Environmental Management

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 1354–1365 | Cite as

Valuing the Benefits of Creek Rehabilitation: Building a Business Case for Public Investments in Urban Green Infrastructure

  • Gayathri Devi Mekala
  • Roger N Jones
  • Darla Hatton MacDonald


In an effort to increase the livability of its cities, public agencies in Australia are investing in green infrastructure to improve public health, reduce heat island effects and transition toward water sensitive urban design. In this paper, we present a simple and replicable approach to building a business case for green infrastructure. This approach requires much less time and resources compared to other methods for estimating the social and economic returns to society from such investments. It is a pragmatic, reasonably comprehensive approach that includes socio-demographic profile of potential users and catchment analysis to assess the economic value of community benefits of the investment. The approach has been applied to a case study area in the City of Brimbank, a western suburb of Greater Melbourne. We find that subject to a set of assumptions, a reasonable business case can be made. We estimate potential public benefits of avoided health costs of about AU$75,049 per annum and potential private benefits of AU$3.9 million. The project area is one of the most poorly serviced areas in the municipality in terms of quality open spaces and the potential beneficiaries are from relatively low income households with less than average health status and education levels. The values of cultural (recreational benefits, avoided health costs, and increased property values) and regulating (reduction in heat island effect and carbon sequestration) ecosystem services were quantified that can potentially offset annual maintenance costs.


Ecosystem services Australia Green spaces Health benefits 



The Australian Commonwealth‐funded Collaborative Research Network Program and CSIRO supported a Postdoctoral Fellowship for Dr. Gayathri Devi Mekala as part of the Water Management area within Victoria University. City West Water and Greening the West proposed the case study area, providing key data and feedback. Darren Coughlan especially, provided background information, site history and workshop support. Kathleen Hurley provided support in building the GIS maps and demarcating the project catchment. Brimbank City Council sponsored the community workshop with Adrian Gray investing time and council’s in‐kind contribution. Celeste Young provided workshop methodology and know‐how, organization and support. Finally, Simon Wilkinson and Clare Lombardi provided review comments.


