Economic benefits of remediating the Buffalo River, New York area of concern

Journal of Great Lakes Research

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 631-648

  Braden, John B ^a   Taylor, Laura O ^b   Won, DooHwan ^c   Mays, Nicole ^d   Cangelosi, Allegra ^d   Patunru, Arianto A ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI)   (South Korea)

^d Northeast Midwest Institute   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA   (Indonesia)

Author keywords

Area of concern; Benefits estimation; Buffalo River; Conjoint choice; Hedonic analysis

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; COSTS; ECONOMICS; FINANCE; HOUSING; REMEDIATION; RIVERS; SURVEYS; TAXATION;

AREA OF CONCERN; BUFFALO RIVER; CONJOINT CHOICE; ECONOMIC BENEFITS; EMPIRICAL METHOD; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; MARKET ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

ECONOMIC IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; MARKET; REMEDIATION; TAX INCENTIVE;

ARKANSAS; BUFFALO RIVER; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58649111030     PISSN: 03801330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3394/0380-1330-34.4.631     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Andreoni, J. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ. J. 100(401):464-477.
2. Braden, J.B. and Kolstad, C.D., eds. 1991. Measuring the Demand for Envirommental Quality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3. -, Patunru, A.A., Chattopadhyay, S., and Mays, N. 2004. Contaminant cleanup in the Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern: Homeowner attitudes and economic benefits. J. Great Lakes Res. 30:474-491.
4. -, Taylor, L.O., Won, D., Mays, N., Cangelosi, A., and Patunru, A.A. 2006. Economic Benefits of Sediment Remediation. Report to the Great Lakes National Program Office, USEPA, under grant no. GL-96553601, (available at www.nemw.org/EconBenReport06.pdf).
5. -, Feng, X., and Won, D. 2008. Waste sites and property values: A meta-analysis. Work. pap., Dept. Agr. & Cons. Econ, Univ. IL, Urbana.
6. Bureau of the Census. 2000. United States Census. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.
7. -. 2003. American Community Survey. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index. html.
8. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., and Brown, T.C., eds. 2003. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
9. 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. Contemp. Econ. Pol. 23(3):357-375.
10. Dale, L., Murdoch, J.C., Thayer, M.A., and Waddell, P.A. 1999. Do property values rebound from environmental stigmas? Evidence from Dallas. Land Econ. 77(2):311-326.
11. Faber, S. 1998. Undesirable facilities and property values: A summary of empirical studies. Ecol. Econ. 24 (1):1-14.
12. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. 2005. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Protect the Great Lakes. (http://www.glrc.us/ documents/strategy/GLRC-Strategy.pdf), December.
13. Greenstone, M., and Gallagher, J. Forthcoming. Does hazardous waste matter? Evidence from the housing market and the Superfund program. Quart. J. Econ.
14. Haaijer, M., Wedel, M., Vriens, M., and Wansbeek, T. 1998. Utility convariance and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Market. Sci. 17:234-252.
15. Herriges, J.A., and Kling, C.L., eds. 1999. Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
16. Holmes, T.P., and Adamowicz, W.L. 2003. Attribute-based methods. In Champ, Boyle, and Brown, op cit., pp. 171-219.
17. Ihlanfeldt, K.R., and Taylor, L.O. 2004. Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites: Evidence from urban commercial property markets. J. Env. Econ. Manag. 47(1):117-139.
18. Kiel, K.A., and McClain, K.T. 1995. Housing prices during siting decision stages: The case of an incinerator from rumor through operation. J. Env. Econ. Manag. 28(2):241-255.
19. -, and Williams, M. 2007. The impact of Superfund sites on local property values: Are all sites the same? J. Urban Econ. 61(1):170-192.
20. 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. J. Great Lakes Res. 25:500-514.
21. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. McCluskey, J.J., and Rausser, G.C. 2003. Stigmatized asset value: Is it temporary or long-term? Rev. Econ. Stat. 85(2):276-285.
23. McFadden, D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers of Econometrics, P. Zarembka, ed., New York: Academic Press.
24. McMillen, D.P. 2003. Report on the Economic Benefits of the Grand Calumet River Remediation Project: Evidence from the Gary Housing Market. Chicago: Delta Institute.
25. th Ed. New York: Wiley.
26. Morey, E.R. 1999. Two RUMS uncloaked: nested-logit models of site choice and nested-logit models of participation and site choice. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, J.A. Herriges and C.L. Kling, eds., pp. 65-120. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
27. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). 2005. Rankings by Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Divisions Percent Change in House Prices with MSA Rankings, Period Ended June 30, 2005. Washington, DC, September 1.
28. Patunru, A.A., Braden, J.B., and Chattopadhyay, S. 2007. Who cares about environmental stigmas and does it matter? Latent segmentation evidence on property values. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 89(2):712-726.
29. Phanuef, D.J., and Smith, V.K. 2005. Recreation demand models. In Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 2, K. Mäler and J. Vincent, eds. Amsterdam, North-Holland.
30. Taylor, L.O. 2003. The hedonic method. In Champ, Boyle, and Brown, op cit., pp. 331-393.
31. Zegarac, M., and Muir, T. 1998. The Effect of RAP Related Restoration and Parkland Development on Residential Property Values: A Hamilton Harbor Case Study. Burlington, ONT: Environment Canada.