Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:00:10.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External Benefits of Brownfield Redevelopment: An Applied Urban General Equilibrium Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Niels Vermeer  and
Wouter Vermeulen
Niels Vermeer
Affiliation:
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis
Wouter Vermeulen
Affiliation:
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, VU University and Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Does brownfield redevelopment warrant government support? We explore several external benefits in an urban general equilibrium framework. Preferences are modelled such that demand for housing units in the city is downward sloping, which yields a more general setup than the extreme open and closed city cases. We shed light on the relative importance of general equilibrium effects of nonmarginal redevelopment projects and we isolate the external benefits of the removal of a local nuisance, the exploitation of agglomeration economies and the preservation of open space at the urban fringe. A numerical application indicates that local nuisance and agglomeration effects may push social returns significantly beyond the value of redeveloped land that accrues to its owner. However, depending on the price elasticity of urban housing demand and the strength of agglomeration economies, the amount of preserved greenfield land may be small and it only generates additional benefits to the extent that direct land use policies fail to internalize its value as open space.

Keywords

brownfield redevelopmentland use externalitiesurban general equilibriumcost-benefit analysis
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , 23 August 2012 , pp. 1 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2012

References

Anderson, S. P., De Palma, A., and Thisse, J. F. (1992). Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anas, A., Arnott, R. and Small, K. A. (1998). Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 1426–64.Google Scholar
Arnott, R. and Stiglitz, J. (1979). Aggregate land rents, expenditure on public goods, and optimal city size. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93, 471–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S. (2006). A Quantitative Assessment of the Role of Agglomeration Economies in the Spatial Concentration of U.S. Employment. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper no. 06-20.Google Scholar
CLG (2010). Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Combes, P.-P., Duranton, G., and Gobillon, L. (2008). Spatial wage disparities: sorting matters! Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 723–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CPB and PBL (2010). Evaluatie beoordelingen Nota Ruimteprojecten. [Evaluation of assessments of spatial investment proposals.] Den Haag: Centraal Planbureau en Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.Google Scholar
Deason, J. P., Sherk, G. W., and Carroll, G. A. (2001). Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials. Submitted to U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
De Sousa, C. (2002). Measuring the public costs and benefits of brownfield versus greenfield development in the greater Toronto area. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 251–80.Google Scholar
De Vor, F. and De Groot, H. L. F. (2011). The impact of industrial sites on residential property values: a hedonic pricing analysis from the Netherlands. Regional Studies, 45, 609–23.Google Scholar
Duranton, G. and Puga, D. (2004). Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In Henderson, V. J. and Thisse,, J. F. (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 4. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.Google Scholar
EPA (2011). Handbook on the Benefits, Costs and Impacts of Land Cleanup and Reuse. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/homepage).Google Scholar
Ermisch, J. F., Findlay, J., and Gibb, K. (1996). The price elasticity of housing demand in Britain: issues of sample selection. Journal of Housing Economics, 5, 64–86.Google Scholar
Fujita, M. (1989). Urban Economic Theory: Land Use and City Size. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gayer, T., Hamilton, J. T., and Viscusi, W. K. (2000). Private values of risk tradeoffs at superfund sites: housing market evidence on learning about risk. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 439–51.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M. and Gallagher, J. (2008). Does hazardous waste matter? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 951–1003.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M., Hornbeck, R., and Moretti,, E. (2010). Identifying agglomeration spillovers: evidence from winners and losers of large plants openings. Journal of Political Economy, 18, 536–98.Google Scholar
Hilber, C. A. L. and Robert-Nicoud, F. (2010). On the Origins of Land Use Regulations: Theory and Evidence from US Metro Areas. LSE Working Paper, July.Google Scholar
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. and Shaughnessy, T. (2004). An empirical investigation of the effect of impact fees on housing and land markets. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 639–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. and Taylor, L. O. (2004). Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites: evidence from urban commercial property markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 117–39.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. A. and Cloutier, N. R. (2006). The impact of small brownfields and greenspaces on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 33, 19–30.Google Scholar
Kiel, K. and Zabel, J. (2001). Estimating the economic benefits of cleaning-up superfund sites: the case of Woburn, Massachusetts. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 22, 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlhase, J. E. (1991). The impact of toxic waste sites on housing values. Journal of Urban Economics, 30, 1–26.Google Scholar
McCluskey, J. J. and Rausser, G. C. (2003). Hazardous waste sites and housing appreciation rates. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 166–76.Google Scholar
McConnell, V. and Walls, M. (2005). The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Nonmarket Behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Michaels, R. G. and Smith, V. K. (1990). Market segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: the case of hazardous waste sites. Journal of Urban Economics, 28, 223–42.Google Scholar
Quigley, J. M. and Swoboda, A. M. (2007). The urban impacts of the Endangered Species Act: a general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Urban Economics, 61, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, S. S. and Strange, W. C. (2004). Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In Henderson, V. J. and Thisse,, J. F. (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 4. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rouwendal, J. and Van der Straaten, J. W. (2008). The Costs and Benefits of Providing Open Space in Cities. Tinbergen Discussion Paper no. 2008-001/3.Google Scholar
Smith, V. K. (2011). Peer Review Report for the Draft Handbook on the Benefits, Costs, and Impacts of Land Cleanup and Reuse. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/homepage).Google Scholar
Vermeulen, W. (2011). Agglomeration Externalities and Urban Growth Controls. SERC Discussion Paper no. 93.Google Scholar
VROM LNVV&W, EZ V&W, EZ (2004). Nota ruimte. Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. [Whitebook on planning. Space for development.] Ministerie van Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke ordening en Milieu, Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat and Ministerie van Economische Zaken, SdU, Den Haag.Google Scholar
Walsh, R. (2007). Endogenous open space amenities in a locational equilibrium. Journal of Urban Economics, 61, 319–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildasin, D. E. (1986). Spatial variation of the marginal utility of income and unequal treatment of equals. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 125–29.Google Scholar
Wright, J. G. (1997). Risks and Rewards of Brownfield Development. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar