Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Objective, Scope, and Novel Contribution
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design of DMOs
2.2. Environmental Indicators Modeling
2.3. Economic Indicators’ Calculations
2.4. Evaluation of Sustainability Scores Using DEA
2.5. Sensitivity Analyses
3. Results
3.1. RBZ DMO Designs
3.2. Environmental Indicators
3.3. Economic Indicators
3.4. Holistic Sustainability
3.5. Cost Sensitivity
3.6. Weighting Scheme Sensitivity
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- The NPV costs varied by DMOs across the watersheds, ranging from 4% (grass RBZ—1.9 m) in Back Creek to 500% (wildlife RBZ—91.4 m) in Greens Mill compared to the mean total NPV costs—due primarily to the greater width and the opportunity costs of the corresponding RBZ.
- Cost sensitivity analyses showed that the opportunity costs dominated the unit NPV costs of the baseline RBZs from 58% (two-zone forest RBZ) to 82% (grass RBZ) due primarily to the annually recurring uniform amounts of the foregone income of cropland and other land rental.
- In all watersheds, all environmental indicators (except DO) due to the urban RBZ—widths showed large effects (>20% change). The mean normalized environmental indicators varied with the largest change in TN due to urban RBZs in Back Creek (60–95%), Sycamore Creek (37–91%), and Greens Mill (52–93%).
- All environmental indicators of wildlife RBZ widths showed relatively minor effects (≤5%) in all watersheds. The composite RBZ widths showed moderate effects (5–20%) in all environmental indicators except the DO in Back Creek.
- The holistic sustainability assessments revealed the least sustainable to most sustainable DMOs. The least sustainable and most sustainable DMOs (with the corresponding holistic sustainability scores) were, respectively, wildlife RBZ—11.4 m (0.54) and urban RBZ—45.8 m (1.00) in Back Creek, three-zone forest RBZ—8.6 m (0.32) and urban RBZ—45.8 m (1.00) in Sycamore Creek, and three-zone forest RBZ—8.6 m (0.62) and urban RBZ—45.8 m (1.00) in Greens Mill.
- Overall, the urban RBZ was found to be the most sustainable (1.00) across all watersheds.
- The holistic sustainability score tradeoffs have important policy implications for the U.S. government’s various riparian restoration and preservation programs including the USDA Conservation Reserve Program, which promotes the development of riparian buffers along streams [63]. Specifically, the results can help focus economic incentives and technical assistance based on the sustainability score tradeoffs of RBZ policy scenarios. The findings are also useful to inform landowners in the region who are considering implementing RBZs.
- The presented methodology is general enough to be applied to develop sustainable RBZ design strategy in the Southeast U.S. and beyond by obtaining appropriate data related to RBZ system components, vegetation types, and widths.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Authors (Year) | Synthesis | Relevance to Current Work |
---|---|---|
Qiu and Prato (1998) [18] | They conducted an economic evaluation of riparian buffers in reducing instream non-point source pollutants from alternative farming systems in Missouri, USA. The alternative farming systems consisted of crop rotation, tillage system, fertilizer application rate, and pesticide application rate. They estimated RBZ costs (construction, maintenance, and opportunity) and government cost savings in the form of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) rental payments. Their results supported government cost savings by maintaining the buffers. | They used the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to assess water quality indicators that included instream sediment yield, nitrogen concentration, and atrazine concentration. We developed the NPV cost calculation methods using opportunity, maintenance, and establishment costs data published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). We used watershed-wide RBZ WQI parameters that were estimated by Ghimire, et al. [14] using the Hydrologic and Water Quality System (HAWQS) that employed SWAT as modeling engine. |
Rickerl et al. (2000) [59] | They evaluated the economic, agronomic, and environmental performance of buffered and unbuffered wetlands, five crop management scenarios, and three crop farming systems in South Dakota, USA. They suggested both economic and environmental benefits of enrolling in Wetland Reserve Programs (WRPs). | They collected wetland surface water quality sampling (nitrogen and phosphorous samples) and estimated net returns to buffer strips using published rates of government subsidies. We used five WQI parameters (DO, TP, TN, TS, and BD) as environmental indicators estimated by Ghimire et al. [14]. |
