Superfund, Hedonics, and the Scales of Environmental Justice

Abstract

Abstract:Environmental justice (EJ) is prominent in environmental policy, yet EJ research is plagued by debates over methodological procedures. A well-established economic approach, the hedonic price method, can offer guidance on one contentious aspect of EJ research: the choice of the spatial unit of analysis. Environmental managers charged with preventing or remedying inequities grapple with these framing problems. This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on unit choice in EJ, as well as research employing hedonic pricing to assess the spatial extent of hazardous waste site impacts. The insights from hedonics are demonstrated in a series of EJ analyses for a national inventory of Superfund sites. First, as evidence of injustice exhibits substantial sensitivity to the choice of spatial unit, hedonics suggests some units conform better to Superfund impacts than others. Second, hedonic estimates for a particular site can inform the design of appropriate tests of environmental inequity for that site. Implications for policymakers and practitioners of EJ analyses are discussed.2

Identifying the geographic extent of environmental inequalities: A comparison of pattern detection methods

“…Sheppard et al (1999) move a step further and use a simulation of alternative hazard location to assess the likelihood of observed patterns against a hypothesis of complete spatial randomness. Noonan et al (2009) adopt an alternative approach and suggest methods to derive scale using hedonic price models surrounding hazard sites. For each study area (scope) the authors identify spatial scales at which TRI sites significantly cluster, but do so through a collective assessment of all sites.…”

“…In an attempt to empirically derive scale, Fisher et al (2006) adopt Ripley's K function to identify scales of significant spatial clustering in the location of EPAmonitored Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) emission sites across three alternative study scopes (city, county, region). While the work of Fisher et al (2006) and Noonan et al (2009) has advanced our understanding of problems of scale, these more complex approaches remain atypical within the environmental justice literature. That is, although scale is derived empirically from available evidence, cluster size is not independently assessed for each site.…”

“…Moreover, the demographic characteristics of areas that fall within identified clusters are not assessed by the statistic. Noonan et al (2009) adopt an alternative approach and suggest methods to derive scale using hedonic price models surrounding hazard sites. While the work of Fisher et al (2006) and Noonan et al (2009) has advanced our understanding of problems of scale, these more complex approaches remain atypical within the environmental justice literature.…”

“…Researchers have demonstrated that problems of scale, specifically the specification of the study area extent and focused examination regions prior to analysis, can alter or reverse findings of inequality (Sheppard et al 1999;Taquino et al 2002;Downey 2005;Baden et al 2007). In response, a stream of research within the environmental justice literature has begun to assess the sensitivity of empirical results to scale choice and to propose alternative methodologies for scale selection (Downey 2007;Downey et al 2008;Noonan et al 2009). …”

The Graduate Student Research Conference in Business and Economics: Volume 1

“…Most studies have focused analyzing the benefits accrued from the cleanup of sites (mostly relating to health, and possibly housing values) and compares them to the costs of administering the clean ups (Hamilton & Viscusi, 1999). Other studies look at the effect that superfund sites have on housing prices through a hedonic house pricing model values (Gayer, Hamilton, & Viscusi, 2000;Greenstone & Gallagher, 2008;Noonan, Krupka, & Baden, 2007;Noonan, Turaga, & Baden, 2009;Walker, 1992;Zuindeau & Letombe, 2008). Some of these studies agree with the idea that location to the site matters while others do not.…”