EPA/600/R/13/092 | August 2013 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Evaluation of Green Alternatives for
Combined Sewer Overflow Mitigation:
A Proposed Economic Impact Framework
and Illustration of its Application
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology Division
-------
EPA/600/R/13/092
August 2013
Evaluation of Green Alternatives for Combined
Sewer Overflow Mitigation: A Proposed Economic
Impact Framework and Illustration of its
Application
Prepared by:
Economics Center
Carl H. Lindner College of Business
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221
Contract No. EP-C-11-006
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
-------
OF
PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION 1
LA SCOPE OF THE SEWER OVERFLOW PROBLEM 1
1 .B GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS TO SEWER OVERFLOWS 3
l.C EXISTING RESEARCH ON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITS 4
1 .D FOCUS OF THIS RESEARCH ON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITS 7
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF CASE STUDIES 7
CHAPTER 3 CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY OFFICIALS 14
3.A MARKETING GREEN SOLUTIONS 14
3 .B MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 15
3.C THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS 15
CHAPTER 4 ECONOMIC OUTCOME TAXONOMY 16
4.A PREVIOUS MEASURES 16
4.B ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES 18
4.B.I. Land Use and Property Conditions 19
4.B.2. Economic Activity 19
4.B.3. Socio-EconomicBenefits 20
CHAPTER 5 ILLUSTRATION OF THE TAXONOMY:
AN APPLICATION TO LICK RUN 23
5.A OVERVIEW OF THE LICK RUN PROJECT 23
5 .B IDENTIFICATION OF DATA FOR APPLYING THE TAXONOMY 26
5.B.I. Land Use and Property Conditions 26
5.B.2. Economic Activity 28
5.B.3. Socio-Economic Characteristics 31
5.B.4. Future Changes in Land Use and Property Values 32
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
35
-------
ABSTRACT
The mitigation of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) is a significant environmental and financial
challenge, particularly for older urban communities where these overflows are most prevalent.
Communities are increasingly examining more environmentally sustainable "green" alternatives
for addressing these problems.
These green solutions are often endorsed because of the additional environmental, social, and
economic benefits they produce. A growing body of reports and case studies - briefly reviewed
here - describes and attempts to quantify these benefits as economic impacts.
Most estimates of economic impacts have focused on a comparison of the costs for construction
and operation of green alternatives to traditional infrastructure approaches. Some of these have
attempted to estimate the economic value of communitywide environmental and aesthetic gains,
and other economic benefits are occasionally identified.
This report develops a broad framework, or taxonomy, for identifying and organizing the socio-
economic impacts of sewer infrastructure projects. It focuses on a green project in Cincinnati,
Ohio that has adopted broader economic goals. The report then uses this example to illustrate
how the taxonomy can be used by community officials engaged in storm water management to
obtain a fuller understanding of the economic benefits of green alternatives for CSO mitigation.
Specifically, this report provides three benefits for users:
Guidance to CSO and other communities that can inform their deliberations about gray
versus green infrastructure approaches,
An organizational taxonomy that is adaptable to any municipality, allowing for a
particular community's sewer or storm water management agency to modify the
taxonomy to fit their needs, and
A practical tool for pre- and post- green infrastructure implementation assessment of the
socio-economic benefits of green infrastructure.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
l.A. SCOPE OF THE SEWER OVERFLOW PROBLEM
Sewer overflows are a major environmental and financial challenge across the country. Many
communities, in particular urban areas with aging infrastructure, are combating neighborhood
decay and contending with combined sewer overflow (CSO) mitigation for aging and insufficient
sewer systems. Combined sewer systems, which are largely located in older and heavily-
populated urban areas, are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage,
and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. Most of the time, combined sewer systems transport
all of their wastewater to a sewage treatment plant where it is treated and then discharged to a
water body. During periods of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, however, the wastewater volume in a
combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or treatment plant and is
then discharged directly into the environment (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). During heavy rains, the combined flow of
sewage and storm water is typically more than wastewater treatment plants can handle, and the
Combined (sanitary & sewage) Sewer pipes discharge the excess sewage and storm water into
streams. Such discharges create polluted waterways that expose humans and wildlife to
pathogens and toxins.
Dry Weather
These overflows, called CSOs, contain not only storm water but consist of mixtures of domestic
sewage, industrial and commercial wastewater, and storm runoff. CSOs often contain high levels
of suspended solids, pathogenic microorganisms, toxic pollutants, floatables, nutrients, oxygen-
demanding compounds, oil and grease, and other pollutants. CSOs can cause violations of water
quality standards. Such violations may pose a risk to human health, threaten aquatic life and its
Page | 1
-------
habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of the Nation's waterways. In its 2004 Report to
Congress on sewer overflows, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identified
772 communities with CSOs. While the scope is national, communities in U.S. EPA's Great
Lakes and New England Regions account for half of the identified consent decrees (30% and
20%, respectively)(Figure 2). The burden these consent decrees pose for communities is
increasing, from an average of $31.9 million annually per community for consent decrees signed
in 2002 through 2006, to an average of $52.6 million for decrees signed in 2007 or later.
Figure 2. CSO Distribution in the United States. Dozens of major cities in the US have been
issued federal and/or state consent decrees for violating the Clean Water Act due to CSO
discharges into rivers, lakes, and streams.
Lick Run CSO discharge
of sewage and storm-
water into Mill Creek
Page | 2
-------
I.E. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS TO SEWER OVERFLOWS
Given the high cost of these challenges, it is not surprising that communities are looking for
solutions that offer cost savings or other benefits. Green infrastructure (GI) and low impact
development (LID) are garnering more attention as communities find ways to manage their
wastewater infrastructure issues, whether compelled by a consent decree to manage CSOs or not.
GI and LID are related, but distinct concepts. Much of the existing research, particularly case
studies, focused on GI interventions. LID typically refers to land development and
redevelopment that preserves or creates natural features to remove storm water from CSOs,
treating it like a resource and not a waste product.1 GI includes a broader range of interventions.
The Center for Neighborhood Technology defines GI as "a network of decentralized storm water
management practices, such as green roofs, trees, rain gardens and permeable pavement, that can
capture and infiltrate rain where it falls, thus reducing storm water runoff and improving the
health of surrounding waterways" (Figure 3).2
Figure 3. Green Infrastructure Technologies. Green infrastructure helps to: 1) reduce storm
water runoff into aging combined sewer systems and thereby help to prevent overflows, 2) create
additional green space for typical CSO areas, 3) provide additional economic and social benefits
to these communities, and 4) comply with federal and state consent decrees.
Daylighted Streams
'U.S. EPA(2012a)
2 Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010)
Page | 3
-------
One particular intervention is urban stream daylighting, which Buchholz and Younos describe as
a process in which a portion of a waterway that was previously covered or engineered into storm
water drainage is deliberately exposed.3 It is motivated by ecology, economics, education, and/or
aesthetics, with the goal being riparian habitat and water quality improvement. It can be a way of
creating valuable open space in the middle of dense urban communities. In their review of 19
case studies of urban stream daylighting projects, Buchholz and Younos categorize projects into
five groups based on the primary goal of the project:
Creation of a park amenity,
Economic development/flood reduction,
Ecological restoration,
Creation of an outdoor classroom/campus amenity, and
Residential daylighting.
