Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Urban Waterways and their Value Bethany Cooper, Lin Crase, and Michael Burton Contributed presentation at the 60th AARES Annual Conference, Canberra, ACT, 2-5 February 2016 Copyright 2016 by Author(s). All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Urban Waterways and their Value AARES February 2016 Bethany Cooper [email protected] Lin Crase [email protected] Michael Burton [email protected] Melbourne Water Melbourne Water is a key funding partner in the “The Value of Melbourne’s Waterways” project. DELWP – extension to the work Melbourne Water is the waterways manager for the project area and collects an annual charge to invest in environmental and social values along waterways. This study allows Melbourne Water to: Inform planning and management outcomes for waterways Justifying expenditure, particularly where benefits not easily measurable (e.g. amenity) 2 Ecological value varies Source: Index of Stream Conditions 2013 3 Amenity varies 4 The challenge How to meaningfully measure amenity and ecological values across multiple waterways? Measures that are: Useful at different scales Can be transposed to different sites Are meaningful to managers and planners trying to balance benefits and costs of actions 5 Project Phases Conceptual Framework Delphi Study - Experts Focus Groups - Customers Choice Experiment Framework Ecological Value Near Natural Ecologically Healthy High Ecological value and Low Amenity value High Ecological value and High Amenity value Amenity Value Highly Modified Low Ecological value and Low Amenity value Sustainable Amenity Low Ecological value and High Amenity value Operationalising framework Choice experiment WTP to redistribute existing distribution, particularly reduce highly modified quadrant (south-west quadrant) Gives MRS for changes in ecological and amenity values at a city-wide scale Quantity translated back to Management Units (by implication related to km of waterway in specific condition) Current Situation Improvements in Waterways Redistribution of categories Valuing Waterways SEW; YVW; CWW; Western Water: sample composition proportionate to retailers customer base Filters: Customers of Melbourne Water; 18 and above; jointly or solely responsible for household bills 22 May: 15 June (Paused and staggered) Sample size Pilot 1 80 respondents Pilot 2 72 respondents Main data collection 704 respondents Observations Final Modelling 10,864 Sample Choice Set WATERWAYS WHICH OPTION WOULD YOU CHOOSE? Option 1: Current Situation COST Near Natural Ecologically Healthy Sustainable Amenity Highly Modified High Ecological Value Low Amenity Value High Ecological Value High Amenity Value Low Ecological Value High Amenity Value High Ecological Value High Amenity Value Total Extra cost for 1 year – paid quarterly (every 3 months) 27% 9% 32% 32% $0 40% 17% 35% 8% $20 in total (24% less) (equal to $5 each quarter for one year only) Option 2: Improved Waterways (13% more) (8% more) (3% more) Results Mixed Logit Model - random parameter specified for the status quo and the Environmental Attitude covariate interacted with the waterway attributes WTP for a 1 percentage point increase in waterways in category, measured at mean and ± 1 SD of the Environmental Attitude variable Distribution of WTP Key Findings Average respondent WTP for Ecological Value Average respondent WTP for Amenity Value if it also includes Ecological Value Average respondent is not WTP for Amenity Value alone, but sub groups have a tendency to Concluding Remarks Having a consistent framework improves prospect of limiting over or under provision This study has used new and sophisticated approaches This is a sound basis for making choices Further research will help validate measures and improve accuracy of policy choices Thank you Bethany Cooper: [email protected] Finding the Status Quo Samples: 64 segments based on the Management Units identified in Melbourne Waters Healthy Waterways Strategy (2013) Ecological: ISC3 (2010) data used Score of 30 (moderate = 25-34) and above equals positive ecological value (i.e. top 2 quadrants) Multiple waterways (creeks/tributaries) may be recorded under each management unit. The average ISC score within each management unit used • Amenity: Many factors determine amenity value (e.g. visitation, odours, facilities) Amenity prioritisation sites used from MW’s Healthy Waterways Strategy Management units in strategy either are or aren't (yes or no binary) prioritised for amenity. Management units that have been prioritised for amenity are grouped into right side of quadrants Mixed Logit