|
Abstract:
|
Forests, wetlands, and open spaces in urban settings can provide important ecosystem services, such as air and water quality improvement, reduced site runoff, and improved aesthetics. Provision of these services through the conservation of existing natural resources (alternative approaches such as conservation design or low impact development) can reduce the economic and social costs of development and provide benefits for residents. However, implementing new approaches may require investment by developers and acceptance by municipal officials, especially in places where these techniques have not been used. The goal of the work presented here is to assess consumer demand for alternative designs, willingness to pay for these designs on the part of both consumers and developers, and their acceptability by city officials. In one Iowa municipality, we used surveys with contingent valuation, and hedonic modeling methods to measure consumer willingness to pay for neighborhood open spaces and developers' willingness to provide those areas. Consumers in the first municipality were willing to pay an average of US $4,350 for additional open spaces in their subdivisions. Certain natural features increased the value of residents' homes including bordering streams ($21,303) and natural areas ($596/acre). Developers were willing to pay up to an average of $1,915/lot, depending on certain criteria, to provide conservation features. Our current work in a second Iowa municipality expands this approach to allow assessment of individual conservation features using survey methods, spatially explicit hedonic modeling and experimental auction techniques to better estimate value where few conservation features exist. We are also examining receptiveness to these features by municipal officials. Information on the value of conservation features combined with site-specific ecological data can be used by city administrators, planners and developers to facilitate discussions about and implementation of development designs that will best serve the economic and environmental needs of their communities.
|
