IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v23y2017icp209-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Longitudinal analysis of ecosystem services' socioeconomic benefits: Wastewater treatment projects in a desert city

Author

Listed:
  • Hagen, Bjoern
  • Pijawka, David
  • Prakash, Mihir
  • Sharma, Shreyash

Abstract

This paper addresses the socioeconomic dimensions and public perceptions of ecosystem services offered by “green” wastewater infrastructure in a desert city over 20 years, taking an in-depth look at the valuation of these services. While there was significant controversy and public conflict over the location of the original wastewater treatment facility and an initial decrease in property values, the average assessed property values in the study area increased relatively quickly. Within five years, they met and exceeded the average property values in the Metropolitan Phoenix Area. Our longitudinal study found that anticipated nuisance effects did not materialize with the operation of the facility and that residents were satisfied or very satisfied with the area's quality of life as well as its environmental quality. The results also show that the co-benefits of artificial wastewater wetlands and green recreational space associated with the use of effluent and groundwater recharge enhanced developments around these facilities, making these places socially acceptable. Finally, we determined that proximity to views of water and parks, especially in desert cities, adds substantial value. Home prices showed remarkable resiliency in neighborhoods around constructed water projects that filter effluent, provide enhanced place-making aesthetics and recharge the groundwater aquifer, the most critical ecosystem service.

Suggested Citation

  • Hagen, Bjoern & Pijawka, David & Prakash, Mihir & Sharma, Shreyash, 2017. "Longitudinal analysis of ecosystem services' socioeconomic benefits: Wastewater treatment projects in a desert city," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 209-217.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:23:y:2017:i:c:p:209-217
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616301814
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. Allen Klaiber & V. Kerry Smith, 2013. "Quasi Experiments, Hedonic Models, and Estimating Trade-offs for Local Amenities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 413-431.
    2. Gawande, Kishore & Jenkins-Smith, Hank, 2001. "Nuclear Waste Transport and Residential Property Values: Estimating the Effects of Perceived Risks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 207-233, September.
    3. Polyakov, Maksym & Pannell, David J. & Pandit, Ram & Tapsuwan, Sorada & Park, Geoff, 2013. "Valuing Environmental Assets on Rural Lifestyle Properties," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 159-175, April.
    4. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Scarlett, Lynn & Boyd, James W., 2011. "Ecosystem Services: Quantification, Policy Applications, and Current Federal Capabilities," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-13, Resources for the Future.
    7. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    8. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    9. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    10. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    11. Anderson, Soren T. & West, Sarah E., 2006. "Open space, residential property values, and spatial context," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 773-789, November.
    12. de Wit, Martin & van Zyl, Hugo & Crookes, Doug & Blignaut, James & Jayiya, Terence & Goiset, Valerie & Mahumani, Brian, 2012. "Including the economic value of well-functioning urban ecosystems in financial decisions: Evidence from a process in Cape Town," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 38-44.
    13. Abbott, Joshua K. & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2010. "Is all space created equal? Uncovering the relationship between competing land uses in subdivisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 296-307, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Ilir Nase & Jim Berry & Alastair Adair, 2016. "Impact of quality-led design on real estate value: a spatiotemporal analysis of city centre apartments," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 309-331, October.
    3. Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2009. "Impacts of an Iron and Steel Plant on Residential Property Values," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1421-1436, September.
    4. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    5. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2018. "도이모이 이후 베트남의 주거 이동, 선택, 가격 결정요인 연구: 호치민시 사례 중심으로," OSF Preprints 6kdfy, Center for Open Science.
    6. Sanglim Yoo & John E. Wagner, 2016. "A review of the hedonic literatures in environmental amenities from open space: a traditional econometric vs. spatial econometric model," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 141-166, March.
    7. Delores Conway & Christina Li & Jennifer Wolch & Christopher Kahle & Michael Jerrett, 2010. "A Spatial Autocorrelation Approach for Examining the Effects of Urban Greenspace on Residential Property Values," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 150-169, August.
    8. Radosław Trojanek, 2016. "The impact of green areas on dwelling prices: the case of Poznań city," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 4(2), pages 27-35.
    9. Marta Sylla & Tadeusz Lasota & Szymon Szewrański, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities in Peri-Urban Areas: Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Seth B. Payton & John R. Ottensmann, 2015. "The implicit price of urban public parks and greenways: a spatial-contextual approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(3), pages 495-512, March.
    11. Zygmunt, Robert & Gluszak, Michal, 2015. "Forest proximity impact on undeveloped land values: A spatial hedonic study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 82-89.
    12. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Louis Gerhardus Lategan & Zene Steynberg & Elizelle Juanee Cilliers & Sarel Stephanus Cilliers, 2022. "Economic Valuation of Urban Green Spaces across a Socioeconomic Gradient: A South African Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.
    14. Ida Ferrara & Stephen McComb & Paul Missios, 2007. "Local Willingness-to-Pay Estimates for the Remediation of the Sydney Tar Ponds in Nova Scotia," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 33(4), pages 441-458, December.
    15. vom Hofe, Rainer & Mihaescu, Oana & Boorn, Mary Lynne, 2017. "Do urban parks really benefit homeowners economically? Evidence from a spatial hedonic study of the Cincinnati park system," HUI Working Papers 122, HUI Research.
    16. Qilong Shao & Li Peng & Yichan Liu & Yongchang Li, 2023. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Urban Ecosystem Services: Structure, Evolution, and Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    17. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Chuanwang Sun & Xiaochun Meng & Shuijun Peng, 2017. "Effects of Waste-to-Energy Plants on China’s Urbanization: Evidence from a Hedonic Price Analysis in Shenzhen," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Sharma, Bijay P. & Cho, Seong-Hoon, 2021. "Analyzing how forest-based amenity values and carbon storage benefits affect spatial targeting for conservation investment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    20. Irwin, Nicholas B. & Klaiber, H. Allen & Irwin, Elena G., 2017. "Do Stormwater Basins Generate co-Benefits? Evidence from Baltimore County, Maryland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 202-212.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:23:y:2017:i:c:p:209-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.