Measuring the Social Benefits of EPA Land Cleanup and Reuse Programs

The EPA has a cornucopia of cleanup and reuse programs ranging from the Superfund Program which addresses sites posing imminent danger and many of the most hazardous sites nationwide, to the Brownfields Program which addresses lower risk sites. These programs provide a common set of primary benefits: reductions in health risks and ecosystem damages, and improvements in amenity values. Indirect benefits include changes in factor, especially land, productivity. A different indirect benefit stems from better information in land markets compared to when land is contaminated, a situation that seems marked by asymmetric information and that might depress the frequency of land transactions. Both indirect benefit categories are a result of the primary benefits and would not be added to them. Cleaning up and reusing urban contaminated sites might generate two additional types of benefits: preservation of green space, and agglomeration benefits. Limited empirical work has addressed each of these benefit categories. Taken as a whole, the literature providing information on the social benefits of cleanup and reuse is spotty and incomplete and perhaps raises more questions than it answers. Would a comprehensive study of the benefits of all cleanup programs, or even of all aspects of one program, do better to focus on primary effects or property value changes? What is the appropriate baseline for hedonic studies? Under what conditions does reusing contaminated land deter greenfield development on the urban periphery?

[1]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  Sprawl and Urban Growth , 2003 .

[2]  G. Daily,et al.  ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems , 2007 .

[3]  John A. Hird Superfund : the political economy of environmental risk , 1994 .

[4]  Katherine A. Kiel,et al.  Estimating the Economic Benefits of Cleaning Up Superfund Sites: The Case of Woburn, Massachusetts , 2001 .

[5]  Gary H. McClelland,et al.  The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: A Case Study of a Hazardous Waste Site1 , 1990 .

[6]  Michael Greenstone,et al.  WELCOME Does Hazardous Waste Matter ? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program * , 2005 .

[7]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Private Values of Risk Tradeoffs at Superfund Sites: Housing Market Evidence on Learning about Risk , 2000, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[8]  Sudip Chattopadhyay,et al.  Benefits of Hazardous Waste Cleanup: New Evidence from Survey- and Market-Based Property Value Approaches , 2005 .

[9]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  How costly is “clean”? An analysis of the benefits and costs of Superfund site remediations , 1999 .

[10]  Sue McNeil,et al.  Clean It and They Will Come? Defining Successful Brownfield Development , 2004 .

[11]  Alberto Longo,et al.  What are the effects of contamination risks on commercial and industrial properties? evidence from Baltimore, Maryland , 2005 .

[12]  R. Mendelsohn,et al.  Measuring Hazardous Waste Damages with Panel Models , 1992 .

[13]  Laura O. Taylor,et al.  Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites: evidence from urban commercial property markets , 2004 .

[14]  G. McClelland,et al.  Can Stigma Explain Large Property Value Losses? The Psychology and Economics of Superfund , 2006 .

[15]  Winston Harrington,et al.  The effects of environmental liability on industrial real estate development , 1996 .

[16]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Attracting private investment to contaminated properties: The value of public interventions , 2006 .

[17]  Gordon C. Rausser,et al.  Hazardous waste sites and housing appreciation rates , 2003 .

[18]  A. Alberini,et al.  The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers. , 2005 .

[19]  George William Sherk,et al.  PUBLIC POLICIES AND PRIVATE DECISIONS AFFECTING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF BROWNFIELDS: AN ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL FACTORS, RELATIVE WEIGHTS AND AREAL DIFFERENTIALS , 2002 .

[20]  J. Yinger,et al.  Urban models with more than one employment center , 1992 .

[21]  Kris Wernstedt,et al.  Overview of Existing Studies on Community Impacts of Land Reuse , 2004 .

[22]  J. Powell,et al.  Groundwater Protection Benefits and Local Community Planning: Impact of Contingent Valuation Information , 1994 .

[23]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Market segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: The case of hazardous waste sites☆ , 1990 .

[24]  George A. Akerlof The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism , 1970 .

[25]  Paul Waddell,et al.  Do property values rebound from environmental stigmas? Evidence from Dallas , 1999 .

[26]  Alan K. Reichert Impact of a Toxic Waste Superfund Site on Property Values , 1999 .

[27]  Katherine A. Kiel Measuring the Impact of the Discovery and Cleaning of Identified Hazardous Waste Sites on House Values , 1995 .

[28]  Stigmatized Asset value: Is It Temporary or Permanent? , 1999 .

[29]  J. Kohlhase,et al.  The Impact of Toxic Waste Sites on Housing Values , 1991 .

[30]  Robert A. Simons,et al.  The Price and Liquidity Effects of UST leaks from Gas Stations on Residential and Commercial Property Values , 1999 .

[31]  J. Henderson,et al.  The new urban landscape: Developers and edge cities , 1996 .

[32]  Mark Thayer,et al.  The Benefits of Reducing Exposure to Waste Disposal Sites: A Hedonic Housing Value Approach , 1992 .

[33]  Dennis A. Kaufman,et al.  The Impact of Small Brownfields and Greenspaces on Residential Property Values , 2006 .

[34]  Katherine A. Kiel,et al.  A Survey of House Price Hedonic Studies of the Impact of Environmental Externalities , 2001 .

[35]  Marie Howland,et al.  Private Initiative and Public Responsibility for the Redevelopment of Industrial Brownfields: Three Baltimore Case Studies , 2003 .

[36]  Miriam Schoenbaum,et al.  Environmental Contamination, Brownfields Policy, and Economic Redevelopment in an Industrial Area of Baltimore, Maryland , 2002, Land Economics.

[37]  K. Probst Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost , 2001 .

[38]  William M. Bowen,et al.  The Effect of Underground Storage Tanks on Residential Property Values in Cuyahoga County, Ohio , 1997 .

[39]  S. F. Edwards Option prices for groundwater protection , 1988 .

[40]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  The Market Value of Reducing Cancer Risk: Hedonic Housing Prices with Changing Information , 2002 .

[41]  Mark Thayer,et al.  The Robustness of Hedonic Price Estimation: Urban Air Quality , 1988 .

[42]  Christopher A. De Sousa,et al.  Measuring the Public Costs and Benefits of Brownfield versus Greenfield Development in the Greater Toronto Area , 2002 .

[43]  Robert A. Simons,et al.  Regulation of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Policy Enforcement and Unintended Consequences , 1997 .

[44]  Lauren C. Heberle,et al.  Incentives for private residential brownfields development in US urban areas , 2006 .

[45]  Scott E. Atkinson,et al.  A Bayesian approach to assessing the robustness of hedonic property value studies , 1987 .

[46]  Sue McNeil,et al.  Brownfield Development: Tools for Stewardship , 2004 .