Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

The Use of Conjoint Analysis to Assess the Impact of Environmental Stigma

Author/s: Sandy Bond

Date Published: 1/01/2001

Published in: Volume 7 - 2001 Issue 3 (pages 182 - 194)

Abstract

The identification of the correct approaches to use in the valuation of property affected by land contamination is of great interest, not only to the valuation profession, but also to the stake-holders (the developers, owners and lenders) of contaminated land. These parties wish to know the magnitude and duration of the impact of contamination on property values, both before and after remediation. However, uncertainty exists as to how to measure the impact, and the appropriate way to account for it. This paper demonstrates how the use of conjoint analysis, a survey-based approach, can aid the impact assessment of contamination stigma on residential property values.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2001.11104103.pdf 14445921.2001.11104103.pdf (2MB)

Keywords

Conjoint Analysis - Property Values - Public Opinion Surveys - Remediation - Site Contamination - Stigma

References

  • Abelson, P. 1979, ‘Property prices and amenity values’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 6, pp.11?28.
  • Anderson, N. 1970, ‘Functional measurement and psychophysical judgement’, Psychological Review, Vol. 77, pp.153?170
  • Appraisal Institute 2000, Proposed USPAP Statement on Appraisal Standards—First Exposure Draft: Utilization of Statistical and Market Survey Techniques in Real Estate Research, Appraising, Counselling and Consulting Assignments: Appraisal Institute.
  • Bond, S. 2001, ‘Stigma assessment: the case of a remediated contaminated site’, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 19, No.2, pp. 188?210.
  • Bruner, J., Brunswik, E., Festinger, L., Heider, F., Muenzinger, ?., Osgood, ?, & Rapaport, D. 1957, Contemporary Approaches to Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Chalmers, J„ & Jackson, T. 1996, ‘Risk factors in the appraisal of contaminated property’, The Appraisal Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 44?58.
  • Chalmers, J., & Roehr, S. 1993, ‘Issues in the valuation of contaminated property’, The Appraisal Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 28–41.
  • Curry, J. 1997, ‘After the basics Marketing Research: A Magazine of Management and Application, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 6?11.
  • Dixon, J,, Carpenter, R., Fallon, L., Sherman, P., & Manipomoke, S. 1988, ‘Economic Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Development Projects’, (2nd ed.), Earthscan Publications in association with The Asian Development Bank, London.
  • Dotzour, M. 1997, ‘Groundwater contamination and residential property values’, The Appraisal Journal, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 279?284.
  • Elliot-Jones, M. 1995, ‘Valuation of post-cleanup property: the economic basis of stigma damages’, Bureau of National Affairs Toxics Law Reporter, February 1, pp. 944-955.
  • Federal Register 1996, Final Rules and Regulations on Natural Resource and Damage Assessment, Vol. 61. No. 4, January 5.
  • Green, P., & Tull, D. 1973, Research for Marketing Decisions, 4th Ed, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W, 1995, Multivariate Data Analysis With Readings, 4th Ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
  • Kennedy, P. 1997, Investment valuation of contaminated land and UK practice: a study with special reference lo former gasworks, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Nottingham Trent University.
  • Kinnard, W., Geckler. M. and Dickey, S. 1994, Fear (as a measure of damages) strikes out: two case studies comparisons of actual market behaviour with opinion survey research, paper presented at the American Real Estate Society Conference, Santa Barbara, April.
  • Kinnard, W., Worzala, E., Bond, S. & Kennedy, P. 1999, Comparative studies of United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand appraisal practice: valuing contaminated property, paper presented at the Fifteenth American Real Estate Society Conference, Tampa, Florida, April 7?10.
  • Kinnard, W., and Worzala, p. 1999, ‘How North American appraisers value contaminated property and associated stigma’, The Appraisal Journal, July, pp. 269-279.
  • Lancaster, K. 1966, ‘A new approach to consumer theory’, Journal of Political Economics, Vol. 74, April, pp. 132–157.
  • Levesque, T. 1994, ‘Modelling the. effects of airport noise on residential housing markets’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 28, May, pp. 199?210.
  • Levy, D. 1995, ‘Modern marketing research techniques and the property professional’, Property Management, Vol. 1 3, No. 3, pp. 33-40.
  • Louviere, J. 1979, ‘Modelling individual residential preferences: a totally disaggregate approach’, Transportation Research, Vol. 13, A, pp. 374?384.
  • Louviere, J. 1988, Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
  • Mäler, K., & Wyzga, R. 1976, Economic measurement of environmental damage: a technical handbook, OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.
  • Mattila, A. 1999, ‘Consumers’ value judgments’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 40?46.
  • McCluskey, J, & Rausser, G. 2000, ‘Stigmatized asset values: is it temporary or permanent?’ Research paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, WA.
  • National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation 1999, National Environment Protection (Assessment Of Site Contamination) Measure, Adelaide.
  • Patchin, P. 1991, ‘Contaminated properlies-stigma revisited’. The Appraisal Journal, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 168?169.
  • Priestley, T., & Evans, G. 1990, Perception of a Transmission Line in a Residential Neighbourhood: Results of a Case Study in Vallejo, California, A report prepared for Southern California Edison Environmental Affairs Division, San Fransisco.
  • Reichert, A. 1997, ‘Impact of a toxic waste superfund site on property values’, The Appraisal Journal, Vol.65, No.4, pp. 381?392.
  • Simons, R., Bowen, W., & Sementelli, A. 1997, ‘The effect of underground storage tanks on residential property values in Cuyahoga County, Ohio’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 29?41.
  • Syms, P. 1996, The redevelopment and value of contaminated land, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
  • TEGOVOFA (1988), ‘Valuation of land subject to soil pollution’, Background Paper BP19. The European Group of Valuers of Fixed Assets, London.
  • Wind, J., Green, P. Shifflet, D., & Scarborough, M. 1989, ‘Courtyard by Marriott: designing a hotel facility with consumer-based marketing models’, Interfaces, Vol. 19, No. l,pp. 25?47.
  • Zeiss, C, & Atwater, J. 1989, ‘Waste facility impacts on residential property values’, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 64?79.
  • Zeiss, C, & Atwater, J. 1990, ‘Incinerator impacts on residential property sales: beyond price effects’. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 116, No. 2, pp. 80?97.