification.104105## 5 Conclusion106107This paper studies whether entry of food-and-drink establishments is followed by changes in neighborhood house prices in Greater London. In the preferred clean-onset event-study estimates, areas exposed to entry experience a gradual post-entry appreciation that reaches roughly 3.4–3.7% after four to five years. The evidence is consistent with local amenity capitalization following visible commercial change, while also underscoring the need for continued falsification and treatment-validation work before treating the dynamic magnitudes as fully settled.108