Spring 2015Final Report: Potential Economic Impacts of Restoring the Malden River

2

Team Members

Ryan Bailey1

Agustin Botteron2

Susie Bresney2,3

Sondra Lipshutz2,3

Tim Grant1,4

1Tufts University, Urban Environmental Policy and Planning Department (UEP)

2Tufts University, Civil and Environmental Engineering3Tufts University, Water System Science and Society (WSSS)

Program4Tufts University, The Fletcher School

Client

Mystic River Watershed Organization

Instructors

Penn LohChristine Cousineau

Teaching Assistant

Suveer Bahirwani

Acknowledgements

The UEP Field Projects/WSSS Practicum team, in short “Team MyRWA”would like to extend its appreciation to all those who contributed to our efforts. We are particularly grateful to Patrick Herron and Beth MacBlane from the Mystic River Watershed Association and Rusty Russell from the Friends of the Malden River for their support, guidance and feedback throughout the development of this project.

We would like to thank to each and everyone of the interviewees who accepted to participate on this project and provided insighful information.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge the instructors, teaching assistants and the entire staff from UEP Department and Water: Systems, Science and Society Program at Tufts University

3

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

4

ContentsABSTRACT 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

INTRODUCTION 8Research Team 8Statement of objectives 8

BACKGROUND 9Study Area 9

Definitions 9Future Projects on the Malden River 11

METHODOLOGY 13Literature Review 13Interviews 13Analysis Methods 14

Benefit Transfer Method 14Hedonic Pricing 15Contingent Valuation 15

INTERVIEWS 16Dynamics in the Area 16

Activities 16Accessibility 16

Real Estate Market 17Overall trend 17Development opportunities 17

BENEFITS TRANSFER ON THE MALDEN RIVER 18Study & Policy Site Characteristics 18Benefit Transfer Results 19

Contingent Valuation 19Hedonic Pricing 21

DISCUSSION 21

CONCLUSION 23

WORKS CITED 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY 24

5

Tables

Table 1: Malden River Adjacent Community Demographics

Table 2: Property Values for Properties within 1 km of Malden River

Table 3: Willingess to Pay Household Income Adjustment (Kenney et al.)

Table 4: Aggregate Willingness to Pay for Kenney el al. Transfer

Table 5: Willingness to Pay by Inflation Adjustment (Gramlich)

Table 6: Aggregate Willingness to Pay for Gramlich Transfer

Table 7: Property Value Adjustments by Distance Interval

Table 8: Aggregate Property Value Benefit by Distance Interval from Walsh et al. Transfer

Table 9: Summary of Aggregate Benefits by Transfer Type

Figures

Figure 1: Study Area, Malden River

Figure 2: Differences between Restoration, Rehabilitation and Remediation

Figure 3: Property types within 1 km of the Malden River

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Appendix B: IRB Notice of Action

6

AbstractThe Malden River is a 2.3 mile river that flows through the cities of Malden, Medford and Everett into the Mystic

River. Past industries and current issues with urbanization have resulted in the degradation of the river, a situation that has led to widespread public concern about safety and accessibility for the river. This report examines what the economic impacts of a Malden river restoration might be using a benefit transfer analysis.

Because we do not yet know how the Malden River will be restored, we transferred the findings of three stud-ies that looked at three different restoration or water quality improvement scenarios. Transferring the results of the first study, a hedonic pricing model that measured the impact of a one foot improvement in water visibility, we find that the benefit to properties along the Malden River could be $6,000,000. The second study, a contingent valuation survey, looked at consumer willingness to pay to construct a wetland riverbank; applying their findings to the Malden results in an aesthetic and recreational benefit of $3,200,000. Finally, another contingent valuation study of the Charles River examined consumer’s willingness to pay to move from a river that was a health hazard to one that was swimma-ble; applying their findings to the Malden results in $4,100,000 to $10,100,000 aggregate benefit. These findings sug-gest that a river restoration of the Malden River would have significant, positive economic impacts on the surrounding community.

7

Executive SummaryThe Malden River emerges south of the Malden city

center and flows 2.3 miles as open surface water through the densely populated cities of Malden, Medford and Everett into its confluence with the Mystic River, just upstream of the Amelia Earhart Dam. This impaired urban river system originates from the outflow of Spot Pond in the Middlesex Fells Reservation and passes through much of its upper watershed underground in channelized conveyances until it daylights through two stormwater culverts.

Legacy contamination from historical industries and stormwater runoff from the heavily urbanized watershed have resulted in the degradation of the Malden River, a situation that has led to public concern for the safety of a wide range of recreational users, primarily comprised of paddlers and crew teams. At the same time, there is a large interest in increasing the accessibility of the river to allow community residents to benefit from recreation, contemplation and other cultural uses. Community members in the area believe that in order to reverse the current danger and reach the mentioned goals, the river needs to undergo a comprehensive restoration process that restores the quality of the river to a state that allows for recreational enjoyment in addition to biodiversity and biomass generation.

The Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA) partnered with the Urban and Environmental Planning and Policy Department and the Water Science Systems and Society Program at Tufts University to work on the planning stages of a risk assessment and to assess the impacts of a potential Malden River restoration on property and passive use values. This report seeks to determine what the potential economic impacts of a river restoration of the Malden River might be, information that MyRWA will use as a tool to advocate for continued investment in improvements along the Malden River. To frame the study, we developed two research questions:

1) How might a Malden River restoration affect resi-dential property values?

2) What are the additional potential economic im-pacts of a Malden River restoration?

To answer these questions, we conducted a benefits transfer analysis and held interviews with key informants to contextualize our findings. We also looked into river

restoration and the ecosystem services that restorations provide. Several strategies for river restoration exist; some, like stormwater management and riverbank stabili-zation, are more widely used, while other approaches, like site cleanup and dam operation changes, are more indi-rect. By looking at the variety of restoration projects that might be or have been implemented in the area around the Malden River, we were able to identify several studies for use in a benefits transfer. Benefits transfer is a suitable approach when time and financial resources do not allow a primary study of costs and benefits to be performed, allowing estimates of environmental benefits to be trans-ferred from one site (study site) to another (policy site). In order to reduce the effect of inherent methodological er-rors, we adjusted the findings from our reference studies based on demographic and economic characteristics like household income, population and property values.

Our review of the literature on environmental val-uation of water quality changes led us to three studies providing results that could be transferred to the Malden River. The first, a hedonic pricing study, estimated the property value changes in Orange County, Florida that re-sulted from a one foot change in water visibility. We trans-ferred their estimated unit of change to the Malden River, and, after selecting for residential properties that were less than one kilometer from the Malden River, we found that a one foot increase in water visibility in the Malden River would lead to a $6,000,000 increase in property val-ues. We also looked at two stated preference studies; the first, a contingent valuation survey that asked Baltimore City residents how much they would pay for a quarter mile streambank restoration project, found that residents would pay between $17 & $28 each. After adjusting these willingness to pay estimates to reflect the higher household incomes in the communities surrounding the Malden River, we found that households near the Malden River would be willing to pay $3,200,000 for a similar proj-ect. The second stated preference unit transfer is derived from a contingent valuation survey conducted in 1973 that asked residents from municipalities surrounding the Charles River watershed about their willingness to pay for an improvement in the quality of the Charles River such that it moves from a river that poses a health risk (much like the Malden) to one that is swimmable. After inflation-adjusting their willingness to pay estimates, we found that households around the Malden River would be willing to pay between $4,100,000 and $10,100,000. The low estimate is for households in the Malden River watershed, while the higher estimate represents the

8

aggregate benefit for all households located in a munici-pality adjacent to the Malden River Watershed.

