IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v23y2005i3p357-375.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefits Of Hazardous Waste Cleanup: New Evidence From Survey‐ And Market‐Based Property Value Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • SUDIP CHATTOPADHYAY
  • JOHN B. BRADEN
  • ARIANTO PATUNRU

Abstract

This article compares the discrete choice random utility model and the hedonic property value model in estimating the benefits of cleaning up Waukegan Harbor, a Superfund site on the Great Lakes. The study uses survey‐based conjoint choice data on housing preferences and market data on housing transactions. The research finds that the benefit estimates for different levels of cleanup are quite comparable between the models. The estimates compare very well with those of some previous studies. The results of the study suggest that tax increment financing by the local government is a feasible option to fund cleanup.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:23:y:2005:i:3:p:357-375
    DOI: 10.1093/cep/byi027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byi027
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1093/cep/byi027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kohlhase, Janet E., 1991. "The impact of toxic waste sites on housing values," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Palmquist, Raymond B., 1992. "Valuing localized externalities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 59-68, January.
    3. Nechyba, Thomas J. & Strauss, Robert P., 1998. "Community choice and local public services: A discrete choice approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 51-73, January.
    4. Rigby, Dan & Burton, Michael P., 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58200, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Dietrich Earnhart, 2001. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 12-29.
    6. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    7. Timothy J. Bartik, 2008. "Measuring the Benefits of Amenity Improvements in Hedonic Price Models," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: Richard E. Just & Darrell L. Hueth & Andrew Schmitz (ed.),Applied Welfare Economics, pages 643-654, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    8. Chattopadhyay, Sudip, 2000. "The effectiveness of McFaddens's nested logit model in valuing amenity improvement," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 23-43, January.
    9. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    10. Larry Dale & James C. Murdoch & Mark A. Thayer & Paul A. Waddell, 1999. "Do Property Values Rebound from Environmental Stigmas? Evidence from Dallas," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(2), pages 311-326.
    11. Quigley, John M., 1982. "Nonlinear budget constraints and consumer demand: An application to public programs for residential housing," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 177-201, September.
    12. Katherine A. Kiel, 1995. "Measuring the Impact of the Discovery and Cleaning of Identified Hazardous Waste Sites on House Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 428-435.
    13. 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.
    14. Palmquist, Raymond B, 1984. "Estimating the Demand for the Characteristics of Housing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(3), pages 394-404, August.
    15. Michaels, R. Gregory & Smith, V. Kerry, 1990. "Market segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: The case of hazardous waste sites," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 223-242, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Karl L. Guntermann, 1995. "Sanitary Landfills, Stigma and Industrial Land Values," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 10(5), pages 531-542.
    18. Sudip Chattopadhyay, 2002. "Divergence in alternative Hicksian welfare measures: the case of revealed preference for public amenities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 641-666.
    19. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    20. Sudip Chattopadhyay, 2002. "Divergence in alternative Hicksian welfare measures: the case of revealed preference for public amenities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 641-666, December.
    21. Ted Gayer & James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 2000. "Private Values Of Risk Tradeoffs At Superfund Sites: Housing Market Evidence On Learning About Risk," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(3), pages 439-451, August.
    22. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    23. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    24. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1986. "The Value of Avoiding a Lulu: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(2), pages 293-299, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katherine Kiel & Michael Williams, 2005. "The Impact of Superfund Sites on Local Property Values: Are All Sites the Same?," Working Papers 0505, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    2. Dennis Guignet, 2013. "What Do Property Values Really Tell Us? A Hedonic Study of Underground Storage Tanks," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 211-226.
    3. Hilary Sigman & Sarah Stafford, 2011. "Management of Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Land," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 255-275, October.
    4. Cutter, W. Bowman & Franco, Sofia F., 2012. "Do parking requirements significantly increase the area dedicated to parking? A test of the effect of parking requirements values in Los Angeles County," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 901-925.
    5. 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.
    6. Melstrom, Richard T., 2022. "Residential demand for sediment remediation to restore water quality: Evidence from Milwaukee," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    7. Douglas S. Noonan & Douglas J. Krupka & Brett M. Baden, 2007. "Neighborhood Dynamics And Price Effects Of Superfund Site Clean‐Up," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 665-692, October.
    8. Dennis Guignet & Anna Alberini, 2015. "Can Property Values Capture Changes in Environmental Health Risks? Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 501-517, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Melstrom, Richard T., 2022. "Residential demand for sediment remediation to restore water quality: Evidence from Milwaukee," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Silvia Banfi & Massimo Filippini & Andrea Horehájová, 2012. "Using a choice experiment to estimate the benefits of a reduction of externalities in urban areas with special focus on electrosmog," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 387-397, January.