A common feature of all of the projects is they tend to alter the land use in the project area where
the CSO mitigation occurs. Another example of this type of change is the daylighting of Little
Sugar Creek in Charlotte, North Carolina, which has produced an urban greenway. As the
physical landscape may be permanently altered in a manner that does not occur with traditional
(gray) approaches, GI interventions are believed to generate benefits beyond the mandated water
quality improvements, that gray approaches do not realize.4
U.S. EPA has published a number of documents over the years to guide communities and
regulators in addressing CSO problems. Much of U.S. EPA's recent work has provided insights
about green alternatives to traditional gray approaches and developing an integrated approach to
developing more effective storm water and wastewater solutions.
l.C. EXISTING RESEARCH ON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITS
In this last decade, much research has surfaced examining the benefits resulting from green
approaches to sewer utility and wastewater infrastructure issues. Green approaches to CSO
mitigation are particularly attractive as a practice and object of research because they are seen as
addressing each aspect of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) - environmental, economic, and social
priorities.5
Measures of the environmental prong of the TBL are relatively well defined and standardized,
and other researchers have formalized a detailed taxonomy for evaluating environmental
3 Buchholz and Younos (2007)
4 See Stratus (2009); Wise et al. (2010)
; Stratus (2009)
Page | 4
-------
impacts, such as are associated with CSO mitigation projects.6 Regarding economic and social
measures, there is considerably less consistency, particularly as they relate to GI. While projects
vary from community to community, so too do the types of outcomes, analyses and uses of
findings.7 Often, the intended use of the findings influences the type of analysis employed. In
performing complex economic analyses, it is extremely important to use the same methods for
measuring both costs and benefits, lest the asymmetry produce incomplete or biased results.8
One challenge that exists in evaluating land use changes is the wide variety of land use changes
9
that may occur. To the extent, that consensus exists on economic and social impacts, the
research, and case studies divide economic measures into two categories:
Initial, or direct, economic outcomes: often savings on the hard costs of construction, and
Subsequent, or indirect, economic outcomes, which may be defined as "costs and benefits
that are not included in traditional engineering estimates of the expense to build and
operate facilities."10
The initial, direct economic outcomes are generally well-defined and easily measured as a
standard piece of engineering evaluation for CSO mitigation projects, both gray (traditional
infrastructure) and green. There are construction costs for each alternative, and where green is
less expensive than gray, the GI cost savings become a direct benefit.
In contrast to the clear comparisons in the first category of outcomes, the second category of
subsequent or indirect outcomes is often less straightforward. Often, proxies must be used to
define ancillary economic outcomes, which result from environmental or health impacts, in
monetary terms. For example, monetary valuations of pollution reduction, carbon reduction, and
heat stress reduction are common in the literature.u Commonly considered are changes to
property values and valuations of public amenities such as green space.12 These types of
measures follow from potential sustainability goals that U.S. EPA notes in its 2012 Handbook.13
While it may often be the case that GI practices for CSO mitigation produce greater direct
economic benefits through hard cost reductions compared to gray approaches, "there is a
tendency.. .for green infrastructure proponents to wish to value the indirect benefits of these
6 Bare and Gloria (2008)
7 Garmestani et al. (2011)
8Jaffe(2010)
9 Bare (2010)
10 Stratus (2009)
11 See Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010); American Rivers et al. (2012); Wise et al. (2010);
ECONorthwest (2007).
12 See Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010); Wise et al. (2010); ECONorthwest (2007)
13 U.S. EPA(2012b)
Page | 5
-------
practices in terms of their abilities to support larger ecosystem services and functions."14 Case
studies and project evaluations focus considerably on valuing these non-market benefits;
however, significant challenges exist. In the course of identifying and measuring the benefits
accruing to a particular community for the particular practices implemented, the repeated caveats
are the importance of local conditions and the difficulty of properly valuing outcomes for which
there is no market for exchange where an observable price for the outcome is set.15 In assessing
these efforts, critics have noted, "Problems with using more indirect methods of valuation
include unnecessary complexity, analytical asymmetry, and distributional distortions." 16
Relying on a selection of case studies to guide project evaluation may result in a community
omitting relevant measures, or focusing on outcomes that may not be applicable. Due to widely
varying local conditions, many GI practices described in the literature vary widely in how they
are implemented. When these differences are combined with the existence of multiple techniques
that may be employed to estimate economic benefits, it is difficult to generalize from specific
project evaluations. Consequently, even carefully constructed evaluations may not produce
reliable results if they are based on case studies alone.
Aside from the substantial difficulties in obtaining generalizable estimates for the valuation of
non-market benefits, another challenge is a lack of understanding, recognition or acceptance of
the potential benefits that GI may generate.17 Likely this lack of widespread recognition or
consensus on these benefits is due to the fact they accrue to different groups in different
magnitudes. Private individuals may experience some benefits, such as reduced energy costs,
while other benefits are more diffuse like public goods such as parks and green space.
Most studies of GFs economic benefits have largely neglected important measures of economic
vitality, focusing instead on measuring complex concepts that are inherently difficult to quantify,
including the reduction in negative externalities such as pollution or the creation of public goods
such as parks. As noted earlier in the categorization of urban stream daylighting projects,
economic development may sometimes be a high priority for communities pursuing GI
interventions.18 The U.S. EPA notes that "improving] the economic vitality of the existing
community" is a potential sustainability goal.19 Thus, measures pertaining to the economic
vitality of the project area are consistent with economic and socio-economic impacts of GI,
particularly for CSO mitigation projects that tend to occur within older, urban settings.
14Jaffe(2010)
15 See Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010); American Rivers et al. (2012); Wise et al. (2010)
16Jaffe(2010)
17 Wise et al. (2010); ECONorthwest (2007)
18 Buchholz and Younos (2007)
19 U.S. EPA(2012b)
Page | 6
-------
l.D. FOCUS OF THIS RESEARCH ON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITS
This research focuses on the redevelopment challenges associated with green alternatives for
CSO mitigation, rather than new construction, which has received more attention from other
researchers.20 This report provides an initial characterization of "economic development"
impacts, and proposes these measures as a more focused conception of the economic and social
aspects of the TBL.
As illustrated in the review of case studies to follow, economic development impacts - such as
changes in occupancy rates, employment, and income within the CSO project area - are largely
absent from consideration. Beginning with a categorization of the impacts common in the
existing research, this report attempts to fill this gap in the research on the economic benefits of
green approaches to CSO mitigation in urban areas.
This report presents a broader taxonomy, which includes economic development impacts that do
not rely on complex estimation of non-market benefits. These benefits occur first within the
primary project area, but expansions to the larger metropolitan area, sewer service area, or
community are possible. The taxonomy provides a framework that individual communities may
use to measure changes in their project area following their GI investments.
Consistent with the analyses in previous studies, these economic impacts are ancillary in that
they are not part of the standard metrics in an engineering evaluation. Similar to previous
research, these impacts are expected to occur primarily because of the permanent land use
changes necessary to implement the interventions, and thus assumed not to result from traditional
gray approaches.
2. REVIEW OF CASE STUDIES
Case study analysis is common for planning and evaluation of storm water management
programs and often has served as an effective means of evaluating specific outcomes for a
particular community. However, there are drawbacks to relying on case studies for projecting
potential outcomes. Most notably, even similar locations and projects will still have substantial
variability in their outcomes due to differences in local conditions and the particular
interventions pursued. While there is tremendous variation across locations, some consistencies
have surfaced.
20 ECONorthwest (2007)
Page | 7
-------
One thorough review of nine case studies of GI storm water maintenance projects revealed that
typical types of project analyses include:21
Cost-effectiveness,
Benefit valuation, and
Cost-benefit analysis.
This review found the purpose of an analysis of GI economic impacts often guides the selection
of techniques and outcomes. Broadly, the two most common motives for pursuing the analysis
include:
Gaining stakeholder support and/or funding and
Supporting data-driven decision-making.
Employing economic principles and strategies in order to promote GI investments makes sense.
