Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37094134›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Estimating the benefits of stream water quality improvements in urbanizing watersheds: An ecological production function approach.

Roger H von Haefen, George Van Houtven, Alexandra Naumenko, Daniel R Obenour, Jonathan W Miller, Melissa A Kenney, Michael D Gerst, Hillary Waters

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Estimating the benefits of stream water quality improvements in urbanizing watersheds: An ecological production function approach.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  4. Measuring the social benefits of water quality improvements to support regulatory objectives: Progress and future directions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  5. Perspectives on valuing water quality improvements using stated preference methods.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Roger H von HaefenDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8109.ORCID 0000-0002-5604-8754
George Van HoutvenCenter for Water Resources, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
Alexandra NaumenkoGlobal Data Science, Visa, Inc., Foster City, CA 94404.
Daniel R ObenourDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908.ORCID 0000-0002-7459-218X
Jonathan W MillerDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908.ORCID 0000-0002-9230-1016
Melissa A KenneyInstitute on the Environment, 325 Learning and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.
Michael D GerstEarth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740.ORCID 0000-0002-5281-3228
Hillary WatersInstitute on the Environment, 325 Learning and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.ORCID 0000-0002-5831-7030
North Carolina State University · USUniversity of Minnesota · USEarth System Science Interdisciplinary Center · USRTI International · USVisa (United States) · US

Funding

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 83616501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Streams in urbanizing watersheds are threatened by economic development that can lead to excessive sediment erosion and surface runoff. These anthropogenic stressors diminish valuable ecosystem services and result in pervasive degradation commonly referred to as "urban stream syndrome." Understanding how the public perceives and values improvements in stream conditions is necessary to support efforts to quantify the economic benefits of water quality improvements. We develop an ecological production framework that translates measurable indicators of stream water quality into ecological endpoints. Our interdisciplinary approach integrates a predictive hierarchical water quality model that is well suited for sparse data environments, an expert elicitation that translates measurable water quality indicators into ecological endpoints that focus group participants identified as most relevant, and a stated preference survey that elicits the public's willingness to pay for changes in these endpoints. To illustrate our methods, we develop an application to the Upper Neuse River Watershed located in the rapidly developing Triangle region of North Carolina (the United States). Our results suggest, for example, that residents are willing to pay roughly $127 per household and $54 million per year in aggregate (2021 US$) for water quality improvements resulting from a stylized intervention that increases stream bank canopy cover by 25% and decreases runoff from impervious surfaces, leading to improvements in water quality and ecological endpoints for local streams. Although the three components of our analysis are conducted with data from North Carolina, we discuss how our findings are generalizable to urban and urbanizing areas across the larger Piedmont ecoregion of the Eastern United States.

Indexed as

nonmarket valuationstated preferenceurban streamswater quality

Identifiers

PMID37094134
PMCPMC10160966
OpenAlexW4366817288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.