Costs and benefits of capturing urban runoff with competitive bidding for decentralized best management practices

Abstract

[1] Urban storm water runoff is both a source of pollution and a potentially valuable resource. Centralized facilities traditionally have been used to manage runoff. Decentralized best management practice (BMP) options may be able to avoid the costs of purchasing expensive urban land needed for centralized facilities. We investigate the cost effectiveness of implementing BMPs in a Los Angeles area watershed with two voluntary incentive mechanisms: competitive bidding and a fixed subsidy. The subsidy mechanism has lower BMP placement costs but generates relatively large excess profits for landowners. The bidding mechanism has higher BMP placement costs but generates smaller excess profits and tends to be more cost effective for the regulator, particularly at higher runoff capture levels. We also compare the costs of bidding and centralized alternatives and find that the bidding alternative is significantly less costly than a centralized alternative for a range of storm water capture goals. Finally, we examine the value of infiltrated storm water and find that it is up to 38% of total BMP costs.

Optimizing conservation practices in watersheds: Do community preferences matter?

“…For example, approaches for optimization of spatial distribution of conservation practices and best management practices in agricultural landscape have been investigated by multiple studies, such as Newbold [2002,2005], Kaini et al [2007], Artita et al [2008], Cutter et al [2008], Maringanti et al [2009], and Tilak et al [2011a]. However, the inclusion of sociological factors in the design of optimized combinations of conservation practices in the watershed has been mostly absent in these studies and approaches.…”

“…[14] Three are the main objectives of this study: (a) how landowner tenure and attitudes of farming communities affect the preference of individual conservation practices in agricultural watersheds, (b) how spatial distribution of landowner tenure affects the spatial optimization of conservation practices on a watershed scale, and (c) how underlying land tenures and farmer attitudes can modify the effectiveness of alternatives obtained via classic optimization approaches that do not include existing social attitudes in typical optimization approaches (such as those undertaken by Newbold [2002Newbold [ , 2005, Kaini et al [2007], Artita et al [2008], Cutter et al [2008], Maringanti et al [2009], andTilak et al [2011a]). The following sections describe the methodology comprised of the case study, the hydrologic and water quality model, the optimization formulation, and the different experiments performed.…”

The Uneasy Case for Lower Parking Standards

“…Parking lots degrade air and water quality (Akbari et al (2001)), decrease the amount of greenspaces, increase urban heat island effects, and can decrease water supply (Cutter et al (2008)). These negative environmental externalities will differ in their magnitude from place to place.…”

“…An analysis (Cutter et al (2008) If minimum parking requirements force developers to supply parking beyond what the market is willing to pay for, then profit-maximizing developers will try to mitigate the negative effect from parking provisions on profits by economizing for example in space with more compact spots, narrower aisles, and other measures to minimize paved area. In this setting, the 350 ft 2 parking size estimate would be too large for some property types.…”

Performance of Two Bioswales on Urban Runoff Management

“…For example, traditional detention ponds have been widely used to treat storm runoff [8] and permeable paving promotes infiltration of rain where it falls. Importantly, decentralized green infrastructure strategies control runoff and contaminants at their source [9,10]. Vegetation is a green infrastructure strategy that can play an important role in surface runoff management [11][12][13].…”