If the kinds of river restoration that have occurred in the past, or are proposed for the future occur, these benefits may be realized. For instance, if stormwater man-agement programs are successfully employed in the cities of Malden, Medford and Everett, water visibility could im-prove by one foot. If this occurs, we would expect a prop-erty value increase of around $6,000,000. If the Malden River restoration plan proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is fully implemented and a wetland is constructed near the oxbow across from the outlet of Lit-tle Creek, we would expect an aggregate recreational use and aesthetic value increase of about $3,240,000. Finally, if the Malden River experiences significant cleanup and becomes swimmable again, then we could expect a wide range of benefits, from $4,160,000 for households within the watershed, to $10,100,000 for all of the households located within a municipality that is adjacent to the wa-tershed. To put these numbers in context, it is helpful to look at the cost estimate from the USACE restoration plan for the Malden River. The proposed cost in 2010 dollars is about $8,000,000, which is similar in magnitude to our estimates of potential restoration benefits. While the ben-efit transfer method is prone to error, our conversations with key informants give us confidence that the Malden River is impacting property values.

IntroductionResearch Team

The present report is the result of work carried out by a team of graduate students at Tufts University during the Spring Semester of 2015 as a requirement for the Field Projects course at the Department of Urban and Environ-mental Policy and Planning and the field practicum of the Water System Science and Society (WSSS) Program at the Tufts Institute for the Environment. The objective of this partnership is to integrate theory and practice by provid-ing students with the opportunity to work on real-world challenges in their areas of interest, while offering com-munity organizations and public agencies expert analysis and advice that enhances insight into priority issues and advances strategic objectives.

The research team, composed of students from the Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning De-partment, the Civil and Environmental Engineering

Department, and the Fletcher School, worked for the Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA) through a consultant-client relationship. MyRWA is an organization based in Arlington that uses science-based advocacy to improve water and environmental conditions within the Mystic River watershed. Having a history of working with Tufts University, MyRWA proposed the topics of risk assessment and property value trends with urban river restoration as research topics that would greatly benefit the organization’s mission statement. In the near future, MyRWA intends to apply for an EPA grant to fund a full human health risk assessment of the Malden River, thus the present study is designed to inform that process.

Statement of objectivesTo support the missions of MyRWA and the Friends

of Malden River (FOMR), we reviewed the economics literature on urban river restoration and conducted interviews with key informants from different realms (real estate business, policy, etc.) along the Malden River to determine a baseline estimate of the monetary benefits that might result if the Malden River is restored. Due to the limited timeframe of this project, we were unable to conduct a primary valuation study for restoration options along the Malden River. Instead, we employed a benefit value transfer analysis to estimate baseline values for a variety of restoration options that have occurred, or are likely to occur along the Malden River. While these esti-mates are a useful starting point for a discussion of the costs and benefits of restoring the Malden River, there is a substantial error level built into this method. Despite this challenge, this analysis will give MyRWA and FOMR a fun-damental understanding of the monetary benefits that might result from a variety of different restoration options for the Malden River.

We developed two research questions to frame our research:

• How might a restoration of the Malden River affect values of residential properties in the area?

• What are the additional potential economic im-pacts of the Malden River restoration?

The following report strives to answer these two questions and is formatted in the following way: we begin by providing an overview of the study area, back-ground information on river restoration, and a discussion of current and proposed restoration projects on the

9

Malden River; next is a discussion of our methodology; followed by the findings from our key informant inter-views; and concluding with a discussion of our results and our conclusion.

BackgroundStudy Area

The Malden River watershed, a sub-basin of the Mys-tic River, is approximately 11 square miles and located in the urban areas of Wakefield, Stoneham, Melrose, Malden, Medford and Everett, Massachusetts. This impaired urban river system originates as an outflow from Spot Pond in the Fells Reservation and passes beneath the cities of Melrose and Malden in channelized conveyances through much of the upper watershed. The Malden River daylights from two sets of stormwater culverts south of Malden Center and flows for approximately 2.3 miles as open sur-face water through the densely populated cities of Mal-

den, Everett and Medford prior to its confluence with the Mystic River, just upstream of the Amelia Earhart Dam. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008). This study focuses on the open section of the river, so the data collection ef-forts have been set on the cities of Malden, Medford and Everett. Malden is five miles northwest of Boston.

Urban River RestorationsDefinitions

An urban river is defined as a stream whose catch-ment is at least 10% impervious surfaces (e.g., area of roofs, roads and paved surfaces) (Findlay and Taylor, 2006). As running waters occupy the lowest-lying areas on the landscape, they integrate the effects of land-use change and thus are very sensitive to urbanization. Con-cerns over the impacts that land-use changes may have on the ability of river systems to provide the ecosystem services upon which human life depends have resulted in the initiation of major investments in urban river resto-

Figure 1: Study area. Malden River. Massachusetts

10

ration (Bernhardt & Palmer, 2007). Rutherfurd et al. (2000, cited in Findlay and Taylor, 2006) define restoration as the return of a system to a fully recovered natural ecosystem, while rehabilitation describes an intermediate condition along the same path, where elements of the biophysi-cal system are returned, but not in their entirety. On the other hand, remediation is a different process where the ecosystem is enhanced, focusing more on the function (biomass) than species richness. This differentiation is insightful. However, these concepts are often utilized in an interchangeable way in the literature. Figure 2 visualiz-es the differences between each system, with the number of sides of each shape signifying the complexity of the system it represents and original ecosystems displaying a greater biodiversity and complexity than created or modified ecosystems. In this study, when we refer to restoration, we are using the broad definition often em-ployed in the literature that includes rehabilitation and remediation.

According to Findlay & Taylor (2006), there are many valid and tangible reasons for the rehabilitation of urban streams. Some are obvious (water quality and erosion) while other are less tangible (social value and indirect economic benefits). These benefits are often referred to as ecosystem services, which are defined by the National Wildlife Foundation (2014) as any positive benefit that wildlife or ecosystems provide to people. These services are divided into four categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.

Decisions around impaired urban river rehabilitation are usually dominated by conflicting social (including political), economic and environmental factors (Findlay & Taylor, 2006), as restoration options are highly con-strained by available land, urban infrastructure, political pressures, and the lack of technical knowledge (Bern-hardt & Palmer, 2007). Most restoration projects across the United States fall into one of four categories: storm-water management; bank stabilization; channel reconfig-uration and grade control; and riparian re-planting and management (Bernhardt & Palmer, 2007). When defining catchment management strategies, it must be considered that urban stream restoration is both more expensive and more difficult than in less densely populated catchments, so broader solutions are needed to be effective (Bern-hardt & Palmer, 2007). However, one of the many ad-vantages of proposing stream rehabilitation in an urban setting is the abundant resources (monetary and person-nel) available due to the larger population (Ladson, 2004,

cited in Findlay & Taylor, 2006).

Completed Restoration Projects on the Malden River

River’s Edge

River’s Edge was conceived as a regional economic development project by the cities of Everett, Malden and Medford. In 1996 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established the Mystic Valley Development Commission (MVDC), targeted over 200 acres within the three cities in the Malden River area, and provided the MVDC with em-inent domain powers. The Directors of the MVDC are the mayors of the three cities and a designee from each city. The Governor of Massachusetts is an ex officio Director. The MVDC through its agent, the Malden Redevelopment Authority (MRA), planned the project with significant input from various community groups, and obtained state and federal funding for planning, land acquisition, environmental testing and remediation and the widening and reconstruction of the road along the project’s west-ern border, River’s Edge Drive and Commercial Street.

The 30-acres in phase I of this development involved construction of buildings for offices, residences, parking spaces and, of particular note for this study, the creation of a 10-acre riverfront park. The River’s Edge Park has over 1/3 of a mile of frontage along the Malden River

Figure 2: Differences between restoration, rehabilitation and remediation

(Findlay and Taylor, 2006)

11

and includes over one mile of multi-use paths and an all-purpose sports field. The siting of this development on parcels with a long history of industrial contamination required a major site clean-up supported by the Nation-al Brownfields Partnership and included the removal of large amounts of metal, rubber, and tires, some of which were crushed and recycled on site as a parking lot and roadway base for over 7,000 cubic yards of concrete. Ad-ditionally, developers removed acres of phragmites and other invasive species, and added over 50,000 cubic yards of clean soil used as capping material. While dramatically improving the recreational opportunities along the Mal-den River, and providing a private boat access point for local rowing teams, the restoration project also improved aesthetic and riverine habitats.

Little Creek

In 2008, the USACE, in partnership with the Mystic Valley Development Commission (MVDC), developed the “Malden River Ecosystem Restoration Detailed Proj-ect Report and Environmental Assessment”, identified a restoration of the Little Creek as Sub-Area 3. The greatest degree of sediment variations and contaminant accu-mulation within the Malden River exists at its confluence with Little Creek. Sediment accumulation is highest along the easterly banks of the Malden River, reflective of once tidal dispersion and settling patterns. The initial assess-ment of baseline characteristics identified Sub-area 3 as a target area for further evaluation due to the nature of sediment deposition and corresponding magnitude of manufactured gas plants (MGP) residuals.

The restoration opportunities for this area include benthic, wetland and fishery restoration. The first part involving the benthic restoration, which included the

dredging of the area to remove contaminated sediments, off-site disposal of those contaminants and recapping with clean material, has been completed.

Assembly Row

In 1980, the City of Somerville declared the Assembly Square District, to be “blighted, substandard, and deca-dent”, largely due to past industrial activities and pollu-tion, and subsequently adopted a 20-year urban renewal plan. The cornerstone of the urban renewal plan was the rehabilitation of an auto assembly plant into a retail mall known as the “Assembly Square Mall”. In 2000, the Somer-ville Redevelopment Authority (SRA) acquired title to a 9.3-acre former railroad parcel in Assembly Square and issued an RFP for developers. At the same time, the City initiated an extensive public planning process, producing the “2000 Planning Study” which set out a new vision for Assembly Square as a 24-hour, mixed use district with residential, retail, office, cinema, restaurant, hotel, and recreational open space uses (www.somervillema.gov).

After several years of negotiations focused on the character of the development and a lengthy permitting process to overcome the obstacles posed by construction of a brownfield site , construction started in April 2012 for two residential apartment blocks, a new main street, and a new MBTA transit infill station (Wikipedia, 2014). The development has been successful enough that town offi-cials are now exploring plans to double the size of the As-sembly Row project by allowing construction of homes, stores, and offices on the surrounding property and along Interstate 93. These new construction efforts have already started with the construction of the headquarters office for Partners HealthCare (www.bostonglobe.com)

This project is not technically located on the Mal-den River, but right at the confluence of the Malden and the Mystic Rivers. However, it does influence the value of properties near the Malden River and the level of site-cleanup is comparable to what might be undertaken on Malden River riparian properties.

Future Projects on the Malden RiverU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The 2008 USACE restoration plan laid out a plan to restore the Malden River ecosystem to the “highest qual-ity that it can reasonably support and sustain”. The goals are to reduce the current impacts to water and sediment quality, improve the riverine migratory corridor/spawning River’s Edge development from the air (Source: www.riversedge.com)

12

habitat and benthic community, restore the freshwater wetlands, and potentially increase public access and recreational use of the river. The primary restoration ele-ments considered are:

• Wetland restoration by removing 36,000 cubic yards of invasive species along 14.9 acres of the riverbank corri-dor and replanting with native wetland plant species;

• Creation of 5.4 acres of wetland within the oxbow across from outlet of Little Creek;

• Creation of 2.8 acres of fish spawning habitat through the placement of 4,400 cubic yards of gravel/sand substrate;

• Miscellaneous debris removal and disposal; and

• Operational changes at the Amelia Earhart Dam to improve fish passage for anadromous species

The estimated total project cost in 2008 was $7,344,000, which according to regulations governing the project, will be split between federal (65%) and non-fed-eral (35%) funding sources.

RiverGreen Everett

This project is advertised as a 40-acre inner-suburban master-planned business park along the Malden River. It will be located on the same stretch of the Malden River

as River’s Edge, on the East bank of the river. The project incorporates sustainable design elements and, with close proximity to Boston and access to nearby public transit, is suitable for virtually any commercial, light manufacturing use or multi-family construction. The commercial and residential portions of the project are still in the planning stages, but parts of the property have already been devel-oped by the Boston Coach bus company, which acquired the first parcel as an expansion of their nearby facility to be used by parking space (berkeleyinvestments.com)

Wellington Greenway

The Wellington Greenway is an evolving walking, bik-ing and jogging path along the Malden and Mystic rivers from Mystic Wellington Yacht Club to Wellington Business Park just beyond Route 16. It is structured into 4 Phases, three of which have already been finished.

The first phase, completed in late 2010, involved reconstructing an existing path owned and managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), which extends from Wellington Yacht Club to the overlook site. The works also included the removal of vegetation and addition of new benches and other park furniture. The next two phases where completed in Fall 2012. Phase 2 involved construction of the overlook, which includes a landscaped, circular granite seating area that offers a panoramic view of surrounding waters. The

Assembly Row development from the air (Source: http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/demowgbh/files/201306/anne_0.jpeg)

13

third phase extended the path along the Malden River to Wellington Station. Contractors also planted grass and installed granite seating, security cameras, and trash receptacles on that new trail section.

The planned fourth phase would continue the path along the Malden River from Wellington Station across Route 16 to Wellington Business Park, where it will connect to the existing path that originates in the River’s Edge Park. This last stage is constrained by the delayed implementation of the renovations to the Woods Memo-rial Bridge on Route 16 (www.bostonglobe.com)

MethodologyIn order to answer the research questions for the

study area, we performed a comprehensive literature review on the Urban River, Economic Impact Assessment and River Restoration and conducted interviews with key informants along the Malden River. We also analyzed property values and property types in the area of the Malden River and linked the findings from the literature with the particularities of the study area in order to draw in-context conclusions.

Literature ReviewThe literature review focuses on studies reviewing ur-

ban river constraints, urban river restoration techniques, ecosystem services, property value reactions to river

restoration, and economic benefits of urban river resto-ration. Within the literature, we are looking to identify urban rivers with land use patterns similar to the Malden River that have undergone river restoration. Finding these rivers will allow us to review how property types changed or increased in value after the restoration, and will allow us to estimate how properties abutting the Malden River might react to restoration.

InterviewsWe interviewed three key informants with different

perspectives on the Malden River area.

• John Preotle. Real estate developer, investor, and

property owner;

• Gregory Stratton. Real estate agent, actively working in the area;

• Beth Debski. Representative of the Malden Rede-velopment Authority

The goal pursued with the interviews is to provide context to our study by capturing socio-economic dy-namics in the area, real estate trends, and perceptions of both supply and demand sides in terms of the real estate market, mostly residential, and its relationship with the environmental state of the Malden River. Property owners and potential buyers, especially those looking to develop along the river, may have already reviewed the implications of restoration on the value of their invest-ment, and thus are a good resource for determining how sensitive these properties are to changes resulting from restoration. To gauge their opinions, we developed an

Restoration

Economic Impact

Urban River

RiverGreen development from the air (Source: http://berkeleyinvestments.

com)

14

interview protocol that seeks to determine how property owners and buyers view the Malden River: whether they see it as a positive or negative attribute, and whether they believe that restoration of the Malden River would positively impact their property’s value (see Appendix A). To help determine whether the quality of the Malden Riv-er is a significant factor driving property values, we also asked our interviewees about any other factors driving property value increases or decreases.

Each interview provided us with unique insights into the effect of the Malden River and river restoration on the surrounding community, both in terms of economic im-pacts and real estate values. We analyzed and aggregated the data collected by using four two dimensions and four sub-dimensions:

1) Dynamics in the Area

• Activities

• Accessibility

2) Real Estate Market

• Overall trend

• Development opportunities

Analyzing the interview data using this framework established the nexus between economic literature look-ing into the economic impacts of river restoration and the Malden River itself.

Analysis MethodsEconomic impacts are effects on the level of econom-

ic activity in a given area (Weisbrod and Weisbrod, 1997), caused by the implementation of a particular program, policy, or project. They might be viewed and measured in terms of business output, value added, wealth (including property values), personal income, or jobs. When any of these measures indicates an improvement in the eco-nomic well-being of area residents, it is referred to as eco-nomic benefit, which is typically the major goal of eco-nomic development efforts. Weisbrod & Weisbrod (1997) bring up five methods to evaluate economic impact: employment, aggregate personal income, value add-ed, business output, and property value. Some of these methods, however, are not suitable to capture non-mar-ket values, such as ecosystem services provided by river systems. To measure non-market values, economists use

ecosystem valuation, defined as the process of expressing a value for ecosystem services or goods. Some of these methods are: avoided cost, replacement cost, travel cost, hedonic pricing and contingent valuation (Farber, Cos-tanza, & Wilson, 2002; Olmstead, 2010). For the purposes of this review, we will focus on two methods commonly used to value the economic impacts of changes in water quality, namely, hedonic pricing and contingent valuation (Leggett & Bockstael, 2000; Olmstead, 2010). Because we are unable to conduct a primary study, we will be trans-ferring the results from these two methods using Benefit Unit transfer, described in more detail below.

Benefit Transfer Method

When time and resources do not allow a primary study of costs and benefits to be performed, economists have devised a method where value estimates of envi-ronmental change at one site (study site) are transferred to a site (policy site) that is the target of a proposed environmental policy. This method, known as benefit unit transfer, allows practitioners to quickly calculate an estimate of the costs and benefits of the proposed policy shift based on how study sites reacted to similar policies in past studies. The key to the success of this technique is the identification of study sites and environmental poli-cies that mirror the proposed change for the policy site. Within this framework, there are three possible methods for transferring the values from the study site to the pol-icy site. First, unit value transfer transfers the estimated value of the environmental policy from the study site to the policy site, with some adjustments based on income levels. The second approach, benefit function transfer, utilizes the function or model developed for the study site but substitutes the independent variables from the study site with values from the local site. A third meth-od, meta-analysis, advances benefit function transfer by compiling functions from several different study sites and compiling them into one more targeted function for the policy site (Navrud & Ready, 2007).

While benefit function transfer and meta-analysis methods offer more accurate estimations, given the limit-ed timeframe of the project and the paucity of studies on water quality economic impacts in urban watersheds, we opted to use a simple unit value transfer for this analy-sis. The assumption underlying this method is that the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for an environmental change of a consumer in the study site is the same as the WTP of a consumer in the policy site. This may not hold true however, because the users surrounding the study site

15

might differ from the users of our policy site and be-cause the environmental changes at the study site might differ from those at the policy site. For our analysis, we believe that the similarities between our study sites and the Malden River are close enough to alleviate concerns about differing WTP between the watershed populations. Additionally, because we are calculating the benefits of a wide variety of potential restoration options, we are not concerned that the restoration options presented in the study sites will not translate to the Malden River.

Researchers who tested the accuracy of unit value transfer found that the error levels of the transferred values ranged between 4% and 45%. Additionally, researchers reviewed the validity and reliability of these results and found that in general, unit value transfers are not statistically valid, although they can be reliable if the characteristics of the study site and the policy site are very similar. For this study, we did not test the validity or reliability of our analysis because we lack the data neces-sary to do so. Given that, we assumed a transfer error lev-el at the high end of the values reported in the literature (40%) and built this into our estimations of the economic impacts of river restoration on the Malden River.

To conduct the unit transfer, we decided to utilize the findings from two types of environmental valuation: hedonic pricing and contingent valuation. The hedonic pricing studies are helpful in determining the property value increases of land near the Malden River, while the contingent valuation surveys are useful in measuring the broader economic impact of river restoration on the communities surrounding the Malden River. The methods for each of these valuation techniques are discussed in greater detail below.

Hedonic Pricing

The hedonic pricing model is a revealed preference method used by economists to ascertain the marginal willingness of consumers to pay for a change in ambient environmental quality using property value data (Leg-gett & Bockstael, 2000). The assumption underlying this method is that the sale price of a property is a function of social, demographic, physical and environmental charac-teristics. Using regression analysis, economists are able to control for many of the characteristics controlling the price of a residence to test the impacts of a particular parameter (the dependent variable). For our analysis, we looked at hedonic pricing studies whose dependent vari-able is the ambient water quality of nearby water bodies.

We chose to use the hedonic pricing model in our benefit transfer because it directly measures changes in property values resulting from a change in water quality, one of our central research questions. For our transfer estimate, we used a study completed by Walsh et al. (2012) that looks at the residential property value effects of a one meter change in water visibility as measured by a secchi dish in lakes located in the urban area around Orlando, Florida. This paper also calculates the effect of this water quality change on properties that are located up to one kilometer away and determines a separate unit value change for 200 meter intervals within that range. This spatial effect is vital for our study, because most residenc-es are more than 100 meters from the river.

To transfer the findings of Walsh et al. (2012) to our study site, we needed data on property values and property types within one kilometer of the Malden River. To access this data, we downloaded tax parcel data from MassGIS and used a ArcGIS to select properties located within one kilometer of the Malden River. We then select-ed all residential property types, and mixed-use property types that were primarily residential. It is important to mention that the River’s Edge multi-use development located next to the Malden River was recorded as a public property type so we manually recoded the property con-taining the River’s Edge apartment complex to a residen-tial property type.