It is these very principles that guide most investments, and economic outcomes, such as jobs
created, business district redevelopment, increased property values, tax revenues, and substantial
cost savings in efforts to meet environmental goals. However, in the case of GI investment
decisions by public sewer agencies, these strategies are meant to serve both the preferences of
consumers and the environmental objectives defined by federal and state laws and regulations.
As mentioned previously, there is another analysis of case studies that focused on urban stream
daylighting projects.22 This analysis included two projects that addressed urban sewer overflow
and flooding problems and led to notable revitalization activities.
The first, Arcadia Creek in Kalamazoo, Michigan, was part of larger, 13-block redevelopment
plan, which now provides a site for numerous city events and generates a positive economic
impact for the city. The second, the daylighting of a section of the Grand River in Jackson,
Michigan, which was undertaken for the purpose of removing a culvert that created a serious
safety hazard, resulted in "unexpected business development and investment along the newly
opened waterway."
In addition to these two sets of case studies, the Economics Center reviewed an additional
selection of case studies that focused on CSO communities. These studies were produced by the
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). Two groups of case studies were selected
for review. The first were GI projects that centered on CSO systems. The second group consisted
of projects that explicitly evaluated the choice of green versus gray solutions to storm water
management. The case studies are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
21 For more detail on these case studies, see Garmestani et al. (2011).
22 Bucholz & Younos (2007)
Page | 8
-------
They provide several examples wherein the green solution is less expensive than the gray
solution, and this reduction in cost is true not only for (capital) cost assessments, but for several
examples of life cycle costs. These lower costs contradict critics of GI who argue that GI is a
high cost alternative. When GI is a lower cost alternative, it might be easier for water
management officials to get buy-in from stakeholders.
Occasionally, economic considerations extend beyond project costs to an articulation of other
benefits such as long-run economic impacts. The Lick Run project in Cincinnati, Ohio, the first
project in Table 1, is an example of such an approach. Sewer district descriptions of the project
stress the importance of the economic benefits of new green space amenities and anticipated
urban redevelopment.23
'U.S. EPA(2011)
Page | 9
-------
Entity
Lick Run,
Cincinnati,
Ohio
Speedway,
Indiana
Indianapolis,
Indiana
Tabor to the
River
Table 1. Summary of ASLA
GI Program Consent
Description & Decree
Objectives
Daylighting and Y
other GI features
such as greater use
of natural drainage
systems, to reduce
storm water volume
and improve water
quality.
Combined sewer N
separation project
utilizing bioswales,
rain gardens, and
native plant
communities
Combined sewer Y
separation project
with green
infrastructure of two
bioretention basins
with overflow
spillway
Integrated hundreds N
of individual
Case Studies featuring Combined Sewer Overflow
Role of Analysis Type of
Analysis
Overall cost Capital cost
assessment and assessment
performance
analysis of storm
water solutions
Identify cost Cost
effective means Effectiveness
to achieve water
quality and
ground water
infiltration for
8 8% of annual
rainfall
Identify most Capital cost
cost effective assessment
means to achieve
water quality and
ground water
infiltration for
8 8% of annual
rainfall
Cost Cost Benefit
Effectiveness Analysis
Key Metrics
Storm water
reduction by
gallons
GI vs. gray
analysis
performed
GI vs. gray
solution
comparison
Cost savings of
$60 million over
Systems
Project Outcome
Projected to reduce CSOs
by approximately 630
million gallons annually
Free draining soil utilization
meant that GI was actually
less expensive than gray
infrastructure; 88% of all
rainfall events can be fully
captured/treated by new
infrastructure
Project captures, treats and
filters all storm water up to
1", which for Central
Indiana, covers -88% of all
rainfall.
Increased community
engagement to improve
Page | 10
-------
Program,
Portland,
Oregon
projects to improve
sewer system
reliability
the proposed
gray solution
watershed health
East Ohio
Street,
Indianapolis,
Indiana
Improve drainage,
handicap
accessibility, and
replace deteriorating
urban infrastructure
in area. Project
contains small rain
garden grant
Y Evaluate impact
of
redevelopment
of area using GI
Cost GI vs. gray Significantly reduced costs
Effectiveness solution (10%) over gray
comparison infrastructure. Project
removes an estimated 1.3
million gallons of storm
water from the combined
sewer system annually. This
is -90% of annual rainfall
for area
Page | 11
-------
Table 2. Other Relevant ASLA Case Studies featuring Green vs. Gray Analysis
Entity
GI Program
Description &
Objectives
Consent Role of Analysis Type of
Decree Analysis
Key Metrics Outcome of Analysis
Rome, New
York
Retrofit of downtown
streetscape, tree
planting in urban
core, and
inventory/analysis of
existing public trees
in Rome
N Demonstrate costs
of implementing
aesthetic changes to
the urban core
Capital cost GI vs. Gray 90% of storm water
assessment solution infiltrates into new porous
comparison Flexi-Pave rubber pavement
and dissipates naturally over
time
West Collection of N Cost Effectiveness Cost Benefit Reduction in Significant reduction in the
Milton, rainwater
Ohio incorporated into
daylighting
downspouts from
green roof into
decorative rain
gardens as well as a
large underground
cistern
Analysis costs (9% volume of runoff and a
savings) $13,000 savings for the
school district in water bills
annually
Mt. Tabor
Middle
School,
Portland,
Oregon
Implement storm
water management
through rain garden,
porous concrete
bioswales, storm
water planters, and a
N Assess potential of
green solutions to
meet objectives
without damaging
property aesthetics
Cost GI vs. Gray
Effectiveness solution
comparison
GI storm water solutions
had an overall savings of
approximately $500,000
over the gray alternatives of
added upsizing of sewer
pipes
Page | 12
-------
green street
Frick
Chemistry
Laboratory,
Princeton,
New Jersey
Construction of three
Bioretention basins
and a 12,000 gallon
rainwater harvesting
tank in order to
manage storm water
runoff
N
Cost Impact
analysis &
Performance
Analysis
Life cycle Comparison Reduced the volume of
cost analysis of life cycle storm water discharge by
costs for GI 583,270 gallons through the
vs. gray "greening" of site, with an
solution additional 582,861 gallons
reused annually for toilet
services
Note: The Frick Chemistry Laboratory and Tabor Sewer Projects described in Table 1 included a Green vs. Gray cost analysis
Page | 13
-------
3. CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY OFFICIALS
The Economics Center conducted structured conversations with storm water management
officials in nine cities to understand how they apply economic principles for more effective GI
investment and to ascertain if these officials saw a connection between GI investments and
economic gains that may result from them. 24 From these conversations, we learned their
experiences offer insights for other communities about the potential for using GI to address both
environmental and economic objectives.
3.A. MARKETING GREEN SOLUTIONS
Among the various sets of case studies examined during this project, the overwhelming majority
reported the "regulatory environment was favorable" to the GI project. Properly working out
regulations can create a system of economic incentives that motivate property owners to manage
storm water efficiently without an overarching development plan. Once this system is in place,
officials still have to decide with whom to interact to get things done: developers or
homeowners?
Some officials suggested that targeted regulations can guide individual homeowners to
implement new small-scale GI projects in established neighborhoods. However, most officials
find it easier to work with developers because there are fewer of them than there are
homeowners. While fewer resources are required to reach and educate one developer about GI
options, such an approach must happen at an earlier stage than educating multiple homeowners.
More resources are required for this kind of in-person relationship building, although there is at
least one example of a small jurisdiction (Alachua County, Florida) that has a complete manual
that can be distributed with guidelines for GI investment and incentives. One official noted that it
was particularly beneficial to make contact with developers at this earlier stage, as it provided an
opportunity to "do things right." Another approachwhich does not require extensive interface
with developerscan be used in conjunction with local regulations. This involves targeting large
green spaces under public control for these projects, a tactic that has been pursued in Omaha,
Nebraska.
According to several community officials, more public money is directed to redevelopment
projects rather than new development projects, while the new development projects are seeing
plenty of private, incentivized GI investment.
24 Communities were identified by the Economics Center from a list of consent decree cities and existing case
studies. They included Omaha, Nebraska; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Louisville, Kentucky;
Covington and Newport, Kentucky; Lima, Ohio; Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Alachua County, Florida.
Page | 14
-------
3.B. MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
In some of the case studies described above, economic development occurred because of GI
investment. However, many of the case studies did not carry out a full cost analysis of green vs.
gray infrastructure, so the aim of these conversations was to uncover evidence that communities
see a connection between GI investments and economic gains that may result from it. For these
officials, evaluating the additional benefits of GI is complicated by the absence of sufficient
documentation of results. This is why most current and recent GI efforts are small-scale
demonstration projects that focus largely on measuring impacts, with the objective of producing
the necessary documentation being just as important as the environmental and socio-economic
outcomes.
Another set of challenges associated with GI projects involves the operation and maintenance of
GI. Projects that involve sewer agencies forming partnerships with property owners lead to
uncertainties about who owns and is responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. In some
cases, the burden of identifying and implementing accountability systems has led communities to
cut back on partnership efforts. A second challenge concerns the need for more specialized
workforce skill-sets associated with installing, operating, and maintaining these GI systems.
The conversations revealed a focus on engineering and environmental metrics because they are
easiest to measure, with economic impact measures such as new business activity "harder to tell
because of the economic times that we're in." When it is implemented, most officials indicate
they treat the cost of the gray plan as a baseline, with relative savings from cheaper GI used to
re-invest (for example, a rain garden means the size of a pipe being installed elsewhere can be
smaller, therefore less costly). Building the necessary consensus among stakeholders therefore
may not be difficult; often GI is desired by everyone involved because the smaller initial projects
involve little financial risk while potentially offering substantial reward if successful projects can
be "scaled up" to system wide implementation.
Community officials raised the issue of equity. Low income citizens may be disproportionately
more likely to live in areas with CSOs and other environmental problems. While they would
benefit from better-managed water flows, anecdotal reports from sewer managers indicate that,
even when the GI represents a net financial gain via higher property values, the inability of renter
households to extract equity from this capital gain means they do not receive the full benefit,
even if they do receive some social/health benefits from achieving environmental goals; one
official reported the property owners in such neighborhoods seem to be less interested in taking
on the additional maintenance responsibilities associated with GI systems.
3.C. THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
Defining property rights is particularly relevant to the study of natural resource management
because property rights to natural resources are often murky or subjected to a variety of
Page | 15
-------
government decrees. Decentralized development via management of private incentives requires
clearly defined property rights, without which markets typically fail to reach the most socially
desirable outcomes. However, when GI projects are undertaken in the context of responding to a
consent decree or for the purpose of achieving a specific environmental outcome, the production
of economic value may be a secondary objective, if it is a concern at all. If property rights are
defined in a way that allows those with authority over water management and redirection to act,
this type of value creation can take place.25
In light of these conversations, the development of a taxonomy of economic impacts is a step
towards helping community officials identify significant impacts of their projects. Understanding
these impacts will allow them to better plan how to address their storm water management goals.
4. ECONOMIC OUTCOME TAXONOMY
4.A. PREVIOUS MEASURES
As noted in the literature and case studies, some consistent themes arise as communities evaluate
the impacts of their GI CSO mitigation projects. These commonalities allow for the creation of a
preliminary taxonomy, or organizational structure, of economic benefits. All projects are
concerned with construction, operation and maintenance costs. Sometimes they are addressed
comprehensively in a life cycle cost analysis. These costs typically accrue to the entire service
area or municipality, as they are generally funded by either sewer rates or bonds. These costs are
private in that they are ultimately borne by individuals. Typically, researchers and community
leaders would consider cost reductions associated with the adoption of GI practices, instead of
gray, as economic benefits.
All projects, but particularly those that require changes to land use, entail disruption within the
project area. Costs such as lost business activity may be considered private as they are incurred
by the business owners; however, there is a convenience cost to consumers that is more diffuse.
It is unclear whether GI practices lead to less disruption in the project area than traditional
interventions.
The next theme that surfaces is the emphasis on the valuation of non-market outcomes as
economic benefits. Generally, these are environmental and health benefits, such as impacts of
25 This is illustrated by the situation in Colorado, where, as was described in one of these conversations, property
rights are defined in an a priori manner, the relevant water is generally not owned by the person best able to redirect
it or install decentralized GI. In factexcept in the wettest of rainfall seasonsmany junior water rights holders
may not have any right to redirect any of the water that flows across their properties, because the water that does fall
is entirely absorbed by senior water rights holders. In situations in which the cost would be borne by one decision-
maker, yet a different one has responsibility to mitigate the problem, market failure can often result even from
attempts to properly manage water flow using purely economic incentives. Such a situation may benefit from a more
centralized approach.
Page | 16
-------
pollution reduction. Hedonic measures of amenity creation, such as parks and green space, are
included. Just as the hard costs of construction accrue to the service area or community at large,
so too do these particular economic benefits.
Among the several benefits identified in studies that accrue specifically to the GI project area,
the most common ones are energy use/cost reductions (which may translate to utility bill
savings), flood damage reduction, and changes to property values. These are the only benefits
typically considered that accrue explicitly to individuals as a direct result of the CSO mitigation.
While GI interventions produce these benefits and costs, many of them may be associated with
gray interventions. Costs associated with disruption in the project area during construction occur
with both alternatives. Similarly, if the mitigation strategy lowers treatment costs, there may be
rate reductions for households and individuals and removal of the CSO may reduce flooding
under either a gray or green approach. Finally, since the CSO mitigation is, at heart, an
environmental concern, some of the non-market benefits that may result from reducing pollution
may be realized with a gray approach.
Table 3 presents a framework, or taxonomy, for the most often considered economic impacts of
CSO mitigation. The first organizational element of this preliminary framework is the division
between initial and subsequent impacts, while the second addresses differences in geographic
scale.
Table 3. Preliminary Framework of Economic Impacts
INITIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Project Area Specific
Disruption due to construction
Lost Sales to Businesses; time loss to motorists from traffic
detours
Communitywide
Construction costs (savings)
Operations & Maintenance (O & M) costs (savings)
Life Cycle costs (savings)
SUBSEQUENT ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Project Area Specific
Flood damage reduction
Reduced energy use
Changes in privately owned property values
Page | 17
-------
Communitywide
Monetized Environmental Benefits
Reduction in pollutants (water and air)
Monetized Health Benefits
Reduction in heat stress, pollution-related ailments
Monetized Public Amenities
Newly created green space, parks and recreational space
4.B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
As noted in the literature and case studies, motivations for pursuing GI interventions vary across
communities, as do the interventions. As such, the outcomes measured tend to vary. Beyond the
classification identified above, what is generally consistent across case studies and the literature
is that benefits accruing to the project area, and its economic vitality, receive little attention as a
priority or an outcome measure, with the exception of some references to local property values.26
The current work seeks to fill this gap in the research by identifying appropriate measures of
economic and socio-economic vitality for CSO mitigation projects that utilize GI practices. First,
we identify categories and candidate measures for economic and socio-economic impacts.
