Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Valuation of Restored Streams Using Repeat Sales and Instrumental Variables

Environmental and Resource Economics volume 80, pages 199–219 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Urban streams provide use and non-use value to local stakeholders and distant beneficiaries, alike, and play a critical role in maintaining ecosystem health. Due to dense residential development and associated stormwater infrastructure, the services these streams provide are at risk and likely to degrade as additional urban growth occurs. To combat degraded stream services and improve environmental quality, significant efforts to restore impaired streams are increasingly common. However, these restorations are costly, making estimates of the associated benefits critical to evaluating restoration policies. Using a repeat sales approach and instrumenting for the endogeneity of site selection we provide causal evidence of housing value capitalization of stream restoration projects to nearby property values. We find a local average treatment effect of 11% in property appreciation for our most inclusive distance buffer and show that ignoring endogenous assignment of restoration leads to bias on the scale of an order of magnitude in these estimates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. Costs for restoration projects in Baltimore County average $2.1 million and $599 per linear foot.

  2. Frequent flash flooding can alter channel and floodplain structure, cause channel incision and widening, exposing banks to bare ground promoting undesireable invasive plants and deposits from upstream debris.

  3. Moran’s I tests show correlation in prices but not in the residuals of either the spatial fixed effect or GAM specifications.

  4. Gaining in popularity, stream mitigation banking (SMB) allows developers to degrade watershed ecosystems so long as they “offset” the damage by restoring damaged streams elsewhere (Lave et al. 2008).

  5. Discount rate of 2%.

References

  • Bailey MJ, Muth RF, Nourse HO (1963) A regression method for real estate price index construction. J Am Stat Assoc 58(304):933–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltimore County (2012) Phase II watershed implementation plan. Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability. https://mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/FINAL_PhaseII_Report_Docs/Final_County_WIP_Narratives/Baltimore_County_WIPII_2012.pdf

  • Bergstrom JC, Loomis JB (2017) Economic valuation of river restoration: an analysis of the valuation literature and its uses in decision-making. Water Resour Econ 17:9–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J et al (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308(5722):636–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch DF, Brinsfield RB, Magnien RE (2001) Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture. J Environ Qual 30(2):303–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case B, Colwell PF, Leishman C, Watkins C (2006) The impact of environmental contamination on condo prices: a hybrid repeat sale/hedonic approach. Real Estate Econ 34(1):77–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesapeake Bay Foundation (2018) The economic importance of the bay. http://www.cbf.org/issues/what-we-have-to-lose/economic-importance-of-the-bay. Cited 13 Feb 2019

  • Collins A, Rosenberger R, Fletcher J (2005) The economic value of stream restoration. Water Resour Res 41(2):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016) Chesapeake Bay TMDL fact sheet. https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl/chesapeake-bay-tmdl-fact-sheet. Cited Sept 18 2018

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017) Streams. https://www.epa.gov/cwa404/streams. Cited 18 Sept 2018

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2018) Permitting to meet a total maximum daily load (TMDL). https://www.epa.gov/npdes/permitting-meet-total-maximum-dailyload-tmdl. Cited Sept 18 2018

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019) Nutrient pollution-where this occurs: lakes and rivers. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/where-occurs-lakes-and-rivers. Cited Feb 12 2021

  • Grimm NB, Sheibley RW, Crenshaw CL, Dahm CN, Roach WJ, Zeglin LH (2005) N retention and transformation in urban streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 24(3):626–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groffman PM, Boulware NJ, Zipperer WC, Pouyat RV, Band LE, Colosimo MF (2002) Soil nitrogen cycle processes in urban riparian zones. Environ Sci Technol 36(21):4547–4552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haab TC, Interis MG, Petrolia DR, Whitehead JC (2013) From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s critique of contingent valuation. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 35(4):593–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen R, Palmquist R (1980) The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Am Econ Rev 70(3):474–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr F (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49(1):19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrad M, Noelwah NR, Klaus M, Morzillo Anita T, Alan YJ (2018) Urban stream restoration projects: Do project phase distance and type affect nearby property sale prices?. Land Econ 94(3):368–385. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.94.3.368

  • Johnston RJ, Magnusson G, Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ (2002) The economics of wetland ecosystem restoration and mitigation: combining economic and ecological indicators to prioritize salt marsh restoration actions. Am J Agric Econ 84(5):1362–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr JR, Toth LA, Dudley DR (1985) Fish communities of Midwestern rivers: a history of degradation. Bioscience 35(2):90–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaushal SS, Lewis WM, McCutchan JH (2006) Land use change and nitrogen enrichment of a rocky mountain watershed. Ecol Appl 16(1):299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Mayer PM, Striz E, Gold AJ (2008) Effects of stream restoration on denitrification in an urbanizing watershed. Ecol Appl 18(3):789–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaza N, BenDor TK (2013) The land value impacts of wetland restoration. J Environ Manag 127:289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney MA, Wilcock PR, Hobbs BF, Flores NE, Martínez DC (2012) Is urban stream restoration worth it? J Am Water Resour Assoc (JAWRA) 48(3):603–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave R, Robertson MW, Doyle MW (2008) Why you should pay attention to stream mitigation banking. Ecol Restor 26(4):287–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33(1):103–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupi F, Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP (2002) The economics of wetland ecosystem restoration and mitigation: the economic equivalency of drained and restored wetlands in Michigan. Am J Agric Econ 84(5):1355–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmquist D (2009) How big is the bay? Virginia Institute of Marine Science. http://www.vims.edu/bayinfo/faqs/estuary_size.php. Cited Sept 18 2018

  • Maryland Department of the Environment (2012) Maryland’s phase II watershed implementation plan for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Maryland. http://perma.cc/P3WK-H5XA. Cited Sept 18 2018

