Perceptions of risk in the valuation of contaminated land

Abstract

UK government policy regarding the clean‐up of contaminated land favours treatments which are appropriate to the actual or proposed use of the land. This suitable‐for‐use approach predicates against the total removal of contaminated soil and in favour of in situ remedies. Any in situ treatment, whether it comprises containment of the contamination or changing its physical characteristics through chemical or biological methods, will leave behind some degree of residual risk. This risk may take many forms, for example the appropriateness or otherwise of the concentrations of materials left on treated sites, the possible failure of the treatment method and the potential for future changes in legislation. If valuers are to prepare valuations of sites, both before and after treatment, which adequately reflect the true situation and do not seek to avoid the influence of past contamination, then they need to be able to assess the risks associated with the site. In a numerically small market, and with limited information as to past contamination and treatment methods, valuers need to place considerable reliance on their professional judgements. Discusses possible guidelines which may be adopted in the treatment of affected sites for residential, industrial, commercial and leisure uses. Discusses the perceptions of valuation and development professionals through the results of questionnaire and interview surveys. Considers the “stigma” implications in respect of contaminated land values, both before and after remedial treatment, and attempts to place land contamination into context with other, everyday environmental issues. Proposesd a list of potentially contaminative industrial uses and ranks these in order of perceived hazard. Proposes a multi‐disciplinary approach with a view to the adoption of a risk assessment method for the appraisal of contaminated land.

Citation

Syms, P. (1997), "Perceptions of risk in the valuation of contaminated land", Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635789710163784