Search

This study examines the impact of urban waterway conditions on property market prices. In general, similar revealed preference studies typically focus on identifying the value associated with changes in attributes such as riparian vegetation or water quality. Using an index that classifies waterways based on the vegetation and channel conditions, we analyse both attributes. Our spatial hedonic property price model findings indicate that buyers are willing to pay premiums ranging from 2.7% to 8.5%, depending on vegetation and channel conditions. However, when the proximity to the waterway is accounted for, we found that properties adjacent to the highest‐ranked vegetation and channel conditions attract a higher premium of 12.8%. Overall, the implicit marginal effects for the distance–condition interaction variables indicate that for lower‐ranked waterway conditions, there is a relative aversion to being adjacent to waterways. The results suggest that there are significant gains to be realised from removing concrete‐lined channels and replacing them with stones for banks, or re‐creating unmodified channels, even if there is only limited scope for increasing vegetation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Waterway restoration in urban areas can be an important environmental policy topic. However, there have been few studies of monetary benefits to help justify expenditures and inform priority setting for remediation works. We investigated values for improving river health in two catchments in Sydney, Australia: the Cooks Catchment, which is smaller and urban-based, and the Georges Catchment, which is larger and located in both urban and periurban areas. Using choice experiments, we found that households are willing to pay Australian Dollars (AUD) 10.34 per year for 5 years in the Cooks Catchment, and AUD 2.64 in the Georges Catchment, to restore 1 km of urban waterway. We found that willingness to pay is moderated by the time until project outcomes are achieved. Comparison with typical costs of urban stream remediation suggested that there is a broad range of projects that will produce positive net benefits in the Cooks Catchment, whereas in the Georges Catchment the economically viable projects are those with lower cost and that can achieve their outcomes relatively quickly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]