    12. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Klaus Glenk & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Choice modelling research in environmental and resource economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 27, pages 661-674, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. John Braden & Xia Feng & DooHwan Won, 2011. "Waste Sites and Property Values: A Meta-Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 175-201, October.
    14. Anna Alberini & Dennis Guignet, 2010. "Preliminary Stated-Preference Research on the Impact of LUST Sites on Property Values: Focus Group Results," NCEE Working Paper Series 201009, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    15. Xiaolin Ren & Arianto A. Patunru & John B. Braden, 2008. "Language‐Related Differences In Environmental Benefits Estimation: Evidence From A Mail Survey," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(1), pages 13-31, January.
    16. Bill Provencher & Helen Sarakinos & Tanya Meyer, 2008. "Does Small Dam Removal Affect Local Property Values? An Empirical Analysis," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(2), pages 187-197, April.
    17. Tonin, Stefania & Alberini, Anna & Turvani, Margherita, 2009. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Heavily Exposed People Willing to Pay More?," Sustainable Development Papers 52548, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Daniel J. Phaneuf & Laura O. Taylor & John B. Braden, 2013. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate Preferences for Residential Amenities: A GMM Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 30-52.
    19. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    20. Guignet, Dennis, 2012. "The impacts of pollution and exposure pathways on home values: A stated preference analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 53-63.
    21. Stefania Tonin & Anna Alberini & Margherita Turvani, 2012. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Knowledgeable People Willing to Pay More?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1157-1182, July.
    22. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Nagarajan, Latha & Salau, Sheu & Oyekale, Abayomi, 2010. "Nigerian farmers’ preferences on the timing of the purchase of rice, cowpea, and maize seeds:," NSSP working papers 20, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    23. Kiel, Katherine A. & Williams, Michael, 2007. "The impact of Superfund sites on local property values: Are all sites the same?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 170-192, January.
    24. Karen A. Sullivan, 2017. "Brownfields Remediation: Impact on Local Residential Property Tax Revenue," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2009. "Impacts of an Iron and Steel Plant on Residential Property Values," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1421-1436, September.
    2. Ida Ferrara & Stephen McComb & Paul Missios, 2007. "Local Willingness-to-Pay Estimates for the Remediation of the Sydney Tar Ponds in Nova Scotia," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 33(4), pages 441-458, December.
    3. John Braden & Xia Feng & DooHwan Won, 2011. "Waste Sites and Property Values: A Meta-Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 175-201, October.
    4. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2006. "Property Value Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 16, pages 763-819, Elsevier.
    5. Kim, GwanSeon & Schieffer, Jack & Mark, Tyler, 2020. "Do superfund sites affect local property values? Evidence from a spatial hedonic approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 15-28.
    6. Michael Greenstone & Justin Gallagher, 2008. "Does Hazardous Waste Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 123(3), pages 951-1003.
    7. Kiel, Katherine A. & Williams, Michael, 2007. "The impact of Superfund sites on local property values: Are all sites the same?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 170-192, January.
    8. Katherine Kiel & Michael Williams, 2005. "The Impact of Superfund Sites on Local Property Values: Are All Sites the Same?," Working Papers 0505, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    9. Ted Gayer & James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 2002. "The Market Value of Reducing Cancer Risk: Hedonic Housing Prices with Changing Information," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 266-289, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Deaton, Brady J., Jr. & Hoehn, John P., 2002. "The Effect Of Hazardous Waste Sites On Property Values In Zones Of High Industrial Activity: A Hedonic Approach," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19612, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. 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.
    13. Kim, GwanSeon & Schieffer, Jack & Mark, Tyler, 2016. "Do Superfund Sites Affect Local Property Values? Evidence from a Spatial Hedonic Approach," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235835, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Rose, Steven K., 1999. "Non-Market Valuation Techniques: The State of the Art," Working Papers 127688, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    15. Earnhart, Dietrich, 2002. "Combining Revealed and Stated Data to Examine Housing Decisions Using Discrete Choice Analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 143-169, January.
    16. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    17. John I. Carruthers & David E. Clark, 2010. "Valuing Environmental Quality: A Space‐Based Strategy," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 801-832, October.
    18. Klaiber, H. Allen & Gopalakrishnan, Sathya, 2012. "The Impact of Shale Exploration on Housing Values in Pennsylvania," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124368, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Recai Aydin & Barton A. Smith, 2008. "Evidence of the Dual Nature of Property Value Recovery Following Environmental Remediation," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 777-812, December.
    20. Dennis Guignet, 2013. "What Do Property Values Really Tell Us? A Hedonic Study of Underground Storage Tanks," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 211-226.

    More about this item

    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:bla:coecpo:v:23:y:2005:i:3:p:357-375. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    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.