Compensation due to land use restrictions: the case of limited use area in the vicinity of Polish airports

• Authors: Iwona Foryś , Michał Głuszak , Jan Konowalczuk

Abstracts

EN

Research background: The economic benefits that arise with the development of airport infrastructure are accompanied by negative externalities. Legal, technical and institutional instruments are used to mitigate or limit these effects. It involves state intervention in the use of real estate located in the vicinity of the airport, and the cost of such an intervention. On the other hand, as a result of state interventions, real estate market mechanisms are distorted. The balance on the market, prices and as a result the number of transactions is changing. Purpose of the article: The study evaluates adaptive efficiency, which is known as the ability of the real estate market system to adapt to the purpose of public intervention. The effectiveness of state intervention is measured as the difference between market transaction costs and costs after intervention. The former means the full coverage of all individual claims of property owners at market prices. However, after the intervention, these are costs of compensation and litigation (judicial, expert opinions, provisions for payment of damages), as well as the risk of the airport's insolvency. The state intervention system is also assessed through the prism of the lack of a methodology for assessing damages and subjective claims of property owners. The article focuses on the effects of the negative impact of airport noise resulting in limitations to residential buildings' usability and depreciation of their market value. The study is based on the example of one regional airport. Methods: The study evaluates the current compensation model related to the introduction of Limited Land Use Areas around airports in Poland, based on Poznan-Lawica airport case study. In the empirical part of the paper, we use regression analysis to examine the value of compensations for loss of property value ruled by courts, and duration analysis to explore court procedure duration time. Findings & Value added: This research is one of the important basic research on socio-spatial connection near an airport in Poland. We argue that the current practice related to compensation ruled by courts has substantial flaws (including the methodical error regarding the valuation of claims, where acoustic damage and value loss claims are treated as unrelated, thus both compensations are independently assessed). With the help of the Cox model, we demonstrate that the long distance from the airport and the location within the LUA increase the likelihood of court proceedings ending. The results are important due to the pending disputes and the costs threatening the functioning of airports in Poland.

Keywords

EN

compensation value; court procedure duration; public intervention; land use; negative externalities; airports

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Gospodarczych
• Journal: Oeconomia Copernicana
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 649-667

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Iwona Foryś

• University of Szczecin

• https://orcid.org/0000000222940672

author

Michał Głuszak

• Cracow University of Economics

• https://orcid.org/000000017614229X

author

Jan Konowalczuk

• Cracow University of Economics

• https://orcid.org/0000000151856624

References

• Acocella, N. (2002). Rules of economic policy: values and methods of analysis. Warszawa: PWN.
• Agboola, A. O. (2016). Neoclassical economics and new institutional economics, Property Management, 33(5). doi: 10.1108/PM-12-2014-0055.
• Batog, J., Foryś, I., Gaca, R., Gluszak M., & Konowalczuk, J. (2019). Investigating the impact of airport noise and land use restrictions on house prices: evidence from selected regional airports in Poland. Sustainability, 11(2). doi: 10.3390/ su11020412.
• Blossfeld, H. P., Hamerle, A., Mayer, K. U. (1989). Event history analysis, statistical theory and application in the social sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publ.
• Bowers, N. L., Gerber, H. U., Hivkman, J. C., Jones, D. A., & Nesbitt, C. J. (1986). Actuarial mathematics. The Society of Actuaries, USA. doi: 10.1017/S007 1368600009812
• Buchanan, J. M. (1969). Cost and choise. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
• Case, K. E., & Shiller, R. J. (1989). Association the efficiency of the market for single-family homes. American Economic Review, 79(1).
• Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3.
• Coase, R. (2013). The firm, the market and the law. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
• Cox, D. R., & Oakes, D. (1984). Analysis of survival data. New York: Chapman & Hall.
• De Soto, J. H. (2010). Justice and efficiency. Warszawa: Fijorr Publisching.
• Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2013). The economics of green building, Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1).
• Habdas, M., & Konowalczuk, J. (2018). Objectives and conditions for effective state intervention in areas of limited use of airports. Real Estate World 105(3). doi: 10.14659/WOREJ.2018.105.001.
• Habdas, M., & Konowalczuk, J. (2019). Noisy skies and crowded cities – comparative remarks on the dilemmas in compensating homeowners for airport nuisance. Conference paper, 13th Annual PLPR Conference - Preparing for Climate Change in the Planned and Unplanned City, 18-22 February, College of Architecture Texas A&M University, College Station.
• Herath, S., & Maier, G. (2015). Informational efficiency of the real estate market: a meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Research, 20(117).
• Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Applied survival analysis. Regression modeling of time to event data. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
• Keogh, G., & D’Arcy, E. (1999). Property market efficiency: an institutional economics perspective. Urban Studies, 36(13).
• Kirzner, I., (2010). Competition and entrepreneurship. Warszawa: Fijorr Publisching.
• Lu, C., & Morrell, P. (2006). Determination and applications of environmental costs at different sized airports – aircraft noise and engine emissions. Transportation, 33(1).
• Mahashabde, A. (2011). Assessing the environmental impacts of aircraft noise and emissions. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 47(1).
• Mayers, R. H. (1990). Classical and modern regression with application. Duxbury, Pacific Grove.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511808678.008.
• Posner, R. A. (2014). Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
• Rothbard, M. N. (2009). Interventionism or power and the market. Chicago-Warszawa: Fijorr Publishing.
• Sayce, S. (2006). Property appraisal: from value to worth. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Trojanek, R., & Huderek-Glapska, S. (2018). Measuring the noise cost of aviation – the association between the limited use area around Warsaw Chopin Airport and property values. Journal of Air Transport Management, 67.
• Waitz, A., & Ian, A. U. (2014). Estimation of the global impacts of aviation-related noise using an income-based approach. Journal of Transport Policy, 34. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.020.
• Wolfe, P., Yim, S. H. L., Lee, G., Ashok, A., Barrett, S. R. H., Waitz, I. A. (2014). Near-airport distribution of the environmental costs of aviation. Transport Policy, 34. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.023.

Identifiers

DOI

10.24136/oc.2019.031

Biblioteka Nauki

19101054