Abstract
This paper uses option pricing to examine how the presence of hazardous materials affects real estate value. The property owner has two options. The first option is to remove the hazardous materials at the best time. The second option, embedded in the first one, is to redevelop the property at the best opportunity. The owner has three possible timing strategies with respect to the exercise of these two options: remove the hazardous materials first and retain the option to redevelop the property later, remove and redevelop at the same time, or do nothing. Conditions under which the presence of the hazardous materials may either expedite or postpone the decision to redevelop are also derived. If the regulatory environment does not allow the property owner to make optimal timing decisions with respect to the exercise of these options, then our results provide an indication of the cost of regulation as measured by the additional loss in property value.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brennan, Michael J., and Eduardo S. Schwartz. (1985). “Evaluating Natural Resource Investments,”Journal of Business 58, 135–157.
Capozza, Dennis R., and Robert W. Helsley. (1989). “The Fundamentals of Land Prices and Urban Growth,”Journal of Urban Economics 26, 295–306.
Capozza, Dennis R., and Gordon A. Sick. (1991a). “Pricing Risky Land: The Option to Develop,” Working Paper, University of Michigan.
Capozza, Dennis R., and Gordon A. Sick. (1991b). “Valuing Long-Term Leases: The Option to Redevelop,”Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 4, 209–223.
Dewees, Donald N. (1986).Controlling Asbestos in Buildings: An Economic Investigation. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Fischer, Stanley. (1978). “Call Option Pricing When the Exercise Price Is Uncertain, and the Valuation of Index Bonds,”Journal of Finance 33, 169–176.
Fisher, Jeffrey D., George H. Lentz, and K.S. Maurice Tse. (1992). “Valuation of Commercial Properties Contaminated With Asbestos,”Journal of Real Estate Research 7, 331–350.
Friedman, Milton. (1953). “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Friedman, Milton,Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 3–43.
McKean, Henry P. (1965). “Appendix: A Free Boundary Problem for the Heat Equation Arising from a Problem of Mathematical Economics,”The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, Vol. 3, Edited by Robert C. Merton. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 810–817.
Margrabe, William. (1978). “The Value of an Option to Exchange One Asset for Another,”Journal of Finance 33, 177–186.
Paddock, James L., Daniel R. Siegel, and James L. Smith, (1988). “Option Valuation of Claims on Real Assets: The Case of Offshore Petroleum Leases,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 104 (August), 479–508.
Quigg, Laura. (1993). “Empirical Testing of Real Option Pricing Models,”Journal of Finance 48, 621–640.
Quigg, Laura. (1991). “Optimal Land Development,” Working Paper, February, Office of Real Estate Research, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.
Samuelson, Paul A. (1965). “Rational Theory of Warrant Pricing,”The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, Vol. 3. Edited by Robert C. Merton. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 199–810.
Shimko, David C. (1992).Finance in Continuous Time: A Primer. Kolb Publishing.
Williams, Joseph T. (1991). “Real Estate Development as an Option,”Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 4, 191–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lentz, G.H., Tse, K.S.M. An option pricing approach to the valuation of real estate contaminated with hazardous materials. J Real Estate Finan Econ 10, 121–144 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01096985
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01096985