Bonham et al. (2006) [27] | They assessed compliance costs to farms by comparing three policy scenarios (baseline, nutrient management, and buffer scenarios) in a livestock-intensive watershed in Virginia, USA. The compliance cost was reported as the revenue difference between the baseline scenario and the alternative practice scenario. | We estimated NPV costs that included the establishment, maintenance, and opportunity costs using the cost data from the NRCS. |
Frimpong et al. (2006) [45] | They assessed the cost effectiveness of vegetative filter strips and instream half-log structures for increasing the Index of Biotic Integrity as a measure of different stream-order health in a watershed in Indiana, USA. They used a probabilistic approach to assign riparian land values of different stream orders. | They determined the land rental values from land transaction data and determined establishment and maintenance costs based on the NRCS. They estimated maintenance costs to be approximately 10% of establishment costs and social discount rates (1, 3, and 5 percent). We approximated maintenance costs to be 10% of the establishment costs and used the average discount rate of 4%. |
LeDoux (2006) [54] | They performed opportunity cost assessment of streamside forest buffer zones considering four logging technologies, two hardwood stands, and three types of riparian buffer zones. They demonstrated forgoing timber harvesting revenue to be sizeable opportunity costs. | They conducted economic analysis using a real interest rate of 4% that was adapted for our NPV costs analysis. |
Roberts et al. (2009) [19] | They evaluated annualized costs that included the opportunity costs, the capital costs, and maintenance costs of 45.7 m wide agricultural buffer strips in a watershed situated in Tennessee, USA. | They calculated an annualized aggregate cost at $262/ha ($106/acre). |
Qiu and Dosskey (2012) [20] | They evaluated cost effectiveness of conservation buffer placement strategies in landscapes, including those based on soil surveys, topography, and riparian-focused, in a watershed in New Jersey, USA. They found that the riparian strategies were cost-effective compared to the rest and suggested alternative placement strategies, especially when riparian-focus strategies could not meet environmental goals. | They calculated cost-effectiveness as the ratio of aggregated potential environmental benefits (reducing soil erosion, enhancing wildlife habitat, and mitigating stormwater impacts) to the costs of establishing and maintaining the conservation buffers in agricultural land. |
Carvajal and Janmaat (2016) [17] | They proposed to perform cost–benefit analysis of riparian rehabilitation projects along a small creek in British Columbia, Canada using recorded-survey data of positive impacts on land productivity and ecosystem services including riparian habitat restoration, improvement in outdoor recreation, improvements in soil retention and erosion control, water quality, fish habitat enhancement, and climate regulation. | They used Benefit Transfer methodology, i.e., using the results with adjustment of similar analyses conducted elsewhere, to create values for the ecosystem services. They obtained the Willingness to Pay (WTP) values from similar studies and transformed by area and discounted with the time. The lifetime of the project was taken as 20 years with the 3% and 5% discount rates. |
DMO | DO (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | TS (mg/L) | BD (mg/L) | NPV Costs ($) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DMO1 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.5 | 0.5 | 77,837 |
DMO2 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.4 | 0.5 | 155,674 |
DMO3 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.4 | 0.5 | 233,512 |
DMO4 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.3 | 0.5 | 311,349 |
DMO5 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.3 | 0.5 | 389,186 |
DMO6 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.3 | 0.5 | 467,023 |
DMO7 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.2 | 0.5 | 544,860 |
DMO8 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.2 | 0.5 | 622,697 |
DMO9 | 9.8 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 6.1 | 0.3 | 96,043 |
DMO10 | 9.9 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 4.7 | 0.3 | 193,770 |
DMO11 | 9.9 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 4.3 | 0.2 | 289,813 |
DMO12 | 10.0 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 385,855 |
DMO13 | 10.0 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 481,898 |
DMO14 | 10.0 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 579,625 |
