Scenic amenity in the area
WTP (through property pricing) for proximity to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Extraction of groundwater
Specific Value Type measured
Scenic amenity
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$6976 per property per additional wetland
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$6,976.00 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
suburb, land size, numbers of types of rooms in house, age of house, roof type, neighbourhood attributes, wetland attributes Study DetailsValue type applicable
Amenity
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
Average
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Hedonic pricing
Analysis model
step-wise regression
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
1741
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Northern metropolitan Perth, Western Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Properties in northern metropolitan Perth
Range in years of data
2005-2006
Mean sample age
n/a
Percent Male
n/a
Percent Female
n/a
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationCapitalized amenity value of urban wetlands: a hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western AustraliaTapsun, S., Ingram, G., Burton, M., Brennan, D. 2009. Capitalized amenity value of urban wetlands: a hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53: 527-545.
Citation
Tapsuwan, et al. 2009
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
Close proximity to a wetland is defined as within 1.5km |
||||||
WTP (through property pricing) for proximity to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Extraction of groundwater
Specific Value Type measured
Scenic amenity
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$42.40 per property per metre
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$42.40 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
suburb, land size, numbers of types of rooms in house, age of house, roof type, neighbourhood attributes, wetland attributes Study DetailsValue type applicable
Amenity
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
Average
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Hedonic pricing
Analysis model
step-wise regression
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
1741
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Northern metropolitan Perth, Western Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Properties in northern metropolitan Perth
Range in years of data
2005-2006
Mean sample age
n/a
Percent Male
n/a
Percent Female
n/a
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationCapitalized amenity value of urban wetlands: a hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western AustraliaTapsun, S., Ingram, G., Burton, M., Brennan, D. 2009. Capitalized amenity value of urban wetlands: a hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53: 527-545.
Citation
Tapsuwan, et al. 2009
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
Calculations are based on the average distance between the properties sampled and nearby wetlands, which is 943m. This translates to approximately $474 per 1% reduction in wetland distance (equivalent of 9.4m). |
||||||
WTP to preserve the existing view of coastal dunes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park, Western Australia, by moving construction of a wind farm to a remote inland site. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Construction of a wind farm
Specific Value Type measured
Scenic amenity
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$36.16 per person, one-off payment
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$36.16 AUD
WTP measure
Net WTP (see additional notes)
95% confidence interval (upper)
$47.50 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$24.83 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
n/a Study DetailsValue type applicable
Amenity
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
Average
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Contingent valuation
Analysis model
Restricted spike model
Modelled number of individuals
96
Modelled number of observations
96
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Jurien Bay Marine Park, Western Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
26% local residents (individuals living within 100km of marine park); 74% non-local visitors to marine park (majority West Australians)
Range in years of data
2005
Mean sample age
40
Percent Male
54
Percent Female
46
Mean sample income
40000
Income units
AUD/year
PublicationThe Social Value of Seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: An assessment of Positive and Negative Preferences for Change.McCartney, A. 2006. The Social Value of Seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: An assessment of Positive and Negative Preferences for Change.
Citation
McCartney, 2006
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Journal of Agricultural Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
The study considers positive and negative preferences for constructing a wind farm in the coastal dunes at Jurien Bay. Respondents are asked how much they are willing to pay to have the windfarm in the dunes if they prefer it to be there, or how much they would pay to move the windfarm elsewhere if they prefer to maintain the current state of the dunes. The net WTP was calculated allowing for the positive and negative preferences for the windfarm to be located in either place. The net WTP indicates that preserving the current amenity of the dunes is more valuable. The payment was specified as a total sum collected over a 12 month period via an electricity bill, which can be interpreted as a one-off payment. |