Search

In this paper, we assess residents' preferences for different options of large-scale water sensitive urban improvement of a heritage site in Melbourne, the Main Outfall Sewer (MOS) reserve. We use a hedonic pricing analysis and a discrete choice experiment to understand the benefits associated with improving the MOS reserve. We find that there are significant non-market benefits associated with various options, both in terms of the potential to reflect increases in house value and in terms of people's willingness to pay for improvements in amenity and environmental quality. This information will contribute to determining investment options for this important heritage site. Importantly, we demonstrate the combination of the hedonic and stated choice willingness to pay estimates to provide an aggregate estimate of welfare, revealing a useful approach for greenspace valuation applications where multiple non-market values should be considered. • Non-market valuation of improvement options for a decommissioned heritage site in Melbourne. • Hedonic analysis to capture use values of residents living adjacent to the site. • Complementary choice experiment to capture use and non-use values of residents. • An aggregation method proposed to combine values from both methods. • The aggregate benefit of a high-level upgrade could be as high as $152 million (AUD). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia’s system of tropical rivers constitutes one of the largest and least changed drainage networks in the world. However increasing demand for water in parts of Australia, along with ongoing drought, is driving pressure to develop these rivers. This paper reports the results of a choice experiment (CE) to assess the benefits of different management strategies for three tropical rivers in northern Australia: the Daly, Mitchell and Fitzroy Rivers. The CE was carried out using a survey mailed to Australian urban populations. The results showed that 90% of Australians were willing to pay a once-off payment for the management of tropical rivers. Respondents who had visited or lived near the rivers were willing to pay more for cultural, recreational and environmental services than those who had not. Respondents classed as ‘developers’, who made up only 4% of the 684 respondents, considered a substantial income from irrigated agriculture as important. Unlike ‘environmentalists’ and ‘neutrals’, ‘developers’ were unwilling to pay for high quality recreational fishing or for having floodplains in good environmental condition. All groups, however, were willing to pay for high cultural values. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]