Contingent Valuation

The contingent valuation method (CVM) is a widely used nonmarket valuation method used to estimate en-vironmental values (Venkatachalam, 2004; Carson, 2012). In its simplest form, CVM is a stated preference method that surveys individuals about their willingness to pay (WTP) or accept money for either maintaining, losing or gaining an environmental amenity (e.g., water quality). Contingent valuation is useful because the surveys can be designed to ask respondents about any type of envi-ronmental benefit, such as the preservation value of an animal, or the value of avoiding an oil spill (Carson, 2012). For our purposes, we looked at studies that ask house-holds their willingness to pay for a water quality improve-ment. We chose to use the contingent valuation method for our benefit transfer because it captures the WTP from a wider range of consumers than the hedonic pricing model, which can only calculate impacts to properties located near the Malden River. Additionally, because this asks respondents to state their preferences regarding a change in water quality, it served as a useful check on

16

the hedonic pricing transfer estimate, which is a revealed preference approach.

For our analysis, we looked at two contingent valua-tion surveys. The first, by Kenney et al. (2012), asked resi-dents of Baltimore, Maryland their WTP for a stream bank restoration of the Stony Run that offered water quality, aesthetic, and recreational benefits. We chose this study because the restoration from an impaired riverbank to a wetland based riverbank mirrors the restoration projects proposed for the Malden River in the USACE report. We also transferred the results from a contingent valuation survey conducted on the Charles River by Frederick Gramlich (1973). This study measured respondents’ WTP to move from a river that was a “health hazard” or had “limited wildlife” and an “unpleasant odor”, to one that was “clean enough for swimming and wildlife” (Gramlich, 1973). We used this study in our benefit transfer because the Charles River at the time had a similar water quality to the Malden River today, and the area surrounding the Charles River is similar to the Malden River (although less industrial in nature).

To transfer these values to the Malden River, we need-ed data on total population, the number of households, and the average household income for the cities abutting the Malden River and for the Malden River watershed. We obtained this data from the US Census bureau, where we used information from the 2010 census at the census block level. We then calculated the demographic char-acteristics for the watershed in GIS using a watershed boundary from MassGIS and the census block data.

InterviewsDynamics in the Area

Activities

The Malden River is 2.3 miles long and the total bank length adds up to approximately 4.6 miles. The majority of the activity in the area happens on the river itself and in the River’s Edge Park, with some incipient recreation along the paths bordering the west side of the river in the area of the Wellington Train Station. The levels of recre-ational use, which are discussed in the accompanying report “Risk Assessment of the Malden River: Planning”, are significant despite the Malden River’s reputation as contaminated and hazardous. The presence of landmarks, sightseeing points and gathering spots draws people of different ages and interests to explore the area and utilize

what it has to offer. One example attraction is the newly constructed Tufts University boathouse, which used to be located 1000 feet upstream in large tent. The River’s Edge developer supported the siting of the Tufts boathouse on the River’s Edge property because he believed that it would make the site more visible, would attract users and would positively impact the commercial and residential properties found at the site. Additionally, the developer believed that the boathouse would activate this portion of the Malden River shoreline because the boathouse draws a large and steady number of people to the area (students, coaches and spectators). Another positive ef-fect of the Tufts boathouse is that other rowing organiza-tions, such as several Malden High School and the Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, were able to occupy the empty facilities located further upstream.

According to our interviewees, the river does provide value, but the question remains on how to make it more valuable. In order to make people forget what this area used to be, it’s necessary to attract people and provide them with new, positive experiences. The walk and bike paths are consistent with this idea, but more is needed. One example that could add value would be to complete the connection between River’s Edge and the Wellington Station, for which the announced improvements on the Woods Memorial Bridge on Route 16 have to be under-taken. The information in the below sections is based on our interviews with three key informants.

Accessibility

Our key informants agree that the Malden River is largely hidden and local residents remain unaware of its presence. Much of this is a result of the lack of public access to the river resulting from the large amount of pri-vate properties abutting the river’s banks. However, there is another restriction that is not related to the property types abutting the river, but dependent on the urban configuration of the surrounding neighborhoods, mainly in Medford, on the west side of the river. The presence of the Orange Line train running parallel to the river in addition to the major arteries of Commercial Street and Route 16, work as major barriers that prevent or discour-age residents from accessing the public spaces on the Malden River by foot or by bike. This lack of awareness about the river is exemplified by a story told by the River’s Edge developer; who started to pre-sell the idea of hav-ing apartments in the area by showing, in a very informal way, the site to potential customers who were surprised that the site was located on a substantial river. Still, even

17

for those who are aware of the resource, the way to get there is long and intricate. This allows us to conclude that accessibility to, connectivity with, and promotion of the river is something that should be prioritized.

Real Estate MarketOverall trend

Properties in close proximity to the Malden River might be undervalued due to negative public perception of the environmental problems in and around the Malden River. The same happens throughout the Greater Boston Area, where the state of rivers, beaches, canals, and other water bodies have historically been of great concern. Therefore, an effective restoration of the Malden River might reverse this situation, increasing property values in the area.

The potential positive effects of a restoration are cou-pled with the fact that there is a great need in the Boston area for an increased amount of “green”, sustainable, and aesthetic mixed-use spaces. Considering that the area is already highly developed, which makes it difficult to find land for new developments, there is a significant inventive to develop underutilized properties like the brownfields surrounding the Malden River. The clean-up of these sites could be carried out by private developers with the support of public agencies, which makes the Malden River a potential asset for the long-term investor. This holds true because the quality of the river is likely to improve due to several community and governmental ef-forts currently underway to restore the river; such efforts have had success in similar areas of the state and country. For example, the completion of the Assembly Row devel-opment, and the cleanup required to facilitate this devel-opment, has had positive impacts on the property values of adjacent properties. Revere and East Boston have already seen benefits from environmental cleanup efforts, and this will continue, as projects like the Wynn Casino (Everett), Suffolk Downs (Revere), and other projects get underway or continue. The opinions and positions of local residents and other stakeholders on these projects vary based on economic, environmental and recreational considerations. Large projects that promise to benefit the local environment are generally supported.

Development opportunities

One example of a successful and dynamic com-mercial development is the River’s Edge area. It is the outcome of a competitive process between potential

developers, a public-private partnership and a signifi-cant public input and public oversight process. The risks for developing this Brownfield were high, based on the impossibility of knowing the extent of soil and ground-water contamination. However, as the risk and expenses were shared with MVCD, the development opportunity became more appealing and tangible. The developer’s decision to submit a bid to develop the site was driven by the developer’s past experiences with building owner-ship in the area (Malden center and Wellington Business Center), the proximity of the site to a transportation hub (Wellington Train Station), and, of most importance to this report, the positive feedback the developer received from potential customers during site visits.

The River’s Edge development appears to have been quite successful; its success is even more impressive given its construction immediately after the 2008 economic re-cession. The office building was finished in 2009 and the first lessee was the hotel chain, Marriott; their decision to move in to the building showed that they preferred the Malden River area over Cambridge and the Sea Port. The adjacent apartment building also did very well. It was started in April 2008; the first apartment was delivered in August 2009; the entire project was finished Decem-ber 2009, and by August 2010 all the apartments were occupied.

The population and area benefited by this project is not reduced to the site itself, but to the wider community. The surrounding residents usufruct the improvements done on Commercial Street, as it revitalizes the street (stores, business), helps drivers to reach main highways and roads quicker and allows commuters to get to Wel-lington and Malden Stations easily. Also, the change in land use has brought substantially more tax revenues to the local governments. In 1999, the 200 acres of prop-erty assigned to River’s Edge development contributed approximately $1.1 million dollars, while last year River’s Edge alone (apartments and offices) generated $900,000.

