IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/343057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capitalised nonmarket benefits of multifunctional water-sensitive urban infrastructure: A case of living streams

Author

Listed:
  • Akbari, Saloomeh
  • Polyakov, Maksym
  • Iftekhar, Md Sayed

Abstract

Living streams are an important element of decentralised stormwater management solutions. They are actively promoted due to their ability to generate multiple ecosystem services, including water quality improvement, biodiversity protection and aesthetics. However, a lack of monetised values of ecosystem services of living stream projects makes it difficult to assess the net benefits of investing in such projects. This study uses the hedonic pricing method to estimate the capitalised amenity values of living streams and other public open spaces (POS) in housing and lot markets for the first time. The study area includes two newly greenfield-developed suburbs in the Perth metropolitan area. We find the positive impact of living streams and other POS on the house and lot prices. However, living streams generate greater value than other types of POS. Furthermore, the POS (including living streams) that support active recreation are valued more than basic POS without active recreation features. Finally, we observe, for the first time, that the benefits of planned but not yet constructed POS (including living stream) are similar to the completed POS (including living stream) in both housing and lot markets. This information is useful for policymakers and developers making informed decisions about water-sensitive urban infrastructure.

Suggested Citation

  • Akbari, Saloomeh & Polyakov, Maksym & Iftekhar, Md Sayed, 2023. "Capitalised nonmarket benefits of multifunctional water-sensitive urban infrastructure: A case of living streams," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(04), August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:343057
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.343057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/343057/files/Capitalised%20nonmarket%20benefits.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.343057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuminoff, Nicolai V. & Parmeter, Christopher F. & Pope, Jaren C., 2010. "Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 145-160, November.
    2. Ram Pandit & Maksym Polyakov & Rohan Sadler, 2014. "Valuing public and private urban tree canopy cover," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 453-470, July.
    3. Maksym Polyakov & David J. Pannell & Ram Pandit & Sorada Tapsuwan & Geoff Park, 2015. "Capitalized Amenity Value of Native Vegetation in a Multifunctional Rural Landscape," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 299-314.
    4. Mahmoudi, Parvin & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Crossman, Neville D. & Summers, David M. & van der Hoek, John, 2013. "Space matters: the importance of amenity in planning metropolitan growth," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-22.
    5. Sorada Tapsuwan & Gordon Ingram & Michael Burton & Donna Brennan, 2009. "Capitalized amenity value of urban wetlands: a hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 527-545, October.
    6. Helen XH Bao & Johan P Larsson & Vivien Wong, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel:The impacts of expected major transport improvements on residential property prices," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(14), pages 2971-2990, November.
    7. repec:bla:ecorec:v:61:y:1985:i:172:p:476-81 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Julian Bolleter, 2018. "Living suburbs for Living Streams: how urban design strategies can enhance the amenity provided by Living Stream orientated Public Open Space," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 518-543, July.
    9. Conley, T. G., 1999. "GMM estimation with cross sectional dependence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 1-45, September.
    10. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Miettinen, Antti, 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 205-223, March.
    11. Guy Garrod & Ken Willis, 1994. "An economic estimate of the effect of a waterside location on property values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 209-217, April.
    12. Parvin Mahmoudi & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Neville D. Crossman & David M. Summers & John van der Hoek, 2013. "Space matters: the importance of amenity in planning metropolitan growth," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(1), pages 38-59, January.
    13. Colin J. Barnett, 1985. "An Application of the Hedonic Price Model to the Perth Residential Land Market," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 61(1), pages 476-481, March.
    14. Sander, Heather & Polasky, Stephen & Haight, Robert G., 2010. "The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1646-1656, June.
    15. Łaszkiewicz, Edyta & Czembrowski, Piotr & Kronenberg, Jakub, 2019. "Can proximity to urban green spaces be considered a luxury? Classifying a non-tradable good with the use of hedonic pricing method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 237-247.
    16. Okmyung Bin, 2005. "A semiparametric hedonic model for valuing wetlands," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(10), pages 597-601.
