Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:03:18.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta-Functional Transfer of Hedonic Property Values: Application to Great Lakes Areas of Concern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

John B. Braden ,
Xia Feng ,
Luiz Freitas  and
DooHwan Won
John B. Braden
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Urbana, Illinois
Xia Feng
Affiliation:
Institutional Research Analyst in the Office of Institutional Analysis and Effectiveness at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia
Luiz Freitas
Affiliation:
Associate with Industrial Economics, Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts
DooHwan Won
Affiliation:
Department of Economics at Sungshin Women's University in Seoul, Korea
Get access

Abstract

This paper explores the use of functional benefits transfer to forecast the effects of waste sites on property values. The results of a meta-analysis of hedonic studies of waste sites are coupled with spatial analysis techniques to produce estimates of the effects of toxic contamination in Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the U.S. Great Lakes. Based on U.S. Census data for median home values, the methods used here suggest that approximately S5.2 billion (2005 dollars) have been lost in residential property values surrounding twenty-three of the AOCs. This compares to estimates that place the cost of remediation of all U.S. AOCs at up to $4.5 billion (2005 dollars). The case study also identifies issues surrounding the use of a meta-analysis with hedonic property value studies to support functional transfer.

Keywords

benefits transfermeta-analysishedonic methodproperty valuesGreat LakesAreas of Concern
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 101 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Braden, J.B., Patunru, A.A., Chattopadhyay, S., and Mays, N. 2004. “Contaminant Cleanup in the Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern: Homeowner Attitudes and Economic Values.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 30(4): 474–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, J.B., Taylor, L.O., Won, D., Mays, N., Cangelosi, A., and Patunru, A. A. 2008a. “Economic Benefits of Remediating the Buffalo River, NY Area of Concern.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 34(4): 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, J.B., Taylor, L.O., Won, D., Mays, N., Cangelosi, A., and Patunru, A.A. 2008b. “Economic Benefits of Remediating the Sheboygan River, WI Area of Concern.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 34(4): 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, J.B., Feng, X., and Won, D. 2009. “Waste Sites and Property Values: A Meta-analysis.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. A copy of this manuscript is on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, S., Braden, J.B., and Patunru, A. A. 2005. “Benefits of Hazardous Waste Cleanup: New Evidence from Survey- and Market-based Property Value Approaches.” Contemporary Economic Policy 23(3): 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, L., Murdoch, J.C., Thayer, M.A., and Waddell, P.A. 1999. “Do Property Values Rebound from Environmental Stigmas? Evidence from Dallas.” Land Economics 75(2): 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, S. 1998. “Undesirable Facilities and Property Values: A Summary of Empirical Studies.” Ecological Economics 24(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Lakes Information Network. 2005. Beneficial Uses in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Available at http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/pollution/benefuse.html (accessed May 31, 2005).Google Scholar
Great Lakes Regional Collaborative. 2005. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. Available at http://www.glrc.us/strategy.html (accessed January 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Greenstone, M., and Gallagher, J. 2008. “Does Hazardous Waste Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(3): 951–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihlanfeldt, K.R., and Taylor, L.O. 2003. “Externality Effects of Small-scale Hazardous Waste Sites: Evidence from Urban Commercial Property Markets.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47(1): 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Joint Commission. 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Rev.). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.ijc.org/en/activities/consultations/glwqa/agreement.php (accessed October 13, 2009).Google Scholar
International Joint Commission. 2003. The Status of Restoration Activities in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern: A Special Report. Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Available at http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/aoc_rep/english/report/pdfs/chapterl-e.pdf (accessed January 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Kiel, K.A. 1995. “Measuring the Impact of the Discovery and Cleaning of Identified Hazardous Waste Sites on House Values.” Land Economics 74(4): 428–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiel, K.A., and Boyle, M.A. 2001. “A Survey of House Price Hedonic Studies of the Impact of Environmental Externalities.” Journal of Real Estate Literature 9(2): 117–144.Google Scholar
Kiel, K.A., and Williams, M. 2007. “The Impact of Superfund Sites on Local Property Values: Are All Sites the Same?” Journal of Urban Economics 61(1): 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantzberg, G., Hartig, J., Maynard, L., Burch, K., and Ancheta, C. 1999. “Deciding When to Intervene.” International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Sediment Priority Action Committee. Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Available at http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/sedwkshp/index.html (accessed January 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Lichtkoppler, F.R., and Blaine, T.W. 1999. “Environmental Awareness and Attitudes of Ashtabula County Voters Concerning the Ashtabula River Area of Concern: 1996-1997.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 25(3): 500–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCluskey, J.J., and Rausser, G.C. 2003. “Stigmatized Asset Value: Is it Temporary or Long-term?” Review of Economics and Statistics 85(2): 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillen, D.P. 2006. “The Benefits of Environmental Improvements in a Low-income Area: The Grand Calumet River Dredging Plan in Gary Indiana.” In: Carruthers, J. and Mundy, B., eds., Environmental Evaluation: Interregional and Intraregional Perspectives. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 147–162.Google Scholar
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. 2009. House Price Index Data, 4Q 2008 Manipulatable Data for the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and 4Q 2008 Manipulatable Data for the Individual State Index. Available at http://www.ofheo.gov/hpi_download.aspx (accessed April 20, 2009).Google Scholar
Rosenberger, R.S., and Loomis, J.B. 2003. “Benefit Transfer.” In Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., and Brown, T.C., eds., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Simons, R.A. 2006. When Bad Things Happen to Good Property. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute.Google Scholar
Simons, R.A., and Saginor, J. 2006. “A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Environmental Contamination and Positive Amenities on Residential Real Estate Values.” Journal of Real Estate Research 28(1): 71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, T.D. 2001. “Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(3): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoll, J.R., Bishop, R.C., and Keillor, J.P. 2002. Estimating Economic Benefits of Cleaning Up Contaminated Sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.Google Scholar
Taylor, L.O. 2003. “The Hedonic Method.” In Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., and Brown, T.C., eds., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer, pp. 331–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. United States Census 2000. American Fact Finder Summary File 3. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en (accessed April 20, 2000).Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996. Superfund Today. Washington, D.C. EPA 540-K-96/004.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. “Legacy Act Projects Tackle Great Lakes Pollution.” Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, January. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glla/glla-factsheet-200901.pdf (accessed January 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Zegarac, M., and Muir, T. 1998. “The Effects of RAP Related Restoration and Parkland Development on Residential Property Values: A Hamilton Harbour Case Study.” Burlington, ONT: Environment Canada.Google Scholar