Assessing the impact of the remedial actions taken at a contaminated Italian site: an ex-post valuation analysis

  • Stefania Tonin


The remediation and reuse of industrial brownfields sites offers important opportunities for the improvement of urban quality of life. The aim of this paper is to estimate the primary costs and benefits of different cleanup projects implemented in Venice Porto Marghera, Italy. The industrial area of Porto Marghera is one of the most notorious contaminated sites of national interest in Italy; at this site, vacant and polluted areas coexist, posing several problems for the local government and community. However, this site also represents one of the primary strategic areas for the future development and the economic renaissance of the entire Veneto Region. In fact, the area is located in the heart of the northeast, close to the main transport networks, and it is provided with a full range of urban services and infrastructure. The area for the national priority list site of Porto Marghera extends over 3,500 ha, and in the last 10 years, different cleanup interventions have been implemented to rehabilitate the area under various regulatory systems. However, only a small number of these interventions can be considered to be completed or have been certified by law. This paper performs a retrospective cost–benefit analysis of these case studies to provide information for potential regulatory modifications, insights and knowledge for methodological improvements in prospective economic assessments and information for local and central governments to use in implementing the remaining remediation activities.


Contaminated site remediation Retrospective analysis Ex-post cost–benefit analysis Urban land management 



This research was supported by a grant from the Consortium for the Coordination and Management of Research on the Lagoon of Venice (CO.RI.LA.).


  1. Alberini A, Longo A, Tonin S, Trombetta F, Turvani M (2005) The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers. Reg Sci Urban Econ 35:327–351Google Scholar
  2. Alberini A, Tonin S, Turvani M, Chiabai A (2007) Paying for permanence: public preferences for contaminated site cleanup. J Risk Uncertain 35:155–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assessorato alla Statistica—Comune di Venezia (2011) Gli eventi culturali e le presenze turistiche nel territorio comunale veneziano, Report of the Municipality of Venice. Accessed 12 July 2013
  4. Benedetti M (2010) L’AIR nelle Autorità indipendenti: lo « stato dell’arte » del dibattito scientifico, Osservatorio sull’Analisi di Impatto della Regolazione, Accessed 16 July 2013
  5. Chilton K, Schwarz P, Godwin K (2009) Verifying the social, environmental, and economic promise of brownfield programs, Accessed 30 January 2013
  6. Comune di Venezia (2010) Bilanci annuali e pluriennali di previsione 2010–2012 delle Istituzioni Comunali, Allegato al Bilancio di Previsione per l’esercizio finanziario 2010Google Scholar
  7. Corila (2012) Valutazione tecnica ed economica delle bonifiche nel SIN di Porto Marghera, Unpublished report. Venice, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  8. De Sousa CA (2002) Measuring the public costs and benefits of Brownfield versus Greenfield development in the greater Toronto area. Environ Plan 29:251–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Sousa CA (2006) Unearthing the benefits of Brownfield to green space projects: an examination of project use and quality of life impacts. Local Environ 11(5):577–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Depass M (2006) Brownfields as a tool for the rejuvenation of land and community. Local Environ 11(5):601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desvousges WH, Naughton MC (1992) Benefit transfer—conceptual problems in estimating water-quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resour Res 28(3):675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon LS (1995) The transactions costs generated by superfund’s liability approach. In: Revesz RL, Stewart RB (eds) Analyzing superfund: economics, science and law. Resources for the Future, Washington, pp 171–185Google Scholar
  13. Evans P (2008) The environmental and economic impacts of Brownfields redevelopment, Accessed 30 June 2013
  14. Evanson T, Pelayo A, Bahr J (2009) A retrospective study of LUST site closures between 1999 and 2000, Wisconsin closure protocol study, PUB-RR-805. Accessed 29 January 2013
  15. Federal Register (2010) Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, Federal Register 76(14)Google Scholar
  16. Florio M, Vignetti S (2003) cost–benefit analysis of infrastructure projects in an enlarged european union: an incentive-oriented approach, Centro Studi Luca D’Agliano, Accessed 27 December 2013
  17. Florio M, Vignetti S (2013) the use of ex post cost–benefit analysis to assess the long-term effects of major infrastructure projects, CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies Working Paper N. 02/2013, Accessed 27 December 2013
  18. Fried M (1982) Residential attachment: sources of residential and community satisfaction. J Soc Issues 38(3):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstein M, Ritterling J (2001) A practical guide to estimating cleanup costs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Papers. Paper 30, Accessed 27 December 2013
  20. Gollier C, Weitzman M (2010) How should the distant future be discounted when discount rates are uncertain? Econ Lett 107:350–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenberg M, Lewis MJ (2000) Brownfields redevelopment, preferences and public involvement: a case study of an ethnically mixed neighbourhood. Urban Stud 37(13):2501–2514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hahn RW, Olmstead SM, Stavins RN (2003) Environmental regulation in the 1990s: a retrospective analysis. Harvard Environ Law Rev 27:377–415Google Scholar
  23. Hanley N, Barbier EB (2009) Pricing nature: cost–benefit analysis and environmental policy. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  24. Harnik P, Welle B (2009) Measuring the economic value of a city park system, the trust for public land, Accessed 18 May 2013
  25. Hotelling H (1949) Letter to the director of the national park service. In: Prewitt RA (ed) The economics of public recreation. The Prewitt Report, Department of the Interior, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins R, Kopits E, Simpsonet D (2006) Measuring the social benefits of epa land cleanup and reuse programs. NCEE Working Paper 06-03, Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Economics, US EPAGoogle Scholar
  27. Kocabaş G, Kopurlu BS (2010) An ex-post cost: benefit analysis of Bolu mountain tunnel project. Ege Acad Rev 10(4):1279–1287Google Scholar
  28. Kuo FE, Bacaicoa M, Sullivan WC (1998) Transforming innercity landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environ Behav 30(1):28–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerner S, Poole W (1999) The economic benefits of parks and open spaces: how land conservation helps communities grow smart and protect the bottom line. The Trust for Public Lands, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayor K, Lyons S, Duffy D, Tol RSJ (2009) A hedonic analysis of the value of parks and green spaces in the Dublin area. ESRI working paper 331. Accessed 30 June 2013
  31. Mishan EJ (1975) Cost–benefit analysis. Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Nera Economic Consulting (2004) The FSA’s methodology for cost–benefit analysis, available at Accessed 28 June 2013
  33. OECD (2006) Cost–benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearce DW (1998) Cost–benefit analysis and environmental policies. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14(4):84–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sartori D, Florio M (2010) Getting incentives right: do we need ex post CBA? Paper presented at the 9th European Evaluation Society International Conference, October 6–8, PragueGoogle Scholar
  36. Tonin S, Alberini A, Turvani M (2012) The value of reducing cancer risks at contaminated sites: are more knowledgeable people willing to pay more? J Risk Anal 32(7):1157–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turvani M, Tonin S (2008) Brownfield remediation and reuse: an opportunity for sustainable development. In Clini C, Musu I, Gullino ML (eds) Sustainable development and environment management: experiences and case studies. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  38. Turvani M, Tonin S (2009) Dinamiche del mercato immobiliare nelle aree produttive del sito di interesse nazionale di porto marghera. CORILA, VeneziaGoogle Scholar
  39. United States General Accounting Office (1999) Assessing the impacts of EPA’s regulations through retrospective studies. GAO/RCED-99-250Google Scholar
  40. Vitulli A, Dougherty C, Bosworth K (2004). Characterization of reuse activities at contaminated sites. NCEE Working Paper 04-03. Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Economics, US EPAGoogle Scholar
  41. Voorhees AS, Shunichi A, Sakai R, Sato H (2000) An ex post cost–benefit analysis of the nitrogen dioxide air pollution control program in Tokyo. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 50:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker C (2004) The public value of urban parks, available at Accessed 27 June 2013
  43. Walo M, Bull A, Breen H (1996) Achieving economic benefit at local events: a case study of a local sports event. J Festiv Manag Event Tour 4(3/4):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma discounting. Am Econ Rev 91:260–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wernstedt K (2004) Overview of existing studies on community impacts of land reuse. National Center for Environmental Economics Working Paper 04-06, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Design and Planning in Complex EnvironmentsUniversity IUAV of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations