Urban stream restoration in Korea: Design considerations and residents' willingness to pay

Abstract Urban streams in Korea, which until recently were channeled and served only flood control functions, have increasingly attracted attention for their potential as urban parks or residential open spaces. Consequently, urban stream restoration has been booming and a number of restoration projects have been carried out since 1990s. However, increased flash flood risks created by climate change are reigniting controversies regarding the vulnerability of restored streams to flooding. Furthermore, implementation issues including landscape/greening and facility design considerations have been under-investigated. This study explores these ongoing issues associated with urban stream restoration in Korea, as well as attempts to estimate consumers’ willingness to pay for the restoration process. In particular, this study estimates the partial values of natural and recreational attributes of urban streams, which can be improved through various types of urban stream restoration measures, using conjoint analysis. The findings indicate that improving natural attributes by transforming existing concrete-encased streams into natural state streams increases the value of an urban stream by about 50 USD per household. Improving recreational attributes, either by creating a walkway where there is no bank or by expanding facilities to the existing walkway, increases the value of an urban stream by about 25 USD per household. These estimated partial values of urban stream attributes imply the relative importance of each attribute and suggest policy implications for priority setting and trade-offs in urban restoration projects.

[2]  Bente Halvorsen,et al.  Comparing contingent valuation, conjoint analysis and decision panels : An application to the valuation of reduced damages from air pollution in Norway , 1996 .

[3]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation , 1996 .

[4]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis , 1996 .

[5]  Guy Garrod,et al.  The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study , 1997 .

[6]  P. Nienhuis,et al.  River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergism? , 2001, Hydrobiologia.

[7]  W. Adams,et al.  Perceptions of river managers of institutional constraints on floodplain restoration in the UK , 2005 .

[8]  Cleve E. Willis,et al.  Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management , 2000 .

[9]  C. Ryan,et al.  Collaborative Watershed Planning in Washington State: Implementing the Watershed Planning Act , 2005 .

[10]  M. Perrow,et al.  Handbook of ecological restoration , 2002 .

[11]  Jason R. W. Merrick,et al.  Using Value-Focused Thinking to Improve Watersheds , 2004 .

[12]  Guy Garrod,et al.  Using Contingent Ranking to Estimate the Loss of Amenity Value for Inland Waterways from Public Utility Service Structures , 1998 .

[13]  V. Foster,et al.  Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach , 2008 .

[14]  Richard M. Johnson.  Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values , 1974 .

[15]  Stephen M. Wheeler,et al.  Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability , 2000 .

[16]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[17]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[18]  P. Calow,et al.  River restoration: selected extracts from the Rivers handbook , 1996 .

[19]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[20]  S. D. Cooper,et al.  Rivers and streams. , 1996 .

[21]  Hyoseop Woo,et al.  Hydraulic resistance of some selected vegetation in open channel Flows , 2008 .

[22]  Robert D. Brown,et al.  An ecological framework for the planning, design and management of urban river greenways , 1995 .

[23]  V. T. Chow.  Open-channel hydraulics , 1959 .

[24]  Hyoseop Woo,et al.  Situation and prospect of ecological engineering for stream restoration in Korea , 2005 .

[25]  Peter Calow,et al.  River conservation and management , 1992 .

[26]  J. Mackenzie.  Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting , 1990 .

[27]  K. Gregory,et al.  Urban stream channel hazards , 2002 .

[28]  Shoichiro Asakawa,et al.  Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan , 2004 .

[29]  Stephen Farber,et al.  Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis , 2000 .

[30]  Wesley D. Seitz,et al.  Measuring Water Quality Benefits , 1986 .

[31]  C. Bullock,et al.  Valuing Urban Green Space: Hypothetical Alternatives and the Status Quo , 2008 .

[32]  John Mackenzie,et al.  A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models , 1993 .

[33]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[34]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[35]  P. Bolund,et al.  Ecosystem services in urban areas , 1999 .

[36]  Thomas J. Lareau,et al.  Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: An application of contingent ranking technique , 1989 .

[37]  O. L. Gilbert,et al.  The Ecology of Urban Habitats , 1989, Springer Netherlands.