    17. Abbott, Joshua K. & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2010. "Is all space created equal? Uncovering the relationship between competing land uses in subdivisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 296-307, December.
    18. Brent L. Mahan & BStephen Polasky & Richard M. Adams, 2000. "Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 100-113.
    19. Polyakov, Maksym & Iftekhar, Md Sayed & Fogarty, James & Buurman, Joost, 2022. "Renewal of waterways in a dense city creates value for residents," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    20. Michiel N. Daams & Frans J. Sijtsma & Arno J. van der Vlist, 2016. "The Effect of Natural Space on Nearby Property Prices: Accounting for Perceived Attractiveness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(3), pages 389-410.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stromberg, Per M. & Öhrner, Erik & Brockwell, Erik & Liu, Zhaoyang, 2021. "Valuing urban green amenities with an inequality lens," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    2. H. Allen Klaiber & Joshua K. Abbott & V. Kerry Smith, 2017. "Some Like It (Less) Hot: Extracting Trade-Off Measures for Physically Coupled Amenities," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1053-1079.
    3. Roberto Evangelio & Simon Hone & Moses Lee & David Prentice, 2019. "What Makes a Locality Attractive? Estimates of the Amenity Value of Parks for Victoria," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 38(3), pages 182-192, September.
    4. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    5. Marisa J. Mazzotta & Elena Besedin & Ann E. Speers, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Studies to Assess the Property Value Effects of Low Impact Development," Resources, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-31, January.
    6. Łaszkiewicz, Edyta & Heyman, Axel & Chen, Xianwen & Cimburova, Zofie & Nowell, Megan & Barton, David N, 2022. "Valuing access to urban greenspace using non-linear distance decay in hedonic property pricing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Belcher, Richard N. & Chisholm, Ryan A., 2018. "Tropical Vegetation and Residential Property Value: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis in Singapore," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 149-159.
    8. Polyakov, Maksym & Fogarty, James & Zhang, Fan & Pandit, Ram & Pannell, David J., 2015. "The value of restoring urban drains to living streams," Working Papers 206300, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Zhaoyang Liu & Heqing Huang & Juha Siikamäki & Jintao Xu, 2024. "Area-Based Hedonic Pricing of Urban Green Amenities in Beijing: A Spatial Piecewise Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(5), pages 1223-1248, May.
    10. Matthew Gnagey & Therese Grijalva, 2018. "The impact of trails on property values: a spatial analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 60(1), pages 73-97, January.
    11. Kara, Abdullah & van Oosterom, Peter & Çağdaş, Volkan & Işıkdağ, Ümit & Lemmen, Christiaan, 2020. "3 Dimensional data research for property valuation in the context of the LADM Valuation Information Model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Chen, Yu & Liu, Gengyuan & Yan, Ningyu & Yang, Qing & Gao, He & Su, Liya & Santagata, Remo, 2023. "Comprehensive evaluation of urban greenspace ecological values marketability through the spatial relationship between housing price and ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    13. Irwin, Nicholas B. & Klaiber, H. Allen & Irwin, Elena G., 2017. "Do Stormwater Basins Generate co-Benefits? Evidence from Baltimore County, Maryland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 202-212.
    14. Yoo, James & Simonit, Silvio & Connors, John P. & Kinzig, Ann P. & Perrings, Charles, 2014. "The valuation of off-site ecosystem service flows: Deforestation, erosion and the amenity value of lakes in Prescott, Arizona," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 74-83.
    15. Matthew Richardson & Pengfei Liu & Michael Eggleton, 2022. "Valuation of Wetland Restoration: Evidence from the Housing Market in Arkansas," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 649-683, March.
    16. Sado-Inamura, Yukako & Fukushi, Kensuke, 2019. "Empirical analysis of flood risk perception using historical data in Tokyo," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 13-29.
    17. Panduro, Toke Emil & Jensen, Cathrine Ulla & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & von Graevenitz, Kathrine & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2018. "Eliciting preferences for urban parks," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 127-142.
    18. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.
    19. Jose Torres-Pruñonosa & Pablo García-Estévez & Camilo Prado-Román, 2021. "Artificial Neural Network, Quantile and Semi-Log Regression Modelling of Mass Appraisal in Housing," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Mei, Yingdan & Hite, Diane & Sohngen, Brent, 2017. "Demand for urban tree cover: A two-stage hedonic price analysis in California," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 29-35.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:343057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.