DMO15 | 10.0 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 675,668 |
DMO16 | 10.0 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 771,710 |
DMO17 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 11.1 | 0.3 | 467,408 |
DMO18 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 11.1 | 0.3 | 934,816 |
DMO19 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 11.1 | 0.3 | 1,396,790 |
DMO20 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 11.2 | 0.3 | 1,864,198 |
DMO21 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 11.3 | 0.3 | 2,331,606 |
DMO22 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 11.4 | 0.3 | 2,799,014 |
DMO23 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 11.5 | 0.3 | 3,260,987 |
DMO24 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 11.5 | 0.4 | 3,728,396 |
DMO25 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 11.0 | 0.4 | 389,762 |
DMO26 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 10.6 | 0.3 | 779,524 |
DMO27 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 10.3 | 0.3 | 1,163,469 |
DMO28 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 10.1 | 0.3 | 1,553,231 |
DMO29 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 10.0 | 0.3 | 1,942,994 |
DMO30 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 10.0 | 0.3 | 2,332,756 |
DMO31 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 10.0 | 0.3 | 2,716,701 |
DMO32 | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 10.0 | 0.3 | 3,106,463 |
DMO33 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 1,009,576 |
DMO34 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 2,028,008 |
DMO35 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 3,037,585 |
DMO36 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 4,047,161 |
DMO37 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 5,056,737 |
DMO38 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 6,075,169 |
DMO39 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 7,084,745 |
DMO40 | 9.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 8,094,322 |
Average | 9.7 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 10.1 | 0.4 | 1,836,948 |
DMO | DO (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | TS (mg/L) | BD (mg/L) | NPV Costs ($) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DMO1 | 3.9 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 7.5 | 0.2 | 28,988 |
DMO2 | 4.0 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 5.0 | 0.1 | 58,485 |
DMO3 | 4.0 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 3.2 | 0.1 | 87,473 |
DMO4 | 4.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 116,461 |
DMO5 | 4.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 145,449 |
DMO6 | 4.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 174,946 |
DMO7 | 4.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 203,934 |
DMO8 | 4.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 232,922 |
DMO9 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.4 | 0.5 | 141,076 |
DMO10 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.4 | 0.5 | 282,151 |
DMO11 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.4 | 0.5 | 421,587 |
DMO12 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.4 | 0.5 | 562,662 |
DMO13 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.4 | 0.5 | 703,738 |
DMO14 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 19.4 | 0.5 | 844,814 |
DMO15 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 19.4 | 0.5 | 984,249 |
DMO16 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 19.5 | 0.5 | 1,125,325 |
DMO17 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 117,640 |
DMO18 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 235,280 |
DMO19 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 351,165 |
DMO20 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 468,805 |
DMO21 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 586,445 |
DMO22 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 704,085 |
DMO23 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 819,969 |
DMO24 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 937,610 |
DMO25 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 304,716 |
DMO26 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 612,105 |
DMO27 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 916,820 |
DMO28 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 1,221,536 |
DMO29 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 1,526,252 |
DMO30 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 1,833,641 |
DMO31 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 2,138,357 |
DMO32 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 0.5 | 2,443,072 |
Average | 3.8 | 0.2 | 1.1 | 15.1 | 0.4 | 666,617 |
