IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The impacts of pollution and exposure pathways on home values: A stated preference analysis

  • Guignet, Dennis
Registered author(s):

    Hedonic property value methods are an attractive non-market valuation technique. In practice, however, researchers are often forced to make untested assumptions regarding the public's perceptions of the environmental commodity being studied. Stated preference methods offer an opportunity to examine how home values are affected when researchers know exactly what is being valued. A stated preference study is conducted to investigate how people value environmental quality, by measuring impacts on home values from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST). The study incorporates two experimental treatments, expressing environmental risks in terms of (i) the presence of an exposure pathway, and (ii) pollution concentrations. This mimics information provided to Maryland households whose groundwater is actually impacted by a LUST.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912002807
    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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 82 (2012)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 53-63

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:82:y:2012:i:c:p:53-63
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.033
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Zabel, Jeffrey E. & Guignet, Dennis, 2012. "A hedonic analysis of the impact of LUST sites on house prices," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 549-564.
    2. Viscusi, W. Kip, 1998. "Rational Risk Policy: The 1996 Arne Ryde Memorial Lectures," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198293637, December.
    3. Robert A. Simons & William Bowen & Arthur Sementell, 1997. "The Effect of Underground Storage Tanks on Residential Property Values in Cuyahoga County, Ohio," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 14(1), pages 29-42.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    5. Kent Messer & William Schulze & Katherine Hackett & Trudy Cameron & Gary McClelland, 2006. "Can Stigma Explain Large Property Value Losses? The Psychology and Economics of Superfund," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 299-324, 03.
    6. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    7. Yadav, Lava & van Rensburg, Tom M. & Kelley, Hugh, 2010. "Comparing the Conventional Stated Preference Valuation Technique with a Prediction Approach," 84th Annual Conference, March 29-31, 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland 91728, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. 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.
    9. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    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, 07.
    11. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    12. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, 1990. "Can public information programs affect risk perceptions?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 41-59.
    13. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. " Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-15, September.
    14. Hank Jenkins-Smith & Carol Silva & Robert Berrens & Alok Bohara, 2002. "Information Disclosure Requirements and the Effect of Soil Contamination on Property Values," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 323-339.
    15. Robert A. Simons & Kimberly Winson-Geideman, 2005. "Determining Market Perceptions on Contamination of Residential Property Buyers using Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 27(2), pages 193-220.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:82:y:2012:i:c:p:53-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.