Advertisement

Estimating the Economic Benefits of Cleaning Up Superfund Sites: The Case of Woburn, Massachusetts

  • Katherine Kiel
  • Jeffrey Zabel
Article

Abstract

Superfund was established in 1980 to deal with closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites. Given the large amounts of money being spent on cleanups of Superfund sites, one might hope that the money is being spent in a cost-effective manner, but there is little evidence that the estimated benefits from cleanup affect the cleanup decision. We apply the hedonic method to house prices to estimate the individual willingness to pay (WTP) to clean up a Superfund site. We then show how the individual WTP can be used to calculate the total benefits from cleaning up the site so that a cost-benefit analysis of Superfund cleanup can be undertaken. We apply our technique to the two Superfund sites in Woburn, Massachusetts. We find that the benefits from cleaning up these sites are in the range of $72 million to $122 million (1992 dollars). It is likely that these benefits are greater than the present value of the estimated costs of cleaning up these sites. Thus it appears that the cleanup of the Woburn Superfund sites results in positive net benefits to society.

Superfund benefits from cleanup house price models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Chemical Society and Resources for the Future. (1998). Understanding Risk Analysis.Google Scholar
  2. Berggren, J. (2000). EPA Records Manager for the Region I Office. Personal conversation, April 7, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. Dale, L., J. C. Murdoch, M. A. Thayer, and P. A. Waddell. (1999). “Do Property Values Rebound from Environmental Stigmas?” Land Economics 75, 311–326.Google Scholar
  4. Farber, S. (1998). “Undesirable Facilities and Property Values: A Summary of Empirical Studies,” Ecological Economics 24, 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Freeman, A. M., III. (1993). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  6. Garren, M. (1999). EPA Project Manager for the Wells G & H site. Personal conversation, March 5, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. Gupta S., G. Van Houtven, and M. L. Cropper. (1995). “Do Benefits and Costs Matter in Environmental Regulation? An Analysis of EPA Decisions Under Superfund” In R. L. Revez and R. B. Stewart (eds.), Analyzing Superfund: Economics, Science, and Law. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  8. Hamilton, J. T., and W. K. Viscusi. (1999). “How Costly Is ‘Clean'? An Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Superfund Site Remediations,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(1), 2–27.Google Scholar
  9. Harr, J. (1996). A Civil Action. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, D., and J. H. Stock. (1984). Hedonic Housing Values, Local Public Goods, and the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Cleanup. Unpublished mimeo, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  11. Hird, J. A. (1990). “Superfund Expenditures and Cleanup Priorities: Distributive Politics or the Public Interest?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 9, 455–483.Google Scholar
  12. Hird, J. A. (1993). “Environmental Policy and Equity: The Case of Superfund,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12, 323–343.Google Scholar
  13. Hite, D. (1998). “Information and Bargaining in Markets for Environmental Quality,” Land Economics 74, 303–316.Google Scholar
  14. Ketkar, K. (1992). “Hazardous Waste Sites and Property Values in the State of New Jersey,” Applied Economics 24, 647–659.Google Scholar
  15. Kiel, K. A. (1995). “Measuring the Impact of the Discovery and Cleaning of Identified Hazardous Waste Sites on House Values,” Land Economics 71, 428–435.Google Scholar
  16. Kiel, K. A., and J. E. Zabel. (1996). “House Price Differentials in U.S. Cities: Household and Neighborhood Racial Effects,” Journal of Housing Economics 5, 143–165.Google Scholar
  17. Kiel, K. A., and J. E. Zabel. (1997a). “Compensation Estimates for Homeowners for Environmental Disamenities,” 1996 Proceedings of the Eighty-Ninth Annual Conference on Taxation, National Tax Association 196–202.Google Scholar
  18. Kiel, K. A., and J. E. Zabel. (1997b). “Evaluating the Usefulness of the American Housing Survey for Creating House Price Indices,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 14, 189–202.Google Scholar
  19. Kohlhase, J. (1991). “The Impact of Toxic Waste Sites on Housing Values,” Journal of Urban Economics 30, 1–26.Google Scholar
  20. LeMay, J. (1999). EPA Project Manager for the Industri-Plex Site. Personal conversation, March 10, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. McClelland, G. M., W. D. Schulze, and B. Hurd. (1990). “The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: ACase Study of a Hazardous Waste Site,” Risk Analysis 10(4), 485–497.Google Scholar
  22. Probst, K. N., D. Fullerton, R. E. Litan, and P. R. Portney. (1995). Footing the Bill for Superfund Cleanups: Who Pays and How? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  23. Revez R. L., and R. B. Stuart. (1995). “The Superfund Debate.” In R. L. Revez and R. B. Stewart (eds.), Analyzing Superfund: Economics, Science, and Law. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  24. Rosen, S. (1974). “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economy 82, 34–55.Google Scholar
  25. Thayer, M., H. Albers, and M. Rahmatian. (1992). “The Benefits of Reducing Exposure to Waste Disposal Sites: A Hedonic Housing Value Approach,” Journal of Real Estate Research 7, 265–282.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1998). “Superfund Facts: The Program at Work,” http://www.epa.gov/superfund/new/facts57.htnm.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1998b). “Wells G & H Massachusetts: Site Summary,” http://www.epa.gov/region01/remed/sfsites/wellsgh/hpl.html.Google Scholar
  28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999a). “Industri-Plex, Massachusetts,” EPA ID MADD 76580950.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999b). “Industri-Plex Site, Woburn Massachusetts: A Superfund Redevelopment Success,” EPA 540/F-98/012.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999c). “Wells G & H Fact Sheet,” http://www.epa.gov/ region01/remed/sfsites/wellsgh/factsh.htnml.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999d). “Wells G & H Settlement,” http://www.epa.gov/ region01/remed/sfsites/wellsgh/settle.htnml.Google Scholar
  32. Viscusi, W. K., and J. T. Hamilton. (1999). “Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions,” American Economic Review 89(4), 1010–1027.Google Scholar
  33. Walker, K. D., M. Sadowitz, and J. D. Graham. (1995). “Confronting Superfund Mythology: The Case of Risk Assessment and Management.” In R. L. Revez and R. B. Stewart (eds.), Analyzing Superfund: Economics, Science, and Law. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  34. Yinger, J., H. S. Bloom, A. Börsch-Supan, and H. F. Ladd. (1988). Property Taxes and House Values: The Theory and Estimation of Intrajurisdictional Property Tax Capitalization. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine Kiel
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Zabel
    • 2
  1. 1.Economics DepartmentCollege of the Holy CrossWorcester
  2. 2.Economics DepartmentTufts UniversityMedford

Personalised recommendations