This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Redeveloping Derelict and Underused Historical City Areas: Evidence from a Survey of Real Estate Developers

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Paolo Rosato (University of Trieste)
Anna Alberini (University of Maryland)
Valentina Zanatta (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice)
Margaretha Breil () (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, FEEM)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Infill redevelopment—the transformation of previously used urban sites—is generally regarded as an important way to attain environmental and urban sustainability goals. At many locales, however, such urban renewal, community development, and tax revenue goals must be reconciled with historic preservation objectives. Are economic incentives and regulatory relief useful tools for encouraging reuse of abandoned or underutilized urban sites with historic buildings? Answering this question is of key importance for many European cities and for older US cities, and has important implications in terms of urban sustainability and “smart growth” initiatives. We use conjoint choice experiments to explore the relative importance of economic incentives, regulatory relief, land use and property regime offerings at underutilized historical sites in Venice, Italy. We survey real estate developers and investors, and ask them to choose between pairs of hypothetical projects in three Venice locations, as well as between one of these projects and the alternative to do a development project elsewhere. Statistical models of the responses to these choice questions indicate that respondents are sensitive to the price of acquiring the land (and hence to any policies that influence prices), and especially sensitive to the property regime that would be granted to developers and investors and to the allowable land use. Contrary to expectations, our respondents were insensitive to tightening or relaxing the stringency of building conservation restrictions. Our findings sound a common theme with Howland (2004), who warns that redevelopment of previously used sites in Baltimore is impaired by obsolete land uses, zoning and infrastructure (but not by suspected or actual contamination). We conclude that the City should focus on offering land uses and property regimes that are more in tune with developer demand.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.dse.unive.it/fileadmin/templates/dse/wp/WP_2009/WP_DSE_ros_alb_zan_bre_02_09.pdf
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by University of Venice "Ca' Foscari", Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2009_02.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 34
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ven:wpaper:2009_02

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Cannaregio, S. Giobbe no 873 , 30121 Venezia
Phone: 2574183
Fax: 2574176
Email:
Web page: http://www.dse.unive.it
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Renato Dalla Venezia).

Related research
Keywords: conjoint choice experiments; real estate developers; building conservation restrictions; redevelopment incentives; brownfields; infill redevelopment;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics
R52 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. William F. Fox & Matthew N. Murray, 2004. "Do Economic Effects Justify the Use of Fiscal Incentives?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 71(1), pages 78-92, July.
  2. Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Philippe Cyrenne & Robert Fenton & Joseph Warbanski, 2006. "Historic Buildings and Rehabilitation Expenditures: A Panel Data Approach," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 28(4), pages 349-380. [Downloadable!]
  5. Michael Greenstone & Enrico Moretti, 2003. "Bidding for Industrial Plants: Does Winning a 'Million Dollar Plant' Increase Welfare?," NBER Working Papers 9844, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. McGrath, Daniel T., 2000. "Urban Industrial Land Redevelopment and Contamination Risk," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 414-442, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Newman, Robert J. & Sullivan, Dennis H., 1988. "Econometric analysis of business tax impacts on industrial location: What do we know, and how do we know it?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 215-234, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Michael Wasylenko, 1997. "Taxation and economic development: the state of the economic literature," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Mar, pages 37-52. [Downloadable!]
  10. Anna Alberini, 2006. "Determinants and Effects on Property Values of Participation in Voluntary Cleanup Programs: The Case of Colorado," Working Papers 2006.1, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  11. Paul K. Asabere & Forrest E. Huffman, 1991. "Historic Districts and Land Values," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8. [Downloadable!]
  12. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo & Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public’s and Decisionmakers’ Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Working Papers 2006.137, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About five million pdf files are downloaded through RePEc every year.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-17.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.