IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nev/wpaper/wp201009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preliminary Stated-Preference Research on the Impact of LUST Sites on Property Values: Focus Group Results

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Alberini
  • Dennis Guignet

Abstract

The purpose of this research effort is to examine the feasibility of designing a stated preference instrument to elicit the public’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for remediation of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites (or perhaps prevention of releases). Nearly 500,000 releases have been documented from the over 600,000 USTs nationwide. Approximately 80 percent of these sites have been cleaned up. In the three Maryland counties that are the focus of this and the companion hedonic property value study there have been nearly 400 documented releases in the last 10 years. We report the results from four focus groups and four three-on-one interviews conducted in Maryland. The results of this focus group research provide a foundation for development of a stated preference study of the benefits of EPA’s UST program.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:nev:wpaper:wp201009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/working-paper-preliminary-stated-preference-research-impact-lust-sites
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dietrich Earnhart, 2001. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 12-29.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guignet, Dennis, 2012. "The impacts of pollution and exposure pathways on home values: A stated preference analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 53-63.

    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. Dennis Guignet & Anna Alberini, 2015. "Can Property Values Capture Changes in Environmental Health Risks? Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 501-517, March.
    2. Guignet, Dennis, 2012. "The impacts of pollution and exposure pathways on home values: A stated preference analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 53-63.
    3. Dennis Guignet & Anna Alberini, 2013. "Can Property Values Capture Changes in Environmental Health Risks? Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the UK," Working Papers 2013.67, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Robert A. Simons & Jesse Saginor & Aly H. Karam & Hlengani Baloyi, 2008. "Use of Contingent Valuation Analysis in a Developing Country: Market Perceptions of Contamination on Johannesburg’s Mine Dumps," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 11(2), pages 75-104.
    5. Daniel J. Phaneuf & Laura O. Taylor & John B. Braden, 2013. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate Preferences for Residential Amenities: A GMM Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 30-52.
    6. Silvia Banfi & Massimo Filippini & Andrea Horehájová, 2012. "Using a choice experiment to estimate the benefits of a reduction of externalities in urban areas with special focus on electrosmog," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 387-397, January.
    7. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani, 2009. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Heavily Exposed People Willing to Pay More?," Working Papers 2009.60, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Chattopadhyay, Sudip, 2009. "The random expenditure function approach to welfare in RUM: The case of hazardous waste clean-up," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    9. Stefania Tonin & Anna Alberini & Margherita Turvani, 2012. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Knowledgeable People Willing to Pay More?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1157-1182, July.
    10. Robin R. Jenkins & Dennis Guignet & Patrick J. Walsh, 2014. "Prevention, Cleanup, and Reuse Benefits from the Federal UST Program," NCEE Working Paper Series 201405, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Nov 2014.
    11. de Koning, Koen & Filatova, Tatiana & Bin, Okmyung, 2017. "Bridging the Gap Between Revealed and Stated Preferences in Flood-prone Housing Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    12. Dietrich Earnhart, 2006. "Using Contingent-Pricing Analysis to Value Open Space and Its Duration at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 17-35.
    13. Bottero, Marta & Bravi, Marina & Caprioli, Caterina & Dell'Anna, Federico, 2023. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences to design a new urban park in a metropolitan area of North-Western Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
    14. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    15. Biancamaria Torquati & Giulia Giacchè & Tiziano Tempesta, 2020. "Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Melstrom, Richard T., 2022. "Residential demand for sediment remediation to restore water quality: Evidence from Milwaukee," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    17. Barano Siswa Sulistyawan & Budy P. Resosudarmo & Rene W. Verburg & Pita Verweij & Mia Amalia & Marija Bockarjova, 2022. "Economic valuation of water services related to protected forest management: a case of Bukit Batabuh in the RIMBA corridor, Central Sumatra, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9330-9354, July.
    18. Cutter, W. Bowman & Franco, Sofia F., 2012. "Do parking requirements significantly increase the area dedicated to parking? A test of the effect of parking requirements values in Los Angeles County," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 901-925.
    19. Garbarino, Nicola & Guin, Benjamin, 2021. "High water, no marks? Biased lending after extreme weather," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    20. Guignet, Dennis B. & Martinez-Cruz, Adan L., 2018. "The impacts of underground petroleum releases on a homeowner's decision to sell: A difference-in-differences approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 11-24.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    leaking underground storage tanks; groundwater; remediation benefits; stated preference; focus groups;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:nev:wpaper:wp201009. 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: Cynthia Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.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.