Residential mobility and the value of water quality improvements in the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents research on the benefits of removing legacy pollutants in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). AOCs are heavily polluted coastal locations identified as priorities for restoration under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the United States and Canada. Legacy pollutants pose a human and environmental health risk that can limit opportunities for redevelopment, recreation, and wildlife habitats. The AOC program improves water quality through remediation and restoration projects, which may increase the desirability of living in proximity to AOCs. In this paper, we estimate the economic benefit of cleaning up part of the Milwaukee Estuary AOC with a two-part sorting model using panel data on neighborhood populations and moving decisions before and after a series of remediation actions. Our results provide evidence that residents value remediation, though estimates are sensitive to the definition of the cleanup area. The average annual benefit for a household living near the AOC just downstream of cleanup is $268, with a range of $28-$499 depending on their race and tenure group; the aggregate benefit is $350 million. Results indicate a large difference in benefits between renters and owners but statistically insignificant differences between race groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".