IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i12p5089-d1415276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Benefits Valuation of Dynamic Green Roof Stormwater Retention

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Cook

    (Rogers Behavioral Health, Oconomowoc, WI 53066, USA)

  • Yunsun Huh

    (Department of Economics, College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, WI 53190, USA)

  • Matthew Winden

    (Department of Economics, College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, WI 53190, USA)

Abstract

This study evaluates the public benefits associated with different green roof systems to manage stormwater runoff in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. An internet-based stated-preference conjoint choice experiment was administered to residents of Milwaukee to ascertain the public benefits value of different potential green roof infrastructure programs. This study contributes to the literature on the public benefits of green roofs in two ways. First, this study examined the perceived value of dynamic stormwater retention facilitated using “smart” green roofs with access to real-time weather data versus traditional extensive green roofs. Second, a wider range of public benefits associated with green roofs, including improved water quality, air quality, biodiversity, and urban heat island effects, were estimated. Estimation of these public benefits allows for determination of the optimal public policy for supporting green roofs as a component of decentralized stormwater management in municipalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Cook & Yunsun Huh & Matthew Winden, 2024. "Public Benefits Valuation of Dynamic Green Roof Stormwater Retention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:12:p:5089-:d:1415276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/12/5089/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/12/5089/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521747387 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    3. Kondo, M.C. & Low, S.C. & Henning, J. & Branas, C.C., 2015. "The impact of green stormwater infrastructure installation on surrounding health and safety," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(3), pages 114-121.
    4. Ando, Amy Whritenour & Netusil, Noelwah R., 2013. "A Tale of Many Cities: Using Low-Impact Development to Reduce Urban Water Pollution," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-6.
    5. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521766555 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Tajana Čop & Mario Njavro, 2022. "Application of Discrete Choice Experiment in Agricultural Risk Management: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    4. Andrew Meyer, 2013. "Estimating discount factors for public and private goods and testing competing discounting hypotheses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 133-173, April.
    5. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    6. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    7. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    9. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
    10. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    11. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    12. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    13. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    14. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    15. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences: The Case of Junior Nursing Jobs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 802-809, June.
    16. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    19. Mahbubur Meenar & Jordan P. Howell & Devon Moulton & Shane Walsh, 2020. "Green Stormwater Infrastructure Planning in Urban Landscapes: Understanding Context, Appearance, Meaning, and Perception," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
    20. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:12:p:5089-:d:1415276. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.