  1. Alaimo K, Packnett E, Miles RA, Kruger DJ (2008) Fruit and vegetable intake among urban community gardeners. J Nutr Educ Behav 40(2):94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AMION Consulting (2008) The economic benefits of green infrastructure: an assessment framework for the North West Regional Development AgencyGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011) Census of Population and Housing Enumerated data. Compiled and presented in, the population experts. Accessed 10 Feb 2013
  4. Australian Government Department of Health (n.d.) Australia’s physical activity guidelines. Accessed 1 June 2013
  5. Bark RH, Osgood DE, Colby BG, Halper EB (2011) How do homebuyers value different types of green space? J Agric Resour Econ 36:395–415Google Scholar
  6. Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (1992) Benefit transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resour Res 28(3):657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bramley M (2008) Putting a price on pollution: assessment of the federal parties’ plans to fight climate change, Pembina Institute. Accessed 13 Mar 2013
  8. Brander L, Koetse M (2013) The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J Environ Manage 92:2763–2773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brimbank City Council 2014 Budget. file:///C:/Users/e5102900/Downloads/Report_7_Attachment_1.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown RR, Clarke JM (2007) Transition to water sensitive urban design: the story of Melbourne, Australia. Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown G, Schebella MF, Weber D (2014) Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landsc Urb Plan 121:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrne J, Sipe N (2010) Green and open space planning for urban consolidation—a review of the literature and best practice. Issues Paper 11Google Scholar
  13. Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and urban planning 68(1):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. City of Brimbank (2012) Benchmark park user satisfaction survey. Report prepared by Integrated Open Space Services for the city of Brimbank based on a survey undertaken from November to December 2012Google Scholar
  15. Coutts AM, Tapper NJ, Beringer J, Loughnan M, Demuzere M (2013) Watering our cities: the capacity for water sensitive urban design to support urban cooling and improve human thermal comfort in the Australian context. Prog Phys Geogr 37(1):2–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Czajkowski M, Scasný M (2010) Study on benefit transfer in an international setting. How to improve welfare estimates in the case of the countries’ income heterogeneity? Ecol Econ 69(12):2409–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dedman R (2011) Greening the West: a public health perspective. Presentation from the Department of Health at the Think Tank for Greening the West project meeting on 18 (2011) City West Water Office. Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunn AD (2010) Siting green infrastructure: legal and policy solutions to alleviate urban poverty and promote healthy communities. BC Envtl Aff L Rev. 37:41Google Scholar
  20. Dunse N, White M, Dehring C (2007) Urban parks, open space and residential property values. RICSGoogle Scholar
  21. Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroeder HW, Rowntree R (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboric 18(5):227–234Google Scholar
  22. EDAW and Sykes Humphreys (2008). Brimbank open space and playground policy and plan. Report for Brimbank City CouncilGoogle Scholar
  23. England J, Paul K, Falkiner R, Theiveyanathan T (2006) Rates of carbon sequestration in environmental plantings in north-central Victoria. In Greening Australia, Veg Futures: The Conference in the Field, Albury, pp 19–23Google Scholar
  24. Espey M, Owusu-Edusei K (2001) Neighborhood parks and residential property values in Greenville, South Carolina. J Agric Appl Econ 33(3):487–492Google Scholar
  25. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Floyd MF, Spengler JO, Maddock JE, Gobster PH, Suau LJ (2008) Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two U.S. cities: an observational study. Am J Prev Med 34(4):299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Francis J, Knuiman M, Giles-Corti B, Wood LJ (2012) Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between public open space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc Sci Med 74(10):1570–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Giles-Corti B (2006) People or places: What should be the target? J Sci Med Sport 9(5):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greening the West—A Regional Approach, Strategic Plan. Accessed 10th Dec 2013
  31. Hansen A, Bi L, Saniotis A, Nitschke M (2013) Vulnerability to extreme heat and climate change: is ethnicity a factor? Global health action 6:21364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hatton MacDonald D, Bark R, MacRae A, Kalivas T, Grandgirard A, Strathearn S (2013) An interview methodology for exploring the values that community leaders assign to multiple-use landscapes. Ecol Soc 18(1):29Google Scholar
  33. Hope CW (2006) The social cost of carbon: what does it actually depend on? Clim Policy 6(5):565–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jansson A (2013) Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 86:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jenerette GD, Harlan SL, Stefanov WL, Martin CA (2011) Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: water, green spaces, and social inequality in Phoenix, USA. Ecol Appl 21(7):2637–2651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson I, Coburn R (2010) Trees for carbon sequestration. Prime Facts, Industry and Investment, NSW GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnston RJ, Rosenberger RS (2010) Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J Econ Surv 24:479–510Google Scholar
  38. Jones RN, Young CK, Handmer J, Keating A, Mekala GD, Sheehan P (2013) Valuing adaptation under rapid change. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, p 184Google Scholar
  39. Krasny ME, Russ A, Tidball KG, Elmqvist T (2013) Civic ecology practices: participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities ecosystem servicesGoogle Scholar
  40. Larondelle N, Haase D (2013) Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural–urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecol Ind 29:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larson K, Casagrande D, Harlan S, Yabiku S (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manage 44(5):921–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee ACK, Maheswaran R (2011) The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health 33(2):212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loughnan M, Nicholls N, Tapper N (2008) Hot spots project—a spatial vulnerability analysis of urban populations to extreme heat eventsGoogle Scholar
  44. Loughnan M, Tapper NJ, Phan T, Lynch K, McInnes A (2013) A spatial vulnerability analysis of urban populations during extreme heat events in Australian capital cities. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold CoastGoogle Scholar
  45. Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, De Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P (2006) Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Commun Health 60(7):587–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mahmoudi P, Hatton MacDonald D, Crossman ND, Summers DM, Van der Hoek J (2013) Space matters: the importance of amenity in planning metropolitan growth. J Agric Resour Econ 57(1):38–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Melbourne Water (2013) Healthy waterways strategy: a Melbourne water strategy for managing rivers, estuaries and wetlands. Melbourne Water, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  48. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. National Public Health Partnership (NPHP) (2005) Be active Australia: a framework for health sector action for physical activity. NPHP, Melbourne (VIC)Google Scholar
  50. Netusil NR, Levin Z, Shandas V, Hart T (2014) Valuing green infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. Landsc Urb Plan 124:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicholls N, Skinner C, Loughnan M, Tapper N (2008) A simple heat alert system for Melbourne Australia. Int J Biometeorol 52(5):375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA) (2008) The Economic Value of Green Infrastructure. Accessed 29 June 2013
  53. Nowak D, Heisler G (2010) Executive summary: air quality effects of urban trees and parks. National Recreation and Park Association, Ashburn VA, pp 35–38Google Scholar
  54. Oh K, Jeong S (2007) Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landsc Urb Plan 82(1):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pothier AJ, Millward AA (2013) Valuing trees on city-center institutional land: an opportunity for urban forest management. J Environ Plan Manage 56(9):1380–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 2013. Median house prices in Sunshine North.
  57. Richardson L, Loomis J, Kroeger T, Casey F (2014) The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecological EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  58. Rusche K (2011) The Value of green infrastructure in urban quality of life. In Schrenk M, Popovich VV, Zeile P (eds) Reviewed paper presented at the proceedings of REAL CORP 2011, Tagungsband, Essen, 18–20 May 2011Google Scholar
  59. Saz-Salazar SD, Rausell-Köster P (2008) A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: dealing with zero responses. Landsc Urb Plan 84(3):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shears I (2012) The urban forest and urban liveability: the Melbourne experience. In Presentation, Monash Sustainable Campus Group August 28
  61. Social Health Atlas of Australia (2011) Accessed 16 April 2013
  62. Stringer R (2007) The benefits of Adelaide’s street trees revisited. In Proceedings of the TREENET 8th national street tree symposium, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  63. Tester J, Baker R (2009) Making the playfields even: evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Prev Med 48(4):316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Timmons D (2013) Social cost of biomass energy from switchgrass in Western Massachusetts. Agric Resour Econ Rev 42(1):176–195Google Scholar
  65. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urb Plan 81(3):167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. UN-Habitat (2010) State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. UN-HABITATGoogle Scholar
  67. Vandermeulen V, Verspecht A, Vermeire B, Van Huylenbroeck G, Gellynck X (2011) The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landsc Urb Plan 103(2):198–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. VicHealth (2011) VicHealth Indicators Survey Report. Accessed 13 Mar 2013
  69. Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) (2011) Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation: A report submitted to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Melbourne. Accessed 16 April 2013
  70. Warburton D, Whitney C, Bredin S (2006) Health benefits of physical activity call on the evidence. Can Med Assoc J 174(6):801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wenting W, Yi R, Hengyu Z (2012) Investigation on temperature dropping effect of urban green space in summer in Hangzhou. Energy Procedia 14:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wong TH (2006) Water sensitive urban design—the journey thus far. Aust J Water Resour 10(3):213–222Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gayathri Devi Mekala
    • 1
    • 3
  • Roger N Jones
    • 1
  • Darla Hatton MacDonald
    • 2
  1. 1.Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic StudiesVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Land and Water, Institute for Land and Water in SocietyCharles Sturt UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations