Property‐Value Guarantees for Waste Facilities
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 115, Issue 3
Abstract
Property‐value guarantees eliminate value losses to property owners near waste‐disposal facility sites. In theory, guaranteeing property values is a simple method of summarily addressing waste‐facility impacts and, hence, of gaining host‐community acceptance for undesirable waste facilities. Representative surveys were conducted among residents of host and control communities at a landfill and an incinerator site to test whether property‐value impacts were considered significant and to determine the effect of property‐value guarantees on host‐community acceptance. Property‐value losses are a significant concern, and 50% of the respondents do not consider property‐value guarantees fair compensation for hosting an intolerable waste facility. Moreover, property‐value guarantees are significantly less acceptable among concerned residents than among less concerned people at a new incinerator site. Therefore, property‐value guarantees are not very effective in addressing residents' concerns about waste‐facility impacts. An alternative approach to gaining acceptance is derived that consists of identifying and reducing the cause for specific impacts in kind and as close as possible to the waste‐generating source.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Abelson, P. (1977). “The policy problems and economics of aircraft noise.” Trans. Res. Part B, 11, 357–364.
2.
Boyle, S. B. (1982). An analysis of siting new hazardous waste management facilities through a compensation and incentives approach. Dept. of City and Regional Planning and the Program in Urban and Regional Studies, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
3.
Census tracts—1980. Census of population and housing. (1983). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
4.
Fox, D., and Guire, K. (1976). Documentation for MIDAS. Statistical Res. Lab., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
5.
Freeman, A. (1979). The benefits of environmental improvement. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.
6.
Good neighbor program. (1986). City of Seattle, Seattle, Wash.
7.
Knetsch, J. (1983). Property rights and compensation. Butterworth, Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
8.
“Midway aid plan gets mixed reviews.” (1987). Seattle Times, June 6.
9.
“Midway landfill cleanup could cost $45 million.” (1986). Tacoma News Tribune, June 27.
10.
Paul, M. E. (1971). “Can airport noise be measured in money?” Oxford Econ. Papers, 23(3), 297–322.
11.
Smith, M., et al. (1985). Costs and benefits to local government due to the presence of a hazardous waste management facility and related compensation issues. Inst. for Envir. Studies, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, N.C.
12.
Street directories for Tacoma and Salem. (1986). R. I. Polk and Co., Seattle, Wash.
13.
25 negotiated landfill siting agreements. (1987). Wisconsin Facility Siting Board, Madison, Wis.
14.
Zeiss, C. (1988). “Siting waste disposal facilities: Impacts and acceptance,” thesis presented to the University of British Columbia, at Vancouver, B.C., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosphy.
15.
Zeiss, C., and Atwater, J. (1987). “Waste facilities in residential communities: Impacts and acceptance.” J. Urban Plng. and Dev., ASCE, 113(1), 19–34.
16.
Zeiss, C. (1984). “The financial and social costs of waste disposal,” thesis presented to the University of British Columbia, at Vancouver, B.C., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 ASCE.
History
Published online: Dec 1, 1989
Published in print: Dec 1989
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.