  • Michalak AM, Anderson EJ, Beletsky D, Boland S, Bosch NS, Bridgeman TB, Chaffin JD et al (2013) Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(16):6448–6452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (2003) 2013 Countywide stream protection strategy. Watershed Management Division https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/Resources/Files/ReportsandPublications/ater/Countywide%20Implementation%20Strategy/Countywide-stream-protectionstrategy-03.pdf. Cited Sept 18 2018

  • Mooij WM, Hülsmann S, De SenerpontDomis LN, Nolet BA, Bodelier PLE, Boers PCM, DionisioPires LM et al (2005) The impact of climate change on lakes in the Netherlands: a review. Aquat Ecol 39(4):381–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller JM, Swaffar W, Nielsen EA, Springer AE, Masek Lopez S (2013) Estimating the value of watershed services following forest restoration. Water Resour Res 49(4):1773–1781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netusil NR, Jarrad M, Moeltner K (2019) Research note: the effect of stream restoration project attributes on property sale prices. Landsc Urban Plan 185:158–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olea JLM, Pflueger C (2013) A robust test for weak instruments. J Bus Econ Stat 31(3):358–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Filoso S, Fanelli RM (2014) From ecosystems to ecosystem services: stream restoration as ecological engineering. Ecol Eng 65:62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmquist RB (1982) Measuring environmental effects on property values without hedonic regressions. J Urban Econ 11(3):333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmquist RB (2005) Chapter 16: property value models. The handbook of environmental economics

  • Pander J, Geist J (2013) Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecol Ind 30:106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. In: Urban ecology: an international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature Springer US.

  • Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL, Tank JL, Marti E et al (2001) Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292(5514):86–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett ST, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Boone CG, Groffman PM, Irwin E, Kaushal SS, Marshall V, McGrath BP, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV (2011) Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J Environ Manag 92(3):331–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polyakov M, Fogarty J, Zhang F, Pandit R, Pannell DJ (2017) The value of restoring urban drains to living streams. Water Resour Econ 17:42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRISM Climate Group (2004) Oregon State University. http://prism.oregonstate.edu

  • Robson BJ, Hamilton DP (2003) Summer flow event induces a cyanobacterial bloom in a seasonal western Australian estuary. Mar Freshw Res 54(2):139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen S (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J Polit Econ 82(1):34–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A, Newburn D, Towe C (2018) Household willingness to pay for stream restoration on private and public lands: evidence from the Baltimore metropolitan region. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the 2018 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., August 5–August 7

  • Ryu YH, Smith J, Bou-Zeid E, Bleck M (2016) The influence of land surface heterogeneities on heavy convective rainfall in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Region. Mon Weather Rev 144:553–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz ET, Johnston RJ, Segerson K, Besedin EY (2012) Integrating ecology and economics for restoration: using ecological indicators in valuation of ecosystem services. Restor Ecol 20(3):304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Smith J (2015) The Flashiest Watersheds in the Contiguous United States. J Hydrometeorol 16:2365–2381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RF, Hawley RJ, Neale MW, Vietz GJ, Diaz-Pascacio E, Herrmann J, Lovell AC et al (2016) Urban stream renovation: incorporating societal objectives to achieve ecological improvements. Freshwater Science 35(1):364–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soranno PA, Hubler SL, Carpenter SR, Lathrop RC (1996) Phosphorus loads to surface waters: a simple model to account for spatial pattern of land use. Ecol Appl 6(3):865–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner CF, Loomis JB (1995) Estimating the benefits of urban stream restoration using the hedonic price method. Rivers 5(4):267–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg. Cambridge University Press

  • Von Graevenitz K, Panduro TE (2015) An alternative to the standard spatial econometric approaches in hedonic house price models. Land Econ 91(2):386–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24(3):706–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltert F, Schläpfer F (2010) Landscape amenities and local development: a review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecol Econ 70(2):141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf D, Klaiber HA (2017) Bloom and bust: toxic algae’s impact on nearby property values. Ecol Econ 135:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf D, Georgic W, Klaiber HA (2017) Reeling in the damages: harmful algal blooms’ impact on Lake Erie’s recreational fishing industry. J Environ Manag 199:148–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf D, Chen W, Gopalakrishnan S, Haab T, Klaiber HA (2019) The economic impacts of harmful algal blooms and E. Coli on recreational behavior in Lake Erie. Land Economics (Forthcoming)

  • Yeakley JA, Ervin D, Chang H, Granek EF, Dujon V, Shandas V, Brown D (2016) Ecosystem services of streams and rivers. In: River science: research and management for the 21st century. Wiley Blackwell

  • Zhang W, Sohngen B (2018) Do US anglers care about harmful algal blooms? A discrete choice experiment of Lake Erie recreational anglers. Am J Agric Econ 100(3):868–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, 303A W.B. Young Building, 1376 Storrs Road, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA

    Charles Towe

  2. Department of Agricultural Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    H. Allen Klaiber

  3. Center for Economics, US Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC, 20548, USA

    Joe Maher

  4. Department of Economics and Business, Ohio Wesleyan University, 218 RW Corns Building 78 S Sandusky Street, Delaware, OH, 43015, USA

    Will Georgic

Authors
  1. Charles Towe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Allen Klaiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joe Maher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Will Georgic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Towe.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Towe, C., Klaiber, H.A., Maher, J. et al. A Valuation of Restored Streams Using Repeat Sales and Instrumental Variables. Environ Resource Econ 80, 199–219 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00575-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00575-9

Keywords

  • Stream restoration
  • Non-market valuation
  • Repeat sales
  • Instrumental variables

Search

Navigation