Following this, the impacts will be explored in greater depth with real data for the Lick Run CSO
Project in Cincinnati, Ohio. As described in the review of nine GI storm water case studies, most
evaluations emphasize system-wide or community-wide benefits; however, the mitigation project
is a local activity, often occurring within a specific neighborhood. Additionally, the existing
research and case studies illustrate that GI practices are distinct from traditional "gray"
approaches primarily because they often require permanent changes to land use, and they may
change the ownership of land. Given the project is location-specific, it stands to reason that
location-specific economic outcomes may occur. It is reasonable that such benefits can only
occur in the project area with these significant changes to land use. GI interventions that consist
more of green roofs or disconnecting downspouts, for example, are not likely to create these
economic development impacts.
The framework that follows focuses specifically on the addition of market-based benefits within
the project area to the taxonomy outlined above. It provides an outline for considering what types
of impacts may result from the GI intervention and identifies appropriate measures for these
impacts. As with many preceding evaluation efforts, appropriate measures may be influenced by
local priorities and conditions. This framework provides a method for considering available
measures that, while consistent with local priorities and conditions, may be easily interpreted and
26 Because CSO project areas are often located in low or moderate income neighborhoods, localized economic
benefits may warrant greater attention than communitywide benefits.
Page | 18
-------
more easily compared across interventions, communities, or time. Thus, a "Comprehensive
Taxonomy of Economic Impacts" is developed in stages to accomplish two goals:
Identify and organize categories of impacts and
Identify available measures of impacts, describing advantages and disadvantages
The innovative portion of this Comprehensive Taxonomy, which focuses on the Lick Run project
area, begins with three major economic impact categories: Area Revitalization, Economic
Activity, and Socio-economic Benefits. While measures have been organized under specific
categories, there may be overlap. For example, property values, a well-established outcome
measure, may be considered economic or socio-economic. We place it in the "economic activity"
category primarily because it is easily monetized. Changes to property values impact the well-
being of residents and business owners. Generally, increases in property values are believed to be
a good thing to the extent that property is an asset; however, increases in property values may
increase the cost to owners of maintaining the property through increased property taxes. These
measures are concerned with observable changes to land, businesses, and people. Additionally,
these measures are categorized by their assumed sequence of occurrence. In other words, the first
category of outcomes is considered to be proximate to the GI intervention, and facilitates
changes to the outcomes in the second category. This intuitive sequencing is appealing for
evaluation purposes as it allows communities to define short- and long-term potential impacts.
4.B.I. Land Use and Property Conditions
This category is proximate to the GI intervention as it deals specifically with physical changes in
land use and structures in the project area as a result of revitalization. While initial changes in
these indicators are likely due to the intervention itself, subsequent changes may occur because
of additional leveraged or stimulated investment. These measures allow for observing the mix of
public-private involvement in the project area. Within this category, measures include:
Land use mix of parcels (residential, industrial, commercial),
Share of undeveloped property/parcels,
Ownership mix of parcels (public/private), and
Physical condition of property and of structures on developed parcels
4.B.2. Economic Activity
These measures are direct reflections of the economic activity, particularly as it pertains to
businesses, occurring within the project area. The assumption is the changes to land use and
zoning that occur as a result of the GI intervention will facilitate changes to both how the land is
used and how intensively it is used. While the previous category measures changes to how the
land is used, the measures that follow are considered illustrative of intensity or type of use:
Occupancy rates on developed, commercially zoned parcels,
Composition of businesses,
Page | 19
-------
Employment at local businesses, and
Property values
The particular measures selected here may be reflective of the local priorities for redevelopment
of the project area. Once the economic purpose of the project area has been identified, measures
to observe changes should be identifiable. For example, a community may have a desire to
stimulate a particular industry, employment, or type of development. The presence or
concentration of the specific business or employment could be identified.
4.B.3. Socio-Economic Benefits
This category captures changes to the circumstances of people, primarily residents of the project
area:
Occupancy rates on residentially zoned property,
Median income level of residents,
Employment status of residents,
Public assistance status of residents, and
Wages paid to local employees
Table 4 presents a comprehensive taxonomy for evaluating GI interventions for CSO mitigation.
In addition to the grouping of measures as described above, the final two columns address
aspects of the advantages and disadvantages of these measures. "Sophistication Required"
assesses the level of complexity in producing reliable economic estimates, and "Data Source"
offers insight into the difficulty of compiling the necessary data.
Page | 20
-------
Table 4. Comprehensive Taxonomy of Economic Impacts
Category ° ^ Outcome/Impact
Project .
. Disruption
Area r
Initial
Community Hard Costs
Flood Damage
Reduced Energy
Use
Land Use and
Property
Conditions
Project
Subsequent Area Economic Activity
Socio-Economic
Benefits
Community Environmental,
Measure
Lost Sales to Businesses
Lost Time for Detours
Construction Costs
O & M Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Flood Damage Costs
Energy Costs
Land Use Mix
Share of Undeveloped Property
Public/Private Ownership Mix
Physical Conditions
Commercial Occupancy Rates
Business Composition
Employment & Employee Wages
Property Values
Residential Occupancy Rates
Resident Median Income
Resident Labor Force
Participation
Resident Public Assistance
Receipt
Value of Pollution Reduction
Sophistication
Required
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Data Source
Business Survey
Transportation Model
Engineering Estimates
Engineering Estimates,
EIS
Public Utility
Local Government *
Local Government *
Federal, State
Agencies
Federal, State
Agencies
Local Government *
Federal, State
Agencies
Federal Agencies
Federal Agencies
State Agencies
Proprietary Estimates,
Page | 21
-------
Health, and Public Value of Heat Stress Reductions, U.S. EPA/Industry
Amenity Benefits Pollution-Related Ailments Standards
Value of Green Space, Parks,
Recreational Space
* Local Government includes County Auditor, Property Value Authority or similar agency, and City/County Planning
Department
Page | 22
-------
5. ILLUSTRATION OF THE TAXONOMY: AN APPLICATION TO LICK RUN
5.A. OVERVIEW OF THE LICK RUN PROJECT
Located in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Lick Run CSO is the largest in the area, producing an average of
1.7 billion gallons of overflow annually. The Lick Run Project Area is situated toward the
eastern end of the 1,078-acre South Fairmount neighborhood, which makes up the lower
elevations of the 2,700-acre Lick Run watershed (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Future "Gateway to the West." The Lick Run watershed covers about 2,700 acres on
Cincinnati, Ohio's west side. It includes the South Fairmount community and is home to CSO 5,
the largest CSO in the area. The decaying neighborhood is now part of one of the largest public
works projects in Cincinnati's history and one of the nation's largest proposed experiments in
green infrastructure.
The Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) of Greater Cincinnati has developed a GI alternative for
mitigating this CSO, which includes the Lick Run Project Area, an approximately 50-acre site
Page | 23
-------
bounded primarily by Queen City Avenue on the north and Westwood Avenue on the south
(Figure 5). It includes a variety of land uses and a varied building stock. The map shows the Lick
Run Adjacent Area, consisting of approximately 50 acres, which includes the parcels that are
adjacent to the Project Area along these two primary streets and will be significantly affected by
the project.
Figure 5. Lick Run Area Map. Map of the Lick Run Project Area, an approximately 50-acre
site, which shows the Lick Run Adjacent Area, also consisting of approximately 50 acres, which
includes the parcels that are adjacent to the Project Area along these two primary streets and will
be significantly affected by the project.
Adjacent Area
South Fairmount
0.5km
Planning and implementing a GI project to address its largest CSO has involved a much greater
level of non-traditional activities for MSD than would have been required for a gray project.
MSB's plans to reduce storm water flow and re-create green space within an older urban
neighborhood through the daylighting of the lower portion of Lick Run will require the
acquisition by MSD of the majority of the defined Project Area. Most of this is occurring
through negotiation, although eminent domain remains a last option.
