Certain features, such as the Duck Pond, were found to be much more highly valued (Figure 2).
We observed a significant relationship between the pond area and it's aggregate value. This relationship was best described by an exponential (or semi-log) model, which accounted for 71% of the variation in pond value (Figure 3).
In general, respondents identify a feature as important due to its Aesthetic, Environmental, and Recreation Value (Figure 4).
Respondents most frequently reported walking, running, biking, or driving by identified features. Fewer people reported fishing and swimming. Fewer respondents reported interacting with Stroubles, and many had no contact.
Overall, Blacksburg residents perceive the water quality as moderately good.
Individuals, local government, and Virginia Tech are perceived as the most responsible agents in maintaining and improving water quality of the hydroscape features.
54% of respondents would be willing to pay an additional $100 each year to improve or maintain the Blacksburg water features which they identified as important (Figure 5a). Using an allocation method devised by Sherrouse, et. al (2010), we found respondents would “spend” the most money on Environmental, Aesthetic, and Life-Sustaining Value (in descending order). This finding is in contrast to Result 3 (Figure 5b).
70% of Blacksburg residents identified themselves as environmentally conscious.
Figure 3: Hotspot Map of Stroubles watershed features. Color of points indicated the aggregate resident value of each water feature.
Figure 2: The aggregate resident value of all water features in the Upper Stroubles Creek watershed. The asymmetry indicates most residents value a single large feature in the watershed.
Figure 3: Relationship between aggregate resident value and areal size of ponds in Stoubles Creek Watershed. More value is assigned to larger water features.
Figure 4: Residents most frequently identified water features as important because of their Aesthetic, Environmental, and Recreation Value.
Figure 5a: A slight majority of respondents indicated willingness to pay an additional annual water quality fee. Figure 5b: Resident most frequently allocated this money to Environmental, Aesthetic, and Life-Sustaining Value.