Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Vermont. Their main objectives were to use a hedonic model to provide a measure of water <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />quality's influences on property values and to estimate the benefits from water quality <br />improvements. Young and Teti concluded that the largest impact of water pollution in St. <br />Albans' Bay affected residents and recreationists. Benefits of water quality improvements, <br />therefore, would be higher property values and enhanced recreation, as well as improved <br />wildlife habitat and environmental aesthetics. One significant insight from this study is that <br />property value data reflect only those benefits to property owners. When evaluating the <br />benefits of water quality improvements, it is critical to include other potential benefits as <br />well. <br /> <br />A more recent paper dealing with urban water management problems is a study by <br />Kriesel et al. (1993) of the benefits of shore erosion protection in Ohio's Lake Erie housing <br />market. The purpose of their study was to measure the discount of erosion-prone lakeshore . <br />properties using hedonic price analysis. They point out that detennining the benefits of <br /> <br />erosion protection is difficult because private and social benefits differ and market <br />information is lacking. Their ObjeCtives were to determine how erosion and protection <br />devices affect property prices and to calculate the benefits of such measures. The authors <br />concluded that an average erosion control device lasting eight years would raise property <br />value by $5,500 from an initial time of twenty years to setback (years until shoreline <br />property is eroded up to the house), while a device lasting twenty years would add $11,000 <br />to property value. These benefits accrue to private property owners-other social benefits are <br />not mentioned thus total benefits of erosion protection may be understated. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6 <br />