Page | 24
-------
MSB's plans have necessitated higher levels of community engagement. Community
engagement consists of presenting plans and soliciting comments at open neighborhood
meetings, considering how the incorporation of community suggestions might improve the
project, and seeking ways to get stakeholders, especially residents, to participate in broader
efforts at urban revitalization in the area. At these community meetings, it was found that 78% of
respondents supported the Lick Run Alternative (Green) Plan, compared with 16% who
supported the deep tunnel and 6% who were unsure. In the course of these community
engagement efforts, residents raised a number of questions about the economic impacts of
MSB's proposed GI project. It is instructive that several of these questions mirror elements of
the Comprehensive Taxonomy that focus on project area impacts. Among the concerns raised
were: a lack of information about anticipated impacts on local jobs and businesses, the potential
for redevelopment and revitalization through urban infill on vacant properties, and the need to
look more closely at impacts on neighborhood socioeconomic conditions.
To illustrate the usefulness of the more comprehensive taxonomy presented in this report (Table
5), the final section of this report applies its novel elements to the Lick Run CSO project,
focusing on both the Lick Run Project Area and the Lick Run Adjacent Area. The following
discussion demonstrates the availability of data for applying the Comprehensive Taxonomy's
project area measures (See Appendix for discussion about data sources).
Table 5. Guide for Applying the Taxonomy to the Lick Run Project
Outcome/Impact
Land Use and
Property
Conditions
Economic Activity
Socio-Economic
Benefits
Measure Project Area
Land Use Mix
Share of Undeveloped Property
Public/Private Ownership Mix
Physical Conditions
Commercial Occupancy Rates
Business Composition
Employment & Employee Wages
Property Values
Residential Occupancy Rates
Resident Median Income
Resident Labor Force Participation
Resident Public Assistance Receipt
Adjacent
Area
Page | 25
-------
5.B. IDENTIFICATION OF DATA FOR APPLYING THE TAXONOMY
5.B.I. Land Use and Property Conditions
The Lick Run Project Area is comprised primarily of commercial and public land uses, along
with vacant land (Table 6). The largest of these three categories is commercial, which comprises
26.6 percent of the total acreage within the Project Area. Public land uses (including parks,
schools, and institutional) account for 26.1 percent of the total land area. Commercial and public
land uses are more prevalent in the Project Area than in the Adjacent Area or the South
Fairmount neighborhood as a whole. On the other hand, the Project Area has little residential
area (11.1%), which is markedly less residential than the Adjacent Area and the neighborhood
(37.8% and 28.0%, respectively).
Table 6.
Commercial
Public
Vacant
Industrial
Residential
Land Use Distribution,
Project Area
26.6%
26.1%
21.7%
14.5%
11.1%
Sorted by Share
Adjacent Area
13.3%
9.0%
21.8%
18.2%
37.8%
of Project Area
South Fairmount
7.2%
24.2%
31.8%
8.9%
28.0%
All three areas have high levels of vacant land (21.7%, 21.8%, and 31.8%, respectively). Vacant
land or vacant parcels consist primarily of undeveloped plots of land that are free from structures
or other additions. These lots, however, are not necessarily blighted or have a negative impact on
the area; instead, they may just be underutilized currently, which ultimately may allow for more
development in the future. Residential land use in the Project Area and the Adjacent Area is
dominated by multi-family housing, (70.7% and 77.0%, respectively). South Fairmount as a
whole consists largely of single-family land use, which accounts for two-thirds of all residential
area. Table 7 details the various types of residential uses within the three areas.
Page | 26
-------
Table 7. Residential Land Use Distribution
Project Area
Adjacent Area
South Fairmount
Other
Housing
Single
Family
Land Area
70.7%
29.3%
Parcels
41
21
Land Area
77.0%
23.0%
Parcels
98
64
Land Area
33.1%
66.9%
Parcels
447
1,201
A more detailed examination of non-residential development within and surrounding the Project
Area shows a rather diverse mix (Table 8). Within the Project Area, 41 percent of non-residential
total land is commercial property; this consists of general and automotive commercial (retail,
auto repair, service, and restaurants and accommodations), offices, and mixed-use development.
Mixed-use properties are generally defined as properties that serve multiple purposes such as
having space for residential as well as offices. In the Project Area, Adjacent Area, and
neighborhood, mixed-use parcels primarily consist of either commercial storefronts with
residential above or commercial storefronts with office units in the floors above. Public land use
accounts for 37.9 percent of the Project Area, with the most prevalent specific use being public
service (20.0%) and parks and recreation (14.3%). Lastly, industrial land - which includes light
industrial, heavy industrial, and manufacturing - accounts for 21 percent of the Project Area.
Table 8. Non-Residential Land Use Distribution
Commercial
General and Automotive
Office
Mixed-Use
Public
Public Service
Parks and Recreation
Public Utility and Other
Institutional
Educational
Industrial
Project
Area
41.0%
32.7%
5.9%
2.4%
37.9%
20.0%
14.3%
3.6%
21.1%
Adjacent
Area
35.7%
29.1%
2.2%
4.4%
25.0%
13.1%
0.0%
11.9%
39.3%
South
Fairmount
18.6%
14.8%
2.9%
0.9%
59.6%
27.1%
0.3%
12.3%
16.2%
3.7%
21.8%
The Adjacent Area and the South Fairmount neighborhood as a whole have much different
proportions of occupied non-residential land uses. The Adjacent Area's largest land use is
Page | 27
-------
industrial, with 39.3 percent of all land area being used for this purpose, while industrial use
accounts for only 21.8 percent of land use in the South Fairmount neighborhood. Commercial
land use in the Adjacent Area is prevalent, comprising 36 percent of the total non-residential land
area, but only 18.6 percent of South Fairmount's non-residential land area is commercial, and
nearly 60 percent is dedicated to public use.
An analysis of property conditions can be conducted in a number of ways. Data about building
permits provide a standard measure of property investment, while citations for building code
violations are indicators of disinvestment and other problems. The most serious measure of
disinvestment in an area is vacant, condemned buildings that must be demolished, or will require
major rehabilitation (Table 9).
Table 9. Vacant Condemned Buildings
Total Structures
Condemned Buildings
Percent Condemned
Project
Area
105
23
21.9%
Adjacent
Area
176
24
13.6%
Additional property analyses can be conducted by means of a visual inspection of properties or
parcels within an area. Properties can be rated based on their street front aesthetics, building
quality, maintenance, and overall conditions. To ensure quality and consistency, field workers
follow a thorough rating guide and conduct the analysis of the area on foot or take extensive
photographs by car to be able to take more detailed notes.
5.B.2. Economic Activity
Economic activity occurs largely within the commercial and industrial land use categories, with
certain public uses contributing to an area's economic base. By collecting information on the
business mix and intensity of use, it is possible to obtain a greater appreciation of the extent of
economic activity occurring within an area. Some information can be collected from secondary
sources, including business directories and government databases, and this can be supplemented
with data compiled through business surveys conducted by local government staff or local
business associations, chambers of commerce, or colleges. Combining data from these sources
produces the following summary of businesses (Table 10).
Page | 28
-------
Table 10. Lick Run Project Area Businesses by Type
Commercial
Restaurant/Retail/Household Services 10
Non-Household Services/Miscellaneous 7
Other
Industrial
Construction 5
Manufacturing 4
Transportation 4
Total Businesses 30
Commercial land uses include retail stores and household service businesses, offices, and
restaurants and accommodations. Industrial land uses consist mostly of extraction, construction,
manufacturing, transportation, and distribution activities. In general, businesses in industrial
areas do not primarily serve residents in the immediate area. Rather, their primary benefits to the
surrounding area come from providing a daytime population for the area, which may generate
demand for other businesses, and from being a potential source of jobs for area residents.
