December 12, 2007

•Goal Statement

•Background

•Methodology

•Findings

•Discussion

Goal Statement

To compare the typical and ecological economic value of open spaces.

Serves as a model for examining the value ecological services.

Traditional Economic Viewpoint

• Current value: Focuses on Services that the Individual Can be Charged For.e.g. Food, timber, recreation and

aesthetic value

• Potential Value: $/unit X maximum number of buildable lots + Raw Materials

http://www.clarku.edu/tbwa/images/current%20photos/Slide3.JPG

Ecological Economic Viewpoint• Values all the services including

those that benefit communities as a whole. e.g. Air filtration, erosion control, and

overland flow mitigation

• Claims that the conventional valuation approach undervalues nature

http://www.clarku.edu/tbwa/images/current%20photos/Slide3.JPGhttp://www.oscette.com/Creekpipe1.JPG

http://grandbaynerr.org/images/Erosion_site03.Grand_Battures.20041201.detail_of_land_slumping.2.jpg

•Build-out Analysis Lots• 339 RS-7 units

•Calculated Preserved Open Space Lots• 1,026 RS-7 Units

•Current Residential Tax Rate: 1.21%

•Mean House Value: $183,000

•$90,694,830 Revenue per 30yrs

•573 New School-Age Children

•Cost of K-12 Schooling: $41,062,057

•Additional School Cost: $17,850,000

•Net Tax Revenue: $31,782,773 per 30yrs

(without gray infrastructure cost)

Total: $2,171,119 over 30 years

$2,171,119

• Ecological Economic > Typically Valued Economic Services

A large part of the open space value is lost in the typical valuation methods

$2,171,119

$31,782,773

Analyze Other Areas by Applying Similar Methods

Consider Policy Implications for Land Use Planning

SponsorColin NovickGreater Worcester Land Trust

Project AdvisorProf. Robert KruegerProf. Dominic GoldingProf. Jennifer Rudolph

Ruth GentileWorcester Planning and Regulatory Services

Sean DwyerWorcester Parks & Recreation Coordinator

Roger PlourdeBroad Arrow Forestry

Robert McNeilMcNeil Engineering