IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3472-d525139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Economic Analysis of Brownfield and Greenfield Industrial Parks Investment Projects: A Case Study of Eastern Slovakia

Author

Listed:
  • Henrieta Pavolová

    (Institute of Earth Resources, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Košice, Letná 9, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia)

  • Tomáš Bakalár

    (Institute of Earth Resources, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Košice, Letná 9, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia)

  • Alexander Tokarčík

    (Energy Cluster of Prešov Region, Levočská 12, 080 01 Prešov, Slovakia)

  • Ľubica Kozáková

    (Institute of Earth Resources, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Košice, Letná 9, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia)

  • Tomáš Pastyrčák

    (Institute of Earth Resources, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Košice, Letná 9, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia)

Abstract

The implementation of industrial park investment projects in relation to the use of brownfields and greenfields is a constantly debated issue. Brownfields are unused areas, often with devastated building objects and environmental burden that pose potential risks to the investor but also contain the possibility of using the available infrastructure and facilities for the use of the proposed investment project. The objective of the study was to assess the positive and negative investment of these types of sites based on the available information on the possibilities of investing in the implementation of the brownfield industrial park compared to the greenfield in the western part of East Slovak region and to identify a more appropriate alternative of investing. Based on the assessment of investment in the industrial parks, the appropriateness of the allocation of investment capital was assessed through the simple additive weighting (SAW) method. The SAW approach allows us to objectivize the weighting value of selected factors and thus assess the appropriateness of the allocation of investment capital. Based on the results, it is more advantageous to allocate the investment capital to the greenfield as the return on investment of the project expressed as a percentage of the average annual profit was 9.5%, compared to brownfield with only 2.9%.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrieta Pavolová & Tomáš Bakalár & Alexander Tokarčík & Ľubica Kozáková & Tomáš Pastyrčák, 2021. "An Economic Analysis of Brownfield and Greenfield Industrial Parks Investment Projects: A Case Study of Eastern Slovakia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3472-:d:525139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3472/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3472/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chou, Shuo-Yan & Chang, Yao-Hui & Shen, Chun-Ying, 2008. "A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 132-145, August.
    2. Roman Lacko & Zuzana Hajduová, 2018. "Determinants of Environmental Efficiency of the EU Countries Using Two-Step DEA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, September.
    3. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 309-309.
    4. Bohuslava Gregorová & Pavel Hronček & Dana Tometzová & Mário Molokáč & Vladimír Čech, 2020. "Transforming Brownfields as Tourism Destinations and Their Sustainability on the Example of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-28, December.
    5. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    6. Juliana A. Maantay & Andrew R. Maroko, 2018. "Brownfields to Greenfields: Environmental Justice Versus Environmental Gentrification," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Michal Cehlár & Juraj Janočko & Zuzana Šimková & Tomas Pavlik & Maxim Tyulenev & Sergey Zhironkin & Magerram Gasanov, 2019. "Mine Sited after Mine Activity: The Brownfields Methodology and Kuzbass Coal Mining Case," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Ahmad, Naveed & Zhu, Yuming & Hongli, Lin & Karamat, Jawad & Waqas, Muhammad & Taskheer Mumtaz, Syed Muhammad, 2020. "Mapping the obstacles to brownfield redevelopment adoption in developing economies: Pakistani Perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    9. Henrieta Pavolová & Tomáš Bakalár & Elsanosi Mohamed Abdelhafiez Emhemed & Zuzana Hajduová & Martin Pafčo, 2019. "Model of sustainable regional development with implementation of brownfield areas," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(3), pages 1088-1100, March.
    10. Naveed Ahmad & Yuming Zhu & Muhammad Ibrahim & Muhammad Waqas & Abdul Waheed, 2018. "Development of a Standard Brownfield Definition, Guidelines, and Evaluation Index System for Brownfield Redevelopment in Developing Countries: The Case of Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    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. Lea Rebernik & Barbara Vojvodíková & Barbara Lampič, 2023. "Brownfield Data and Database Management—The Key to Address Land Recycling," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Pires, Ana & Chang, Ni-Bin & Martinho, Graça, 2011. "An AHP-based fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for sustainable expansion of the solid waste management system in Setúbal Peninsula, Portugal," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 7-21.
    3. Ahmad, Naveed & Zhu, Yuming & Ullah, Zia & Iqbal, Muzaffar & Hussain, Kramat & Ahmed, Rahil Irfan, 2021. "Sustainable solutions to facilitate brownfield redevelopment projects in emerging countries – Pakistani scenario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Romana Hajduková & Alžbeta Sopirová, 2022. "Perspectives of Post-Industrial Towns and Landscape in Eastern Slovakia—Case Study Strážske," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Askoura, Youcef & Billot, Antoine, 2021. "Social decision for a measure society," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Djula Borozan, 2023. "Institutions and Environmentally Adjusted Efficiency," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 4489-4510, December.
    7. Ehud Kalai & Roger B. Myerson, 1977. "Values of Games Without Sidepayments," Discussion Papers 267, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    8. Jeffrey T. Macher & John W. Mayo & Olga Ukhaneva & Glenn A. Woroch, 2017. "From universal service to universal connectivity," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 77-104, August.
    9. Mark Kelman & Tamar Admati Kreps, 2014. "Playing with Trolleys: Intuitions About the Permissibility of Aggregation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 197-226, June.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Olof Johansson‐Stenman, 2005. "Are People Inequality‐Averse, or Just Risk‐Averse?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 72(287), pages 375-396, August.
    11. Antoinette Baujard, 2016. "Utilitarianism and anti-utilitarianism," Chapters, in: Gilbert Faccarello & Heinz D. Kurz (ed.), Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis Volume III, chapter 40, pages 576-588, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Elodie Brahic & Jean-Michel Salles, 2008. "La question de l’équité dans l’allocation initiale des permis d’émission dans le cadre des politiques de prévention du changement climatique : Une étude quasi-expérimentale," Working Papers 08-11, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jul 2008.
    13. Hans Gersbach, 2004. "Fiscal Constitutions," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 3-25, March.
    14. Paulo B. Brito, 2022. "The dynamics of growth and distribution in a spatially heterogeneous world," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 21(3), pages 311-350, September.
    15. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    16. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman & Aldo Rustichini, 2009. "Temptation-Driven Preferences," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 937-971.
    17. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    18. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2015. "Harsanyi's Aggregation Theorem with Incomplete Preferences," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 61-69, February.
    19. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    20. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3472-:d:525139. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.