Combining information from various data sources, there are approximately 30 businesses in the
Lick Run Project Area, employing about 330 people. In analyzing the economic activity within
the Project Area, commercial and industrial businesses are considered separately. About 10 of
these businesses are restaurant/retail/household services that serve neighborhood residents.
Almost all of these commercial businesses are quite small. On the other hand, the majority of
larger businesses are engaged in either manufacturing or some type of activity (e.g., bus
company, construction firms) that involves them working throughout the City and beyond.
Employment in the Lick Run Project Area comprises nearly half of all employment in South
Fairmount (46%). Further, that means that almost half of all jobs within the neighborhood are
concentrated within less than 5 percent of the total land area. Table 11 details the total number of
jobs, total wages, and yearly average wage of each job.
Table 11. Employment and Wages
Project Area
Adjacent Area
South Fairmount*
Jobs
330
230
150
Total
Wages
$10,230,000
$6,095,000
$3,840,000
Average
Wage
$31,000
$26,500
$25,600
Page | 29
-------
Total 710 $20,165,000 $28,400
*Less Lick Run Project Area and Adjacent Area
Yearly wages were calculated based on second quarter earnings for all jobs within the Project
Area, Adjacent Area, and total neighborhood. Unlike the previous tables, the Project Area and
Adjacent Area are excluded from the South Fairmount neighborhood figures to better illustrate
the importance of the Lick Run Project Area. The Lick Run Project Area has the highest wage
per job, with a $4,500 per year difference between it and wage levels for the Adjacent Area and
the remainder of the neighborhood. However, wage levels for jobs in all three areas are well
below the 2011 averages for the nation ($48,000), the metropolitan area ($46,400), and the
county ($52,000). Property value is highly dependent on the type and intensity of use. In the
Project Area, residential and commercial property values are the highest, with total values of
about $500,000 per acre for land plus improvements, and land values of about $120,000 and
$170,000 per acre, respectively. Industrial property has a much lower average land value, about
$55,000 per acre, which largely accounts for the difference between commercial and industrial
property in total value per acre. Vacant land is valued at only $6,800 per acre, which suggests
these properties may have negative characteristics that would likely contribute to a lack of
market demand (Table 12).
Table 12. Property Values in Project Area
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Vacant
Total
Property
Value per
Acre
$516,300
$477,000
$349,100
$6,800
Land Value
per Acre
$118,200
$168,200
$54,500
$6,800
Trends in economic activity may be an important consideration. This includes any trends in the
types and level of business activity, property value, and the amount of unused business space. In
Lick Run, the number of businesses and the employment level has been decreasing in recent
years.
Page | 30
-------
5.B.3. Socio-Economic Characteristics
Socio-economic data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (at the ZIP or
Census Tract level) and data from state and local sources allow us to estimate the characteristics
that are shown in Table 13.
Table 13. 2010 Socio-Economic Characteristics
Population
Households
Average household size
families below poverty
Project Area
319
179
1.78
level 37%
Adjacent Area
788
476
1.66
40%
Housing units
vacant
occupied
owner-occupied
renter-occupied
75 42%
104
29 28%
75 72%
155
321
72
249
33%
22%
78%
Median household income
unemployment rate
$25,031
23.2%
$22,435
23.8%
Two other potential measures of socio-economic characteristics are a street activity analysis and
an analysis of the social effects of the built environment. Many different university researchers
train and employ students to undertake such analyses, which are usually customized to particular
projects. As illustrated in Table 14, different types of street activities and land use activities can
be given positive, neutral, or negative ratings to reflect their assumed contribution to or
detraction from healthy neighborhood social conditions.
Table 14. Examples of Activities Affecting Social Conditions
Street Activities
Land Use Activities
Neighborhood Parks,
Retail, Residential
Positive Normal Conversation, Cooking, Demonstrating a
Message, Eating/Drinking, Entering/Exiting Home,
Expressing Affection, Playing/Performing,
Shopping, Walking Pets, Working
Neutral Getting In/Out of Car, Passing Through, Reading, Offices not serving
Page | 31
-------
Smoking, Standing, Sitting, Talking on the Phone, households
Waiting for Bus
Negative Appears Drunk, Being Harassed, Fighting/Yelling Industrial, Large
in Anger, Harassing Someone, Lying/Sleeping, Parking Areas,
Panhandling, Urinating Vacant Lots,
Abandoned Buildings
The street activities analysis is comprised of observations of how individuals are interacting with
their physical space as well as other individuals in the area. Pedestrian activities are scored based
on a series of criteria; if the activity is perceived as beneficial, it is given a positive score and if
the activity is perceived as detrimental, it is given a negative score. Activities such as smoking,
waiting for a bus, getting in or out of a car, or talking on the phone are tallied as neutral
activities.
The land use activities analysis assesses how the type of land use in an area affects the overall
urban fabric. In general, neighborhood parks, multi-family residential, and high-traffic retail uses
contribute more to neighborhood vitality than churches, single-family housing, and other retail
uses. At the other end of the spectrum, industrial uses and vacant storefronts are less detrimental
than surface parking, vacant lots, and abandoned buildings. To a large degree, the economic
value of these social activities ends up being captured in property values, but quantifying the
activities helps stakeholders understand the benefits better.
5.B.4. Future Changes in Land Use and Property Values
The Lick Run Project will likely have a direct effect on the way in which land is used in the
Project Area and Adjacent Area and in the neighborhood as a whole. The daylighting of the
stream may increase parks and recreation, public service uses, and residential housing in the
area. What follows is a brief discussion of how land uses may change in the Project Area and
Adjacent Area as a result of MSB's Lick Run project. While this list is not exhaustive, it does
offer an overview of the types of land use change that are possible. The most likely change in
land use would be that daylighting the stream will result in increased public uses as green space
and increased land uses as parks and recreation. These changes in land use may not directly
result in increased tax revenues or an increased tax base, but they have an effect on local
property values and quality of life. Further, a portion of the Project Area will be likely classified
as public use land, therefore the land use change is almost guaranteed.
Another type of change in land use expected is the mix of residential land uses. Although the
Project Area is already dominated by multi-family housing land area (about 70% of all
residential land area in the project area is multi-family), there is the potential that additional
Page | 32
-------
multi-family and mixed-use units will be developed in response to increases in green space. The
main reason that single-family housing is not expected to increase in the Project Area or
Adjacent Area is because of the limited amount of space available for residential development.
However, development within the rest of the South Fairmount neighborhood surrounding the
Adjacent and Project Areas may increase in terms of single-family homes. This could occur if
the expected increase in community and resident amenities - such as additional retail and
commercial space as well as increased quality of life area such as parks and green space -
attracts new residents.
As mentioned above, changes in residential land use around the Project Area and Adjacent Area
are a possible result of, and impetus for, economic development through changes in commercial
and other non-residential land uses. Retail establishments, food and accommodation, and service
industry land uses may increase their shares of total land use as traffic in the area and population
density increases. Further, office and commercial land uses may increase if redevelopment leads
to increased access to larger populations and employment growth. Although the relationship
between residential and non-residential changes in land use is speculative and almost recursive in
nature, it is clear that increased residential land use will lead to increased commercial services
and amenities as well, and in turn increased commercial development due to perceived
profitability stimulates residential development.
Lastly, changes in the third most prominent land use, vacant parcels, are expected. As additional
green space, park and recreation land uses are developed, the share of residential and non-
residential land uses will affect the current stock of residential and non-residential land area as
well as potentially detract from the share of vacant land area. These land use changes will, in
turn, produce other economic impacts that can be estimated with the economic activity measures
in the taxonomy. These economic metrics are likely to be the most useful ones for decision
makers. Table 15, which summarizes most of the metrics presented in this section, demonstrates
these various measures of conditions in the Lick Run area can readily be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Taxonomy. When comparable data are compiled after the GI project and
consequent redevelopment occurs, community leaders will be able to present an assessment of
the project's economic impact.
