Economic valuation of riparian buffer and open space in a suburban watershed

Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1583-1596

  Qiu, Zeyuan ^a   Prato, Tony ^b   Boehm, Gerry ^c  

^a NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^c St Charles Community College Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Buffer zones; Contingent valuation; Hedonic price; Land use; Nonpoint source pollution; Riparian ecology; Urbanization

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; FLOODS; LAND USE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; STREAM FLOW;

BUFFER ZONES; CONTINGENT VALUATION; HEDONIC PRICE; NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION; RIPARIAN ECOLOGY; URBANIZATION;

WATERSHEDS;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; FLOODS; LAND USE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; STREAM FLOW; WATERSHEDS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; OPEN SPACE; PERCEPTION; PRICE DETERMINATION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RIPARIAN ZONE; SUBURBAN AREA; WATERSHED; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DARDENNE CREEK; MISSOURI; NORTH AMERICA; SAINT LOUIS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33846469920     PISSN: 1093474X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb06022.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Arendt, R., 2004, Linked Landscapes: Creating Greenway Corridors Through Conservation Subdivision Design Strategies in the Northeastern and Central United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:241-269.
2. Arnold, J.G., J.D, Atwood, V.W. Benson, R. Srinivasan, and J.R. Williams, 1998. Potential Environmental and Economic Impacts of Implementing National Conservation Buffer Initiative Sedimentation Control Measures. USDA, NRCS, Resource Assessments Division Working Paper, Temple, Texas.
3. Bin, O. and S. Polasky, 2004. Effects of Flood Hazards on Property Values: Evidence Before and After Hurricane Floyd. Land Economics 80(4):490-500.
4. Blaine, TW. and F.R. Lichtkoppler, 2004. Willingness to Pay for Green Space Preservation: A Comparison of Soil and Water Conservation District Clientele and the General Public Using the Contingent Valuation Method. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59(5):203-208.
5. Brookshire, D.S., M.A. Thayer, W.D. Schulze, and R.C. D'Arge, 1982. Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches. The American Economic Review 72(1):165-177.
6. BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2005. Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumer, U.S. Cite Average. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm.
7. Donnelly, W., 1989. Hedonic Price Analysis of the Effects of a Flood-plain on Property Values. Water Resources Bulletin 24:581-586.
8. Dosskey, M., D. Schultz, and T. Isenhart, 1997. Riparian Buffers for Agricultural Land. Agroforestry Notes 3. National Agroforestry Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station/USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, East Campus-UNL, Lincoln, Nebraska.
9. Fabos, J.G. and J. Ahern, 1996. Greenways: The Beginning of an International Movement. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
10. Forster, B.A., 1989. Valuing Outdoor Recreational Activity: A Methodological Survey. Journal of Leisure Research 21(3):181-201.
11. Freeman III, A.M., 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (Second Edition). Resources for the Future Press, Washington, D.C.
12. Freund, R.J. and R.C. Littell, 1986. SAS System for Regression. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
13. Geoghegan, J., 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1):91-98.
14. Haab, T.C. and K.E. McConnell, 2003. Valuating Environmental and Natural Resources: the Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Northampton, Massachusetts.
15. Hanemann, W.M. and B. Kanninen, 1998. The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response CV Data. Working Paper No. 798, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
16. Harrison, D., G. Smersh, and A. Schwartz, 2001. Environmental Determinants of Housing Prices: the Impact of Flood Zone Status. Journal of Real Estate Research 21:3-20.
17. Heraty, M., 1993. Riparian Buffer Programs: A Guide to Developing and Implementing a Riparian Buffer Program as an Urban Best Management Practice. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, D.C.
18. Holmes, T.P., J.C. Bergstrom, E. Huszar, S.B. Kask, and F. Orr III, 2004. Contingent Valuation, Net Marginal Benefits, and the Scale of Riparian Ecosystem Restoration. Ecological Economics 49(1):19-30.
19. Hurley, T.M., D. Otto, and J. Holtkamp, 1999. Valuation of Water Quality in Livestock Regions: An Application to Rural Watersheds in Iowa. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(1):177-184.
20. Irwin, E.G., 2002. The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics 78(4):465-480.
21. Kramer, R.A., and J.I. Eisen-Hecht, 2002. Estimating the Economic Value of Water Quality Protection in the Catawba River Basin. Water Resources Research 38(9):1182-1191.
22. Lant, C.L. and R.S. Roberts, 1990. Greenbelts in the Cornbelt: Riparian Wetlands, Intrinsic Values, and Market Failure. Environment and Planning A 22:1375-1388.
23. Lichtenberg, E. and R. Zimmerman, 1999. Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Groundwater Protection. Water Resources Research 35(3):833-841.
24. Loomis, J., P. Kent, L. Strange, K. Fausch, and A. Covich, 2000. Measuring the Total Economic Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in an Impaired River Basin: Results From a Contingent Valuation Survey. Ecological Economics 33:103-117.
25. Luttik, J., 2000. The Value of Trees, Water and Open Space as Reflected by House Prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 48(3-4):161-167.
26. Mooney, S. and L.M. Eisgruber, 2001. The Influence of Riparian Protection Measures on Residential Property Values: The Case of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(2/3):273-286.
27. Nijland, H.A., E.E.M.M. Van Kempen, G.P. Van Wee, and J. Jabben, 2003. Costs and Benefits of Noise Abatement Measures. Transport Policy 10:131-140.
28. Qiu, Z. and T. Prato, 1998. Economic Evaluation of Riparian Buffers in an Agricultural Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 34(4):877-890.
29. Ready, R.C., M.C. Berger, and G.G. Blomquist, 1997. Measuring Amenity Benefits From Farmland: Hedonic Pricing vs. Contingent Valuation. Growth and Change 28(4):438-458.
30. Ryan, R.L. and J.T. Walker, 2004. Protecting and Managing Private Farmland and Public Greenways in the Urban Fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:183-198.
31. SAS Institute, Inc., 1999. SAS Online Doc, Version 8. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
32. Shabman, L. and K. Stephenson, 1996. Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective. Land Economics 72(4):433-449.
33. Shilling, J., J. Benjamin, and C. Simians, 1985. Adjusting Comparable Sales for Floodplain Location. The Appraisal Journal 429-436.
34. Shultz, S.D., A.E. Luloff, and D.A. King, 1991. The Contingent and Hedonic Valuation Methods: Techniques for Valuing a Community's Resources. Journal of the Community Development Society 22(2):33-46.
35. Speyrer, J. and W. Ragas, 1991. Housing Prices and Flood Risk: An Examination Using Spline Regression. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 4:395-407.
36. Tajima, K., 2003. New Estimates of the Demand for Urban Green Space: Implications for Valuing the Environmental Benefits of Boston's Big Dig Project. Journal of Urban Affairs 25(5):641-655.
37. Taylor, L.O., 2003. The Hedonic Method. In: A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle and T.C. Brown (Editors). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts.
38. Welsch, D.J., 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. USDA Forest Service Pub. No. NA-PR-07-91, USDA-FS, Radnor, Pennsylvania.
39. Yoo, S.H., 2004. A Note on a Bayesian Approach to a Dichotomous Choice Environmental Valuation Model. Journal of Applied Statistics 31(10):1203-1209.