Download PDF

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