DMO | DO (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | TS (mg/L) | BD (mg/L) | NPV Costs ($) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DMO1 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 44,651 |
DMO2 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 89,302 |
DMO3 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 133,952 |
DMO4 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 178,603 |
DMO5 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 223,254 |
DMO6 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 267,905 |
DMO7 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 312,556 |
DMO8 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 357,206 |
DMO9 | 7.1 | 0.4 | 2.9 | 39.9 | 1.5 | 55,094 |
DMO10 | 7.2 | 0.4 | 2.6 | 33.9 | 1.3 | 111,155 |
DMO11 | 7.3 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 29.4 | 1.2 | 166,249 |
DMO12 | 7.4 | 0.4 | 2.2 | 26.2 | 1.1 | 221,343 |
DMO13 | 7.4 | 0.4 | 2.1 | 23.6 | 1.0 | 276,437 |
DMO14 | 7.4 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 23.3 | 1.0 | 332,498 |
DMO15 | 7.4 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 23.3 | 1.0 | 387,592 |
DMO16 | 7.4 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 23.3 | 1.0 | 442,687 |
DMO17 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 44,854 |
DMO18 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 90,495 |
DMO19 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 135,349 |
DMO20 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 180,203 |
DMO21 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 225,057 |
DMO22 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 270,698 |
DMO23 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 315,552 |
DMO24 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 360,406 |
DMO25 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 268,126 |
DMO26 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 536,251 |
DMO27 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 801,259 |
DMO28 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 1,069,385 |
DMO29 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.1 | 2.2 | 1,337,510 |
DMO30 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.1 | 2.2 | 1,605,636 |
DMO31 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.1 | 2.2 | 1,870,644 |
DMO32 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.1 | 2.2 | 2,138,770 |
DMO33 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 223,585 |
DMO34 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 447,169 |
DMO35 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 667,416 |
DMO36 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 891,001 |
DMO37 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 1,114,586 |
DMO38 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 1,338,170 |
DMO39 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 1,558,417 |
DMO40 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 1,782,002 |
DMO41 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 579,137 |
DMO42 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 1,163,354 |
DMO43 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 1,742,490 |
DMO44 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 2,321,627 |
DMO45 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 2,900,764 |
DMO46 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 3,484,981 |
DMO47 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 4,064,118 |
DMO48 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 61.0 | 2.2 | 4,643,254 |
Average | 6.9 | 0.4 | 3.1 | 55.4 | 2.0 | 911,932 |
Item | Three-Zone Forest RBZ | Two-Zone Forest RBZ | Grass RBZ | Urban RBZ | Wildlife RBZ | Naturalized RBZ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | |
Tractor, agricultural, 60 HP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 59 | 59 |
Chemical, ground application | 7 | 7 | - | - | 30 | 30 | - | - | - | - | 282 | 282 |
Tillage, Light | - | - | - | - | - | - | 77 | 77 | - | - | - | - |
Seeding Operation, No Till/Grass Drill | 12 | 12 | - | - | 54 | 54 | 54 | 54 | - | - | - | - |
All-terrain vehicles | - | - | - | - | - | - | 82 | 82 | - | - | - | - |
Truck, Pickup | 7 | 7 | 10 | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Trailer, enclosed, small | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Hand tools, tree planting | 86 | 86 | 114 | 114 | - | - | - | - | 136 | 136 | - | - |
Tree shelter, solid tube type, 127 mm. 127 mm × 1219 mm | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2750 | 2750 | 230 | 230 |
Cable ties, plastic | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 89 | 89 | - | - |
Stakes, wood, 19 mm × 19 mm × 1524 mm | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1112 | 1112 | 86 | 86 |
Herbicide, Glyphosate | 10 | 10 | - | - | 44 | 44 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Native Perennial Grasses, Medium Density | 141 | 141 | - | - | 640 | 640 | 393 | 393 | - | - | 195 | 195 |
Shrub, Seedling, Medium | 1651 | 1651 | 2120 | 2120 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Tree, Conifer, Seedling, Small | 20 | 20 | 27 | 27 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Tree, Hardwood, Seedling, Medium | 49 | 49 | 62 | 62 | - | - | - | - | 1127 | 1127 | 173 | 173 |
General Labor | 198 | 198 | 252 | 252 | - | - | - | - | 516 | 516 | 430 | 430 |
Supervisor/Manager | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 82 | 82 | - | - |
(E) Establishment cost subtotal | 2184 | 2184 | 2590 | 2590 | 766 | 766 | 605 | 605 | 5812 | 5812 | 1453 | 1453 |
Corn Dryland annual foregone income per hectare | 230 | 3126 | 230 | 3126 | 230 | 3126 | - | - | 230 | 3126 | - | - |
Soybeans Dryland annual foregone income per hectare | 185 | 2520 | 185 | 2520 | 185 | 2520 | - | - | 185 | 2520 | - | - |
North Carolina land rental | 205 | 2787 | 205 | 2787 | 205 | 2787 | 205 | 2787 | 205 | 2787 | - | - |
(O) Opportunity cost subtotal | 620 | 8436 | 620 | 8436 | 620 | 8436 | 205 | 2787 | 620 | 8436 | - | - |
(M) Maintenance (10% of E) | 217 | 2970 | 259 | 3521 | 77 | 1043 | 59 | 820 | 581 | 7897 | 146 | 1977 |
Total Unit NPV Costs ($/hectare) = E + O + M | 3025 | 13,591 | 3472 | 14,547 | 1465 | 10,245 | 870 | 4213 | 7013 | 22,146 | 1599 | 3430 |
Annualized NPV cost ($/hectare) | - | 1001 | - | 1070 | - | 754 | - | 309 | - | 1628 | - | 252 |
Establishment Cost Item | Description |
---|---|
Tractor, agricultural, 60 HP | Equipment and power unit costs, except labor. |
Chemical, ground application | Includes equipment, power unit, and labor costs. |
Tillage, Light | Includes light disking (tandem) or field cultivator, equipment, power unit and labor costs. |
Seeding Operation, No Till/Grass Drill | Includes equipment, power unit, and labor costs. |
All-terrain vehicles | Includes equipment, power unit, and labor costs. |
Truck, Pickup | Equipment and power unit costs, 2/3 h (labor not included) @$25/hour. |
Trailer, enclosed, small | Typically, less than 76.2 cm length pulled by a pickup to transport materials and equipment, 0.3 hectare (truck not included) @ $27/hectare. |
Hand tools, tree planting | Various hand tools for digging holes and planting trees such as augers, dibble bars, planting shovel, hoe-dad (equipment only, labor not included) @$11.6/hour. |
Tree shelter, solid tube type, 127 mm. 127 mm × 1219 mm | Solid tube type for protection from animal damage; materials only. |
Cable ties, plastic (typical 203–305 mm) | Plastic cable ties to assist in securing items (typical 203–305 mm); materials only. |
Stakes, wood, 19 mm × 19 mm × 1524 mm | Wood stakes to fasten items in place; materials only. |
Herbicide, Glyphosate | A broad-spectrum, non-selective systemic herbicide; materials and shipping only. |
Native Perennial Grasses, Medium Density | A mix of native perennial grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, grasses typically greater than 50% of the mix; planted at medium to higher density (441–646 pure live seeds/m2); material and shipping only. |
Shrub, Seedling, Medium | Bare root shrub seedling, 457 to 914 mm (18 to 36 in) tall; includes tropical containerized seedlings 164 to 328 cm3; includes materials and shipping only; @$1.4/unit. |
Tree, Conifer, Seedling, Small | Containerized, 66 to 98 cm3; or bare root conifer seedlings (one-year old seedlings grown in their original seedbed), includes materials and shipping only; 199 units/hectare @ $0.5/unit. |
Tree, Hardwood, Seedling, Medium | Bare root shrub seedling, 457 to 1524 mm tall; includes tropical containerized seedlings 164 to 328 cm3 (10 to 20 in3); includes materials and shipping only; @ $1.5/unit. |
General Labor | Labor using basic tools such as power tool, shovels, and other tools that do not require extensive training; examples are herder, concrete placement, materials spreader, flagger; @ $21.7/hour. |
Supervisor/Manager | Includes crew supervisors, foremen and farm/ranch managers time required for adopting new technology. |
Opportunity cost item | Description |
Corn Dryland annual foregone income | Dryland Corn is primary crop; 0.2 hectare @ $460/hectare. |
Soybeans Dryland annual foregone income | Dryland Soybeans is primary crop; 0.2 hectare @ $371/hectare. |
North Carolina land rental costs | Average land rental cost; 0.4 hectare @ $205/hectare. |
Example of DEA Formulation
References
- USEPA. Impaired Waters and TMDLs. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/overview-identifying-and-restoring-impaired-waters-under-section-303d-cwa (accessed on 29 September 2020).
- Cole, L.J.; Stockan, J.; Helliwell, R. Managing riparian buffer strips to optimise ecosystem services: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 296, 106891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, R.A.; Martin, C.O.; Fischenich, J. Improving riparian buffer strips and corridors for water quality and wildlife. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds, Portland, OR, USA, 28–31 August 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Mander, Ü.; Hayakawa, Y.; Kuusemets, V. Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 24, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USEPA. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science And Regulations; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, R.A.; Fischenich, J.C. Design Recommendations for Riparian Corridors and Vegetated Buffer Strips; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- USDA-NRCS. North Carolina Payment Schedules. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/?cid=nrcseprd1328255 (accessed on 22 October 2021).
- Mayer, P.M.; Reynolds, S.K., Jr.; McCutchen, M.D.; Canfield, T.J. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. J. Environ. Qual. 2007, 36, 1172–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valkama, E.; Usva, K.; Saarinen, M.; Uusi-Kämppä, J. A Meta-Analysis on Nitrogen Retention by Buffer Zones. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 48, 270–279. [Google Scholar]
- Blankenberg, A.-G.B.; Skarbøvik, E. Phosphorus retention, erosion protection and farmers’ perceptions of riparian buffer zones with grass and natural vegetation: Case studies from South-Eastern Norway. Ambio 2020, 49, 1838–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigiak, O.; Malagó, A.; Bouraoui, F.; Grizzetti, B.; Weissteiner, C.J.; Pastori, M. Impact of current riparian land on sediment retention in the Danube River Basin. Sustain. Water Qual. Ecol. 2016, 8, 30–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uusi-Kämppä, J.; Braskerud, B.; Jansson, H.; Syversen, N.; Uusitalo, R. Buffer zones and constructed wetlands as filters for agricultural phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, J.; Gilliam, J.; Daniels, R.; Robarge, W. Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1987, 51, 416–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghimire, S.R.; Corona, J.; Parmar, R.; Mahadwar, G.; Srinivasan, R.; Mendoza, K.; Johnston, J.M. Sensitivity of Riparian Buffer Designs to Climate Change—Nutrient and Sediment Loading to Streams: A Case Study in the Albemarle-Pamlico River Basins (USA) using HAWQS. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trenholm, R.; Lantz, V.; Martínez-Espiñeira, R.; Little, S. Cost-benefit analysis of riparian protection in an eastern Canadian watershed. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 116, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.-L.; Ying-Sung, H.; Bing-Jean, L.; Chuan-Yi, W.; Li-Jung, W. A cost-benefit analysis for the implementation of riparian buffer strips in the Shihmen reservoir watershed. Int. J. Sed. Res. 2011, 26, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvajal, V.; Janmaat, J. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Riparian Rehabilitation Project on Alderson Creek, Township of Spallumcheen; University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada; Kelowna, BC, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, Z.; Prato, T. Economic evaluation of riparian buffers in an agricultural watershed. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34, 877–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, D.C.; Clark, C.D.; English, B.C.; Park, W.M.; Roberts, R.K. Estimating annualized riparian buffer costs for the Harpeth River watershed. Appl. Econo. Perspec. Pol. 2009, 31, 894–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, Z.; Dosskey, M. Multiple function benefit–Cost comparison of conservation buffer placement strategies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, T.; Lundström, J.; Kuglerová, L.; Laudon, H.; Öhman, K.; Ågren, A. Cost of riparian buffer zones: A comparison of hydrologically adapted site-specific riparian buffers with traditional fixed widths. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 1056–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hecht, A.D.; Fiksel, J.; Moses, M. Working toward a sustainable future. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2014, 10, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Mooney, H.; Hull, V.; Davis, S.J.; Gaskell, J.; Hertel, T.; Lubchenco, J.; Seto, K.C.; Gleick, P.; Kremen, C. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 2015, 347, 1258832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghimire, S.R.; Johnston, J.M. A modified eco-efficiency framework and methodology for advancing the state of practice of sustainability analysis as applied to green infrastructure. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2017, 13, 821–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, T.; Tainter, J.; Hoekstra, T. Supply-Side Sustainability; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ghimire, S.R.; Johnston, J.M. Sustainability assessment of agricultural rainwater harvesting: Evaluation of alternative crop types and irrigation practices. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonham, J.G.; Bosch, D.J.; Pease, J.W. Cost-effectiveness of nutrient management and buffers: Comparisons of two spatial scenarios. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2006, 38, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- Liang, X.; van Dijk, M.P. Economic and financial analysis on rainwater harvesting for agricultural irrigation in the rural areas of Beijing. Res. Conserv. Recy. 2011, 55, 1100–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—General Principles and Framework, 2 ed. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997; p. 20.
- Xiao, G.J.; Zhang, Q.A.; Xiong, Y.C.; Lin, M.Z.; Wang, J. Integrating rainwater harvesting with supplemental irrigation into rain-fed spring wheat farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, S.; Petersen, S. Life-cycle costing manual for the federal energy management program. In NIST Handbook; NIST Pubs.: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1996; p. 135. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, M.J. The measurement of productive efficiency. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 1957, 120, 253–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Europ. J. Opera. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Bi, J.; Fan, Z.; Yuan, Z.; Ge, J. Eco-efficiency analysis of industrial system in China: A data envelopment analysis approach. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 306–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picazo-Tadeo, A.J.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Reig-Martínez, E. Assessing farming eco-efficiency: A Data Envelopment Analysis approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1154–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuosmanen, T.; Kortelainen, M. Measuring Eco-efficiency of Production with Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidheiny, S.; Stigson, B. Eco-Efficiency: Creating More Value with Less Impact; World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- USDA-FSA. Conservation Reserve Program Statistics. Available online: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/Summary%20JUNE%202021%20CRPMonthly.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2021).
- USEPA. HAWQS (Version 2.0 DEV). Available online: https://dev.hawqs.tamu.edu/#/ (accessed on 26 July 2022).
- TAMU. Soil & Water Assessment Tool. Available online: https://swat.tamu.edu/ (accessed on 30 September 2020).
- Arnold, J.; Kiniry, J.; Srinivasan, R.; Williams, J.; Haney, E.; Neitsch, S. Soil & water assessment tool: Input/output documentation. Tex. Water Resour. Inst. Tech. Rep. 2012, TR-439, 650. [Google Scholar]
- USDA. State Soil Geographic Data. Available online: https://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/ (accessed on 3 May 2021).
- Frimpong, E.A.; Lee, J.G.; Sutton, T.M. Cost effectiveness of vegetative filter strips and instream half-logs for ecological restoration. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 1349–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Commission, J.R.C.-E. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide; OECD Publishing: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Juwana, I.; Muttil, N.; Perera, B. Indicator-based water sustainability assessment—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 438, 357–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkis, J. Preparing your data for DEA. In Modeling Data Irregularities and Structural Complexities in Data Envelopment Analysis; Zhu, J., Cook, W.D., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 305–320. [Google Scholar]
- Countryman, D.; Murrow, J. Economic analysis of contour tree buffer strips using present net value. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 55, 152–160. [Google Scholar]
- Gloria, T.P.; Lippiatt, B.C.; Cooper, J. Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the united states. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 7551–7557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goedkoop, M.; Spriensma, R. The Eco-Indicator 99: A Damage-Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology Report; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sironen, S.; Seppälä, J.; Leskinen, P. Towards more non-compensatory sustainable society index. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 17, 587–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyndall, J.; Bowman, T. Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy Best Management Practice Cost Overview Series: Constructed Wetlands; Department of Ecology & Natural Resource Management, Lowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- LeDoux, C.B. Assessing the opportunity cost of implementing streamside management zone guidelines in eastern hardwood forests. For. Prod. J. 2006, 56, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
- Bank, T.W. Urban Development Overview. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview#1 (accessed on 12 May 2022).
- House, T.W. White House Action Plan on Global Water Security; The White House: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Shaffer, R.; Haney, H.; Worrell, E.; Aust, W. Forestry BMP implementation costs for Virginia. For. Prod. J. 1998, 48, 9. [Google Scholar]
- UN. Welcome to the Sustainable Development Goal indicators website. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs (accessed on 6 September 2022).
- Rickerl, D.; Janssen, L.; Woodland, R. Buffered wetlands in agricultural landscapes in the Prairie Pothole region: Environmental, agronomic, and economic evaluations. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