Cited by 13Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsEconomic and Environmental ValuationAuction Theory and Applications

Saving a creek one bid at a time: A uniform price auction for urban stormwater retention

Open access
Nemes, Veronika, La Nauze, Andrea, Walsh, Christopher J., Fletcher, Tim D., Bos, Darren G., RossRakesh, Sharyn, Stoneham, Gary·2016·Urban Water Journal

Abstract

Urban stormwater runoff degrades waterway health. We describe a market-based approach to identify the most efficient investments to reduce urban stormwater impacts at minimum cost. The framework involves the joint consideration of public and private supply of environmental services across scales; a metric to compare the benefits of interventions across and within scales; an environmental procurement auction to reveal and minimise the cost of private interventions; and an endogenous reserve price to select the optimal portfolio of investments. The paper discusses the economic and environmental rationale for the proposed approach, along with the results of Stormwater Tender, a field trial in Melbourne, Australia. To conceptualize the optimal portfolio of investments we draw the aggregate supply curve and the production possibility frontier (PPF) using data from the field trial. We find considerable heterogeneity in both the private and public cost of providing environmental benefits, highlighting the need to consider interventions across a range of scales. We also find that existing theory is limited in its ability to predict bidders' behaviour. Despite this, it is evident that using the PPF to select projects considerably improves the cost effectiveness of the investment. We therefore conclude that the approach is an effective way of maximising the benefits of policy interventions to reduce the impacts of stormwater on urban waterways.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1573062x.2014.988732

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Seven rain gardens and 71 water tanks were successfully installed on private residential properties using a reverse auction.

    “As Nemes et al. (2016) reported, seven rain gardens and 71 water tanks were successfully installed on private residential properties using a reverse auction.”
  • The Little Stringybark Creek programs, including Storm Tender, successfully used market-based incentives for private homeowner adoption of stormwater management strategies.

    “The Little Stringybark Creek programs, including Storm Tender, successfully used market-based incentives for private homeowner adoption of stormwater management strategies (Nemes et al. 2016).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nemes, V., La Nauze, A., Walsh, C. J., Fletcher, T. D., Bos, D. G., RossRakesh, S., & Stoneham, G.
Affiliations
  • Government of Victoria (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Melbourne Water (AU)
Corresponding author
Fletcher, Tim D.
Venue
Urban Water Journal
Published
2014-12-17
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
232-241
ISSN
  • 1573-062X (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-9006
OpenAlex
W1994050662
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Urban Water Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Auction Theory and Applications
Keywords
urban stormwater runoff, stormwater retention, uniform-price auctions, environmental procurement, ecosystem services, production possibility frontier, reserve prices, cost-effectiveness, waterway health, public and private investment, scale of intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review