Page | 33
-------
Table 15.
Outcome/Impact
Land Use and
Property
Conditions
Economic Activity
Socio-Economic
Benefits
Taxonomy of Lick Run Project Area Economic Impacts
Measure
Land Use Mix
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
Share of Undeveloped/Vacant
Property
Public Ownership Share
Physical Conditions: Condemned
Commercial Occupancy Rates
Business Composition
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Employment & Employee Wages
Total Employment
Average Employee Wage
Property Values (per acre)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Residential Occupancy Rates
Resident Median Income
Resident Labor Force Participation
Resident Public Assistance Receipt
Project Area
26.6%
14.5%
11.1%
21.7%
26.1%
22%
41.0%
37.9%
21.1%
330
$31,000
$516,300
$477,000
$349,100
58.0%
$25,031
23.2%
37.0%
Adjacent
Area
13.3%
18.2%
37.8%
21.8%
8.9%
14%
35.8%
25.0%
39.3%
230
$26,500
67.0%
$22,435
23.8%
40.0%
Page | 34
-------
6. CONCLUSION
Communities have to make very expensive decisions when confronted with a consent decree: the
average community must spend over $50 million annually to comply with consent decrees
signed in 2007 or later. This motivates explorations of alternative methods that can achieve the
same or enhanced environmental goals while allowing for progress economically, socially, and
aesthetically. This study proposes a framework for analyzing whether a particular environmental
need can be better met through the use of green infrastructure investment rather than the
traditional "gray" approach. The nature of this framework must be complete to enable a benefit-
cost analysis to occur, something which is rare among these communities because they lack the
understanding, interest, or skills to do so comprehensively.
This report presents a comprehensive taxonomy, which includes economic development impacts
that do not rely on complex estimation of non-market benefits. These benefits occur first within
the primary project area, but expansions to the larger metropolitan area, sewer service area, or
community are possible and likely. The taxonomy provides a framework that individual
communities may use to measure changes in their project area following their GI investments.
The need for this taxonomy is supported by a set of informal interviews with community
officials, as well as by a careful review of dozens of case studies from multiple sources. The
taxonomy's primary value is that it provides a systematic way of sorting the economic impacts of
GI by timing, scope and scale, complexity, and proximate relationship to project investment.
In the application of the taxonomy to the Lick Run project, this report demonstrates that data
about physical, economic, and social conditions are either publicly or readily obtainable, and
these data can be leveraged to illustrate the potential impacts of GI on economic activity,
including wages and property values. As communities think through strategic deployment of GI,
considering these dimensions will be critical. With a tool such as this, communities can conduct
a pre- and post- implementation assessment of the socio-economic benefits of GI.
Page | 35
-------
REFERENCES
American Rivers, the Water Environment Federation, The American Society of Landscape
Architects and ECONorthwest. (2012). "Banking on Green: A Look at How Green
Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Provide Economic Benefits
Community-Wide."
Bare, J. (2010). "Recommendation for land use impact assessment: first steps into framework,
theory and implementation." Clean Technology and Environmental Policy. 13: 7-18.
Bare, J. & Gloria, T. P. (2008). "Environmental Impact Assessment Taxonomy Providing
Comprehensive Coverage of Midpoints, Endpoints, Damages and Areas of Protection."
Journal of Cleaner Production. 16:1021-1035.
Buchholz, T. & Younos, T. (2007). "Urban Stream Daylighting: Case Study Evaluations"
Virginia Water Resources Research Center Special Report. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University.
Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2010). The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to
Recognizing its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits.
ECONorthwest. (2007) The Economics of Low-Impact Development: A Literature Review.
ECONorthwest, Eugene, OR.
Garmestani, A.S., et al. (2011) "The Economics of Green Infrastructure and Low-Impact
Development Practices." In Hale W. Thurston (ed). Economic Incentives for Stormwater
Control. CRC Press.
Jaffe, M. (2010). "Reflections on Green Infrastructure Economics." Environmental Practice. 12
(4): 357-365.
Stratus Consulting. (2009). "A Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Traditional and Green
Infrastructure Options for Controlling CSO Events in Philadelphia's Watersheds." Stratus
Consulting, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Lick Run Watershed Strategic
Integration Plan. (EPA 905-R-l 1-006).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). "Low Impact Development."
Retrieved September 2012 from http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/
Page | 36
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). Planning for Sustainability: A
Handbook for Water and Wastewater Utilities.
Wise, S., et al. (2010). Integrating Valuation Methods to Recognize Green Infrastructure's
Multiple Benefits. Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Case Studies
American Society of Landscape Architects: Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Management
Evans, R., et al., "Upper 40/Foster's Run Stream Restoration"
Mercuric, C., Plumley Engineering, "Rome Canopy Restoration Project"
Pumphrey, A., Williams Creek Consulting, "Ohio Street Pilot Project"
Remenschneider, K. "Combined Sewer Separation Project: CSO 143"
Rock, R., et al. "Frick Chemistry"
Sauer, E., Ruetschle Architects, "Milton Union Exempted School"
Stevens, H., City of Portland, "Mt. Tabor Middle School Rain Garden"
Wolnitzek, G., et al. "Lick Run"
Page | 37
-------
APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY/DATA FOR LICK RUN ILLUSTRATION
A number of data sources were used in applying the taxonomy to the Lick Run Project Area. Of
these data sources, the Cincinnati Area Geographic Information Systems (CAGIS) was used
extensively in addition to U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics data. These data
sources provided information on land use, market price, parcels, employment, and socio-
demographic information. In particular, CAGIS was used to provide information on the sub-
census tract level whereas the U.S. Census Bureau information was applied primarily to census
tract and neighborhood level analysis.
CAGIS aggregates data from multiple local and national sources. Of these, CAGIS uses the
Hamilton County auditor's office data, an office that is primarily responsible for municipal and
county property valuation and recording. The data provided by the auditor is important for
evaluating change over time of an area as the scale of the data is by property parcel or building.
The level of specificity and acuteness of analysis that is granted by having parcel data allows the
researchers to look at specific changes in property use. For example, the auditor's site provides
data about the historical sale price of various properties in a study area. From this, the researcher
can look at a number of things: has sales price increased linearly, or is it apparent that some sort
of development affected the price of properties; have properties gone unsold or maintained the
same ownership for extended periods of time (which may indicate assumed market changes or
established land-uses); or has the velocity of property sales increased over time. Other uses of the
CAGIS and auditor's data deal with property and building permits and citations. Building
permits are a common indicator of investment within an area whereas property and building
citations are symptomatic of local disinvestment.
The other data sources are geared towards econometric analysis and measuring employment
within the study area. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provided information about employment
and wages (ES202). This data can be used to track local changes in employment within various
businesses, business by business. Additionally, ES202 data provides information on new
business start-ups as well as wages paid.
Although these data sources are aggregated from other publicly available sources, ES202 and
data similar to CAGIS data may not be available for all municipalities. Due to ES202 containing
business identity variables, the information is not strictly publicly available. The Economics
Center was able to receive a full variable list including businesses, addresses, employment, and
wages accrued in order to perform geographically sensitive analysis. CAGIS, being partly funded
by the city and county government, is another example of an information consortium that may
not be in all municipalities. The information provided by CAGIS is local, and helpful when
Page | 38
-------
doing geographic analysis. Other cities or municipalities may have an office or section of an
office that deals with local mapping and data management tasks.
Page | 39
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO, G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |