IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hcx/wpaper/0505.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Superfund Sites on Local Property Values: Are All Sites the Same?

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Kiel

    (Department of Economics, College of the Holy Cross)

  • Michael Williams

    (Department of Economics, College of the Holy Cross)

Abstract

It seems an established empirical fact that Superfund sites lower local property values. Two recent literature reviews (Farber, 1998, Boyle and Kiel, 2001) report that published academic papers on the topic verify that point. The EPA’s approach assumes that all sites negatively impact property values, and that the impact is similar for all sites. This paper examines 74 National Priorities List (NPL) sites in 13 U.S. counties in order to test these two implicit assumptions. Following the hedonic approach of Kiel (1995) and Kiel and McClain (1995), we find that some sites have the expected negative impact, while other sites have either no impact or a positive impact on local property values. We also consider the possibility of ‘stigma’ from sites by looking at those sites that have been cleaned during our sample period and find that some sites do appear to suffer from stigma, while others do not. We then use a meta-analysis approach to examine what factors affect the likelihood and extent of a decrease in property values near the sites. We find that larger sites in areas with fewer blue-collar workers are more likely to have the expected negative impact on local house prices.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:hcx:wpaper:0505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hcapps.holycross.edu/hcs/RePEc/hcx/HC0505-Kiel_Superfund.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill J. McCluskey & Gordon C. Rausser, 2003. "Stigmatized Asset Value: Is It Temporary or Long-Term?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 276-285, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Farber, Stephen, 1998. "Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-14, January.
    4. V. Smith & Ju Huang, 1993. "Hedonic models and air pollution: Twenty-five years and counting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 381-394, August.
    5. 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..
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Greenberg, M & Hughes, J, 1992. "The Impact of Hazardous Waste Superfund Sites on the Value of Houses Sold in New Jersey," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 147-153, June.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Clark David E. & Nieves Leslie A., 1994. "An Interregional Hedonic Analysis of Noxious Facility Impacts on Local Wages and Property Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 235-253, November.
    12. Blomquist, Glenn C & Berger, Mark C & Hoehn, John P, 1988. "New Estimates of Quality of Life in Urban Areas," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 89-107, March.
    13. Kiel Katherine A. & McClain Katherine T., 1995. "House Prices during Siting Decision Stages: The Case of an Incinerator from Rumor through Operation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 241-255, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Katherine Kiel & Melissa Boyle, 2001. "A Survey of House Price Hedonic Studies of the Impact of Environmental Externalities," Working Papers 0111, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    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. Katherine Kiel, 2006. "Environmental Contamination and House Values," Working Papers 0601, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Jenkins, Robin & Kopits, Elizabeth & Simpson, David, 2006. "Measuring the Social Benefits of EPA Land Cleanup and Reuse Programs," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280849, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    5. Rose, Steven K., 1999. "Non-Market Valuation Techniques: The State of the Art," Working Papers 127688, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Hanna, Brid Gleeson, 2007. "House values, incomes, and industrial pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 100-112, July.
    13. Ayoung Woo & Sugie Lee, 2016. "Illuminating the impacts of brownfield redevelopments on neighboring housing prices: Case of Cuyahoga County, Ohio in the US," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1107-1132, June.
    14. Gawande, Kishore & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Yuan, May, 2013. "The long-run impact of nuclear waste shipments on the property market: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 56-73.
    15. 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.
    16. Farber, Stephen, 1998. "Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-14, January.
    17. 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.
    18. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2006. "Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 26-45, January.
    19. Grislain-Letrémy, Céline & Katossky, Arthur, 2014. "The impact of hazardous industrial facilities on housing prices: A comparison of parametric and semiparametric hedonic price models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 93-107.
    20. Michael Greenstone & Justin Gallagher, 2008. "Does Hazardous Waste Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 951-1003.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environment; Superfund; Hedonic regressions; meta-analysis; property values;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • R21 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Housing Demand

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hcx:wpaper:0505. 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: Victor Matheson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deholus.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.