IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/regeco/v35y2005i4p327-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers

Author

Listed:
  • Alberini, Anna
  • Longo, Alberto
  • Tonin, Stefania
  • Trombetta, Francesco
  • Turvani, Margherita

Abstract

We examine different market-based mechanisms and other incentives intended to promote the environmental remediation and reuse of brownfields. Policies that encourage cleanup and re-use of brownfields offer real estate developers reductions in regulatory burden, relief from liability for future cleanups once certain mitigation standards are met, and/or financial support for regeneration of brownfields. We use conjoint choice experiments-a stated preference approach-to assess the responses of real estate developers to different mixes of these incentives. Our survey instrument was administered in person to a sample of developers and real estate professionals randomly intercepted at the Marché International des Professionnels de l'Immobilier (MIPIM) in Cannes, France, in March 2002. Conditional and random-coefficient logit models of the responses to the choice questions indicate that developers find sites with contamination problems less attractive than others, and that they value liability relief. This confirms our expectation that contaminated sites are less desirable because of the associated cleanup costs, but refutes earlier claims that liability does not matter. Our developers are not deterred by prior contamination, once it has been cleaned up, suggesting that "contamination stigma" is not very important, and appreciate fast-track review of development and remediation plans, direct financial incentives, and flexible (negotiable) cleanup standards. Developers with prior experience with contaminated sites are more responsive to the policies than are inexperienced developers, especially for subsidies. Inexperienced developers are more responsive to liability relief and regulatory relief than they are to subsidies. Similar considerations hold true for larger developers.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto & Tonin, Stefania & Trombetta, Francesco & Turvani, Margherita, 2005. "The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 327-351, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:regeco:v:35:y:2005:i:4:p:327-351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166-0462(04)00039-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. & Taylor, Laura O., 2004. "Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites: evidence from urban commercial property markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 117-139, January.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. McGrath, Daniel T., 2000. "Urban Industrial Land Redevelopment and Contamination Risk," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 414-442, May.
    4. Miriam Schoenbaum, 2002. "Environmental Contamination, Brownfields Policy, and Economic Redevelopment in an Industrial Area of Baltimore, Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 60-71.
    5. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    6. Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto & Tonin, Stefania & Trombetta, Francesco & Turvani, Margherita, 2005. "The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 327-351, July.
    7. Kip Viscusi, W. & Magat, Wesley A. & Huber, Joel, 1991. "Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-51, July.
    8. Christopher De Sousa, 2000. "Brownfield Redevelopment versus Greenfield Development: A Private Sector Perspective on the Costs and Risks Associated with Brownfield Redevelopment in the Greater Toronto Area," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 831-853.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Alberini, 2007. "Determinants And Effects On Property Values Of Participation In Voluntary Cleanup Programs: The Case Of Colorado," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(3), pages 415-432, July.
    2. Alberini, Anna, 2006. "Determinants and Effects on Property Values of Participation in Voluntary Cleanup Programs: The Case of Colorado," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12215, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani, 2011. "Environmental contamination and industrial real estate market: an application of hedonic price method in Italy," ERSA conference papers ersa10p511, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo, 2006. "The Effects of Contamination and Cleanup on Commercial and Industrial Properties: A Hedonic Pricing Model of Maryland and Baltimore City," ERSA conference papers ersa06p413, European Regional Science Association.
    5. Anna Alberini & Dennis Guignet, 2008. "Voluntary Cleanups and Redevelopment Potential: Lessons from Baltimore, Maryland," Working Papers 2008.87, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto & Riganti, Patrizia, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public's and Decision-makers' Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12221, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Paolo Rosato & Anna Alberini & Valentina Zanatta & Margaretha Breil, 2010. "Redeveloping derelict and underused historic city areas: evidence from a survey of real estate developers," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 257-281.
    8. Alberini, Anna & Chiabai, Aline & Muehlenbachs, Lucija, 2005. "Using Expert Judgment to Assess Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: Evidence From a Conjoint Choice Survey," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12216, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Hilary Sigman, 2010. "Environmental Liability and Redevelopment of Old Industrial Land," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 289-306, May.
    10. Sudip Chattopadhyay & John B. Braden & Arianto Patunru, 2005. "Benefits Of Hazardous Waste Cleanup: New Evidence From Survey‐ And Market‐Based Property Value Approaches," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(3), pages 357-375, July.
    11. Robin R. Jenkins & Elizabeth Kopits & David Simpson, 2006. "Measuring the Social Benefits of EPA Land Cleanup and Reuse Programs," NCEE Working Paper Series 200603, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2006.
    12. Alberto Longo & Danny Campbell, 2017. "The Determinants of Brownfields Redevelopment in England," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(2), pages 261-283, June.
    13. Chattopadhyay, Sudip, 2009. "The random expenditure function approach to welfare in RUM: The case of hazardous waste clean-up," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    14. Jeffrey Zabel, 2007. "The Impact of Imperfect Information on the Transactions of Contaminated Properties," NCEE Working Paper Series 200703, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Jan 2007.
    15. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    16. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    17. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    18. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    19. Wu, Qiyan & Zhang, Xiaoling & Liu, Chunhui & Chen, Zhou, 2018. "The de-industrialization, re-suburbanization and health risks of brownfield land reuse: Case study of a toxic soil event in Changzhou, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 187-194.
    20. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • R38 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:regeco:v:35:y:2005:i:4:p:327-351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/regec .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.