18

Benefits Transfer on the Mal-den RiverStudy & Policy Site Characteristics

To transfer the results from the Gramlich and Kenney et al. study sites to the policy site, we obtained data on the population, number of households, and the average household income for people living within the Malden River watershed, living within one of the six municipali-ties adjacent to the Malden River watershed, and living within five miles of the Malden River. Additionally, we included a dummy variable that indicates whether the town abuts the Malden River. Table 1, below, summarizes these characteristics.

In total, there are 31,328 households within the Malden River watershed, 90,529 households within the six municipalities that comprise the watershed, and 359,616 households within five miles of the Malden River. The mean household income for the six municipalities is $66,062.

Kenney et al. had a similar number of households to our policy area (248,000 in Baltimore city; 2,000 near riv-er) but the household income was much lower ($39,000 vs. $66,062). In our benefit transfer analysis, we adjusted the WTP from the Kenney et al. paper to reflect the higher incomes in the areas around the Malden River. Gramlich’s study area is geographically similar to the Malden River, but it is much larger in terms of area and population. Gramlich calculated that 315,432 households live within the Charles River watershed, which is much more than the 90,529 households living within the Malden River watershed. Gramlich also calculated that there were 716,245 households located within a municipality any

part of which lies within five miles of the Malden River. The Malden River has around 359,616 households within five miles of the watershed. We did not directly replicate Gramlich’s calculation because we only counted house-holds found within five miles of the watershed; Gramlich also counted households that lie outside the watershed but are within a municipality any part of which lies within the Malden River. We decided not to include those house-holds in our analysis because the Malden River is not as regionally important as the Charles River. Thus, we do not expect households beyond five miles from the Malden River to have a significant WTP.

To transfer the results from Walsh et al. to our policy site, we looked at all residential properties within one kilometer of the Malden River. Table 2 summarizes the

average property values of each major property type within one kilometer of the Malden River.

Residential properties comprise more than 90% of all property types near the Malden River, and have a total value of over $2 billion. Figure 3 shows, however,

that these properties are not located adjacent to the river. In fact, only two residential properties are located within 100 meters of the Malden River, with one of those being the River’s Edge apartment complex.

Walsh et al.’s dataset included more than 54,712 sales of residential properties located within 1000 meters of natural lakes from 1996 to 2004 and was supplemented with water quality data from more than 200 lakes locat-ed in Orange County, Florida. The mean sale price was $206,890 and the mean distance to a lake was 455 me-

19

ters. On average, the lakes had a measured Secchi depth (water visibility indicator) of 5.4 feet; this is much higher than the Malden River’s average Secchi measurement of about 3 feet.

Benefit Transfer ResultsContingent Valuation

Using the data from Kenney et al., we calculated the WTP for households within the Malden River watershed and for residents located outside of the watershed. To do this, we adjusted the WTP calculated by Kenney et al. to reflect the higher household incomes around the Mal-den River based on a linear relationship between income and WTP, and calculated a new WTP for each of the six communities located within or adjacent to the Malden River. The new WTP values for both scenarios (within watershed, and outside of watershed) are shown in table 3 below. The original values from the Kenney et al. study are highlighted in grey.

Based on these WTP values, which show the value households are willing to pay for a riverbank restoration project that constructs a low and dry wetland along an urban river, we calculated the aggregate benefit of a restoration project of this type for the Malden River by multiplying the above WTP values against the number of households within each municipality. The results of this calculation are shown in table 4.

Combining the aggregate benefits from the house-holds within the watershed with the households outside the watershed, we find that a quarter mile long stream bank restoration to a low and dry wetland has an aes-thetic and recreational benefit of about $3,200,000 ($1,940,000-$4,540,000 if 40% error is included).

We performed a similar analysis for the Gramlich study, although we did not adjust for household income because Gramlich did not specify household income for their study population. Although the area around the Charles River is more affluent than the area around the Malden, the close proximity of the two leads us to believe that the impact of not including this adjustment will be minimal. Instead, we inflation-adjusted the WTP measure-ments from Gramlich’s 1973 study to 2010 dollars. The effect of this adjustment is shown in table 5.

We then applied this value to the Malden River using the population characteristics in table 1. Our results are shown in table 6.

These results suggest that the 31,328 households within the Malden River watershed would be willing to pay about $4 million ($2,500,000-$5,800,000 with 40% error) to restore the Malden River watershed to a state where wildlife is healthy and the river is swimmable. Looking at the households located in the municipalities

adjacent to the watershed, they would be willing to pay about $10 million ($6,000,000-$14,100,000). The final calculation, for households within five miles of the Malden River is included as a reference, but we do not feel that this value is necessarily accurate because the Malden River lacks the regional appeal that the Charles River does.

20

Figure 3: Property types within 1Km from the Malden River (Source: MassGIS Tax Parcel Data)

21

Hedonic Pricing

For Walsh et al.’s hedonic pricing model, we trans-ferred the percentage increase in property values result-ing from a one foot increase in water visibility (Secchi Dish) from the study site to the residential properties located within one kilometer of the Malden River. Walsh et al. calculated the effect of a change in water visibility by distance intervals; for properties less than 100 meters from the lake, they determined that a one foot improve-ment in water visibility led to a 0.72% increase in property values. Between 800 and 1000 meters, this effect was reduced to a 0.18% increase in property values. Table 7 shows the property value changes for each distance

band, and the number of properties near the Malden River that fall into each category.

Using these percentage changes, we then calculated the value of a one foot improvement in water quality for all of the properties located within one kilometer of the Malden River. The results of this calculation are shown in table 8.

Table 8 shows that a one foot improvement in wa-ter visibility will lead to an almost $6 million ($3,599,000-$8,399,000 with 40% error) increase in property values for the 6271 residential properties within one kilometer of the Malden River. This leads to an average benefit of approximately $900 per property.

One thing to note, the two properties that are with-in 100 meters of the Malden River have a much larger mean property value than all other distance bands; this is because one of those properties is the River’s Edge apartment complex which has an assessed value of over $45,000,000. While it might seem that inclusion of this large apartment complex in the analysis might inflate the aggregate benefit, removing it from the analysis leads to a total aggregate benefit of more than $5,670,000, not far off our original estimate.

DiscussionOur benefit transfer analysis shows that a river resto-

ration to the Malden River is likely to have a large positive impact on property values and aesthetic and recreational use benefits. Although our studies are not summative, taken together, the reader can see the impact that each might have if a different river restoration technique is applied (see table 9).

If the kinds of river restoration that have occurred in the past, or are proposed for the future occur, these benefits might become true. For instance, if stormwater management programs are successfully employed in the cities of Malden, Medford and Everett, water visibility could improve by one foot. If it does, we would expect a property value increase of around $6,000,000. If the Army Corps of Engineers report (2008) is fully implemented and a wetland is constructed near the oxbow across from the outlet of Little Creek, we would expect an aggregate recreational use and aesthetic value increase of about $3,240,000. Finally, if the Malden River experiences signif-icant cleanup and becomes swimmable again, then we

22

could expect a wide range of benefits, from $4,160,000 for households within the watershed, to $10,100,000 for all of the households located within a municipality that is adjacent to the watershed. To put these numbers in con-text, it is helpful to look at the cost estimate from the US Army Corps of Engineers restoration plan (2008) for the Malden River. The proposed cost in 2010 dollars is about $8,000,000, which is similar in magnitude to our estimates of potential restoration benefits.

While these estimates are a useful tool in under-standing how changes in water and habitat quality might affect the local economy, there are several large uncer-tainties with this analysis. First, there are some differences between our policy site and the study sites we chose to transfer benefits from. The most significant of these differ-ences is that the Malden River is surrounded by industrial and commercial properties (Figure 3). Conversely, all three study sites are predominantly residential, with res-idential properties directly abutting the water resource.

We do not know what impact the walling off of the Mal-den River by these industrial and commercial properties might have on our estimates; unfortunately, the literature on the effect of water quality changes on commercial/industrial properties is scarce. Despite these concerns, our interviews have given us some insight into how these commercial and industrial properties view improvements on the Malden River. Our interview with a developer and a representative of the Malden Redevelopment Authority suggested that commercial owners and developers do see an improved Malden River as a resource, and believe that its continued improvement might spur additional investment along the river. This finding gives us more confidence that the positive economic impacts from wa-ter resource improvements on the Malden River are not constrained by the industrial and commercial properties abutting it.

23

ConclusionThis study shows that a river restoration of the

Malden River, regardless of the type of restoration, could have substantial positive economic impacts for the sur-rounding communities and nearby properties. We looked at the impact of three types of water quality changes, but other investments in the Malden River, such as additional site cleanups or dam operation changes, that might lead to additional positive economic impacts are not consid-ered. It is also important to note that this type of analysis, which attempts to monetize ecosystem services through contingent valuation and hedonic pricing, misses many intangible benefits that are hard to monetize. These in-

clude cultural, community, and educational benefits that might be realized if the Malden River changes from an impaired and impounded resource to one that is safe and accessible. Finally, we believe that the changing nature of the Malden River, the large and valuable residential hous-ing stock located near the Malden River, and the large population near the river make the Malden River an ideal site for a future primary study on the economic impacts of river restoration. MyRWA is collecting a large primary dataset on water quality that goes back to the year 2000 and could further supplement this analysis. A future study could also look into the question of the whether or not the commercial and industrial properties are limiting the value of the river to the surrounding community.

24

Works CitedBernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2007). Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), 738–751.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01718.x

Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative when Prices Aren’t Available. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42.

Ecosystem Services - National Wildlife Federation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.nwf.org/Wild-life/Wildlife-Conservation/Ecosystem-Services.aspx

Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 375–392. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5

Findlay, S. J., & Taylor, M. P. (2006). Why rehabilitate urban river systems? Area, 38(3), 312–325. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00696.x

Gramlich, F. W. (1977). The Demand for Clean Water: The Case of the Charles River: Abstract. National Tax Journal (pre-1986), 30(2). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/207197441/abstract/8E7E9EAF1D2943F-0PQ/1?accountid=14434

Jost, D. (2008, November). Malden River Makeover. Landscape Architecture, 1–5.

Kenney, M. A., Wilcock, P. R., Hobbs, B. F., Flores, N. E., & Martínez, D. C. (2012). Is Urban Stream Restoration Worth It?1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 48(3), 603–615. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00635.x

Leggett, C. G., & Bockstael, N. E. (2000). Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land Prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39(2), 121–144. http://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1999.1096

Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Environmental value transfer: issues and methods. Dordrecht: Springer.

River’s Edge. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from www.riversedgema.com

Rizzo Associates. (n.d.). 378 Commercial Street Phase IV- Remedy Implementation Plan. Retrieved from http://public.dep.state.ma.us/fileviewer/Rtn.aspx?rtn=3-0000590

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2008). Malden River Ecosystem Restoration Detailed Project Report & Environ-mental Assessment- Detailed Project Report. Retrieved from http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/Top-ics/MaldenRiver/DPR_Final.pdf

Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(1), 89–124. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0

Walsh, P. J., Milon, J. W., & Scrogin, D. O. (2012). The Spatial Extent of Water Quality Benefits in Urban Housing Markets. Land Economics, 87(4), 628–644.

Weisbrod, G., & Weisbrod, B. (1997). Measuring Economic Impacts of Projects and Programs. Economic Development Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/econ-impact-primer.pdf

BibliographyU.S. Census Bureau. (2007, January 12). State & county Quickfacts: Middlesex County, MA.. Retrieved April 26, 2015,

from http://quickfacts.census.gov.

MA Office of Geographic Information. (April 2015). Level 3 Assessors’ Parcel Mapping. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographic-informa-

25

tion-massgis/datalayers/l3parcels.html

Bernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2007). Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), 738–751. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01718.x

Card, B. A. Massachusetts Year 2014 Integrated List of Waters. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/water/

resources/07v5/14iwlistp.pdf.

Olmstead, S. M. (2010). The Economics of Water Quality. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(1), 44–62. doi:10.1093/reep/rep016

Poor, P. J., Pessagno, K. L., & Paul, R. W. (2007). Exploring the hedonic value of ambient water quality: A local water-shed-based study. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 797–806. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.013

Streiner, Carol. (1995). Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method.

Zhao, J., Liu, Q., Lin, L., Lv, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Assessing the comprehensive restoration of an urban river: An integrat-ed application of contingent valuation in Shanghai, China. Science of the Total Environment, 458, 517-526.

Collins, A., Rosenberger, R., & Fletcher, J. (2005). The economic value of stream restoration. Water resources research, 41(2).

Rizzo Associates. (n.d.). 378 Commercial Street Phase IV- Remedy Implementation Plan. Retrieved from http://public.dep.state.ma.us/fileviewer/Rtn.aspx?rtn=3-0000590

Appendix A: Interview Protocol Introduction:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. I am conducting this interview in support of a project designed to collect information on how property values along the Malden River might react to a river restoration for the Mystic River Watershed Association and for the Field Projects/WSSS practicum at Tufts University. Your responses to these questions will help us determine the economic impacts of a Malden River restoration, and will be included in a formal written report for Tufts and MyRWA. Questions:

Restoration: the return of the environmental system to a fully recovered natural (towards function equal pre­urbanization). Most common restoration projects are: stormwater management; bank stabilization; channel reconfiguration and grade control; and riparian re­planting and management.

For the interviewee as a potential developer/investor: 1. Do you feel the current state of the Malden River has any effect on the value of properties along and close to the river?

a. If so, what/why? 2. Do you think a restoration of the Malden River might affect the value of properties along and close to the river? 3. If you believe it would, do you think the impact would be positive or negative? 4. Would you invest in property along the Malden River because of its proximity to the river? Do you see the Malden River as a positive resource? 5. Aside from the impacts of a river restoration, what other factors are driving property values along and close to the Malden River?

For the interviewee as a real estate agent: 6. Do renters/tenants/potential buyers see the river as an asset? Are they a selling point? 7. How do you see the real estate market in the surrounding area of the Malden River, particularly in terms of property cost and demand? 8. Why do you think investors/developers decide on projects such as the River's Edge project? 9. Would improved water quality increase the value of properties? How about improved aesthetics and recreational opportunities?

10. Do you think there is any restriction to citizens/developers to access land (buy, lease, etc.) in the surroundings of the Malden River? 11. Beyond the river itself, what other aspects do you think are leveraging or preventing the development in the surroundings of the Malden River?

Appendix B: IRB Documentation

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

TUFTS UNIVERSITY FIELD PROJECTS TEAM NO. [___ AND NAME OF TEAM]

AND

MYRWA

I. Introduction

Project (i.e., team) number: ________

Project title: ______________________

Client: Mystic River Watershed Association

This Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) summarizes the scope of work, work product(s)

and deliverables, timeline, work processes and methods, and lines of authority, supervision and

communication relating to the Field Project identified above (the “Project”), as agreed to between

(i) the UEP graduate students enrolled in the Field Projects and Planning course (UEP-255) (the

“Course”) offered by the Tufts University Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and

Planning (“UEP”) who are identified in Paragraph II(1) below (the “Field Projects Team”); (ii)

MyRWA, further identified in Paragraph II(2) below (the “Client”); and (iii) UEP, as represented

by a Tufts faculty member directly involved in teaching the Course during the spring 2014

semester.

II. Specific Provisions

(1) The Field Projects Team working on the Project consists of the following individuals:

1. Ryan Bailey email address: rjbailey87@gmail.com

2. Agustin Botteron email address: agustinbotteron@gmail.com

3. Tim Grant email address: timothy.grant@tufts.edu

4. Sondra Lipshutz email address: smlipshutz@gmail.com

5. Susie Bressney email address: sbresney@gmail.com

[You may want to include cell phone numbers here, as well.]

(2) The Client’s contact information is as follows:

Client name: MyRWA

Key contact/supervisor: Patrick Herron

Email address: Patrick@mystic.river.org

Telephone/cell number(s): 781-316-3438

Address: 20 Academy Street, Arlington, MA, 02476

Appendix C: Memorandum of Understanding

Web site: www.mysticriver.org

(3) The goal/goals of the Project is/are:

Risk Characterization: The Field Projects Team (hereinafter “the Team”) will be assisting MyRWA with

a public health assessment and risk characterization by collecting data on visitor uses, exposure pathways,

potential future uses and perceptions of the Malden River. The Risk Characterization portion of this

project will be the Team’s first priority.

River Restoration Economic Analysis: The Team will determine the potential impact of river restoration

on property values along the Malden River and identify the potential economic benefits to the

surrounding cities. This assessment will be our second priority. If time constraints inhibit the completion

of this portion of the project as outlined below, the scope will be adjusted appropriately.

(4) The methods and processes – including the methodologies -- through which the Team

intends to achieve this goal/these goals is/are:

Risk Characterization: The Team will potentially use surveys, interviews, observation, spatial analysis,

and usage patterns associated with development to identify visitor uses. We tentatively propose the

following steps to determine visitor uses:

1. Interview key stakeholders to identify general usage groups and where these groups are

interacting with the Malden River.

2. Based on interviews, survey each group using online surveys.

3. Supplement the findings from the surveys, interviews, and observations with a GIS analysis of

inferred uses based on development and land use types along the Malden River.

River Restoration Economic Analysis : To determine the economic benefits to surrounding cities and

property value impacts of river restoration, the Team will take the following steps.

4. Perform a comprehensive literature Review of the impacts of river restoration on property values

and the economic benefits of river restoration.

5. Identify comparable river systems for a case study of the property value impacts and economic

benefits of river restoration.

6. Determine potential restoration projects for the Malden River in coordination with MyRWA.

7. Identify current and potential ecosystem services provided by the Malden River.

8. Catalogue the property types abutting the Malden River and evaluate their sensitivity (based on

literature, case studies) to economic impacts resulting from river restoration.

(5) The work products and deliverables of the Project are (this includes any additional

presentations for the client, and may list project elements in order of priority):

Risk Characterization: The Team will provide a report and presentation that summarizes the key Malden

River user groups and their interaction with the river. This report will also summarize the relevant

literature that characterizes the risks associated with contaminants found in the river and the determined

user groups. The final deliverables will be designed to supplement MyRWA’s proposal for a public health

assessment and make recommendations to align river uses with river quality.

River Restoration Economic Analysis: The Team will summarize the results of the literature review, case

study, and property value sensitivity analysis in a report that can be used by MyRWA to highlight the

potential economic benefits of river restoration on the community surrounding the Malden River.

(6) The anticipated Project timeline (with dates anticipated for key deliverables) is:

02/11: MOU Signing

02/24: Project proposal (interim deliverables are outlined)

04/3: First Draft of deliverables

04/17: Final Draft deliverables

04/28-04/29: Final Presentation to field projects class

05/1: Final deliverable due

(7) The lines of authority, supervision and communication between the Client and the Field

Projects Team are (or will be determined as follows):

Patrick Herron will be our main contact with MyRWA. We propose to meet with Patrick once a month

and will schedule additional meetings when needed.

(8) The understanding with regard to payment/reimbursement by the client to the Field

Projects Team of any Project-related expenses is:[1]

TBD

[1] Note that most clients have agreed to defray the cost of Field Projects materials and other expenses.

Nonprofit and agency clients are asked to support the Field Projects effort by contributing $100; for-profit

clients are asked to contribute $200.

III. Additional Representations and Understandings

A. The Field Projects Team is undertaking the Course and the Project for academic credit and

therefore compensation (other than reimbursement of Project-related expenses) may not be provided to

team members.

B. Because the Course and the Project itself are part of an academic program, it is understood that

the final work product and deliverables of the Project (the “Work Product”) – either in whole or in part –

may and most likely will be shared with others inside and beyond the Tufts community. This may

include, without limitation, the distribution of the Work Product to other students, faculty and staff,

release to community groups or public agencies, general publication, and posting on the Web. Tufts

University and the Field Projects Team may seek and secure grant funds or similar payment to defray the

cost of any such distribution or publication. It is expected that any issues involving

MyRWA’sconfidentiality or proprietary information that may arise in connection with a Project will be

narrow ones that can be resolved as early in the semester as possible by discussion among MyRWA, the

Field Projects Team and Penn Loh

C. The Team, upon completion of the Project, will promptly convey all data, research, materials,

documents and audio/video materials directly relating to the Work Product to MyRWA. This includes the

right to alter and edit these materials as appropriate. It is understood that the work of the Team will be

cited by MyRWA or other entities as “Tufts University Malden River Field Projects Team 2015”.

D. It is understood that this Project may require the approval (either through full review or by

exemption) of the Tufts University Institutional Review Board (IRB). This process is not expected to

interfere with timely completion of the project.

IV. Signatures

__________________________________

For [NAME OF CLIENT]

By: [PRINTED NAME]

Date: ___________, 2015

__________________________________

Representative of the Field Projects Team

By: [PRINTED NAME – only one team member’s signature is necessary; it doesn’t matter which team

member]

Date: ___________, 2015

__________________________________

Tufts UEP Faculty Representative

By: [PRINTED NAME of the Instructor Working With Your Team]

Date: ____________, 2015

[NOTES:

1. (*) Each text segment in this document that falls within brackets “[ ]” needs to be filled in

with specific information (or the existing text reviewed and, if necessary, modified) and the brackets

removed. If bracketed material is merely explanatory, it should be removed from the final document (that

is, from the document that is signed).

2. Items (3) through (5) in Part II may be addressed at least partially by reference to the Project

Description (which does not have to be attached); but all material changes should be noted in the MOU in

some fashion. This is particularly important if your project has changed in any significant way since the

Project Description was distributed.

3. If necessary, you can complete the signature page in separate pieces (e.g., with the team and

instructor signing one copy, and the client signing and faxing in (or scanning and emailing) a second

copy).

4. Part III is the place to include other issues that you need to identify and resolve up front.

5. Teams that are completing their project for another course or part of a broader activity (i.e.,

the WSSS Practicum and the Practical Visionaries Workshop) may need to modify the MOU or choose an

alternative approach that better sets forth the detailed understanding of the project as among the team, the

client (or supervisor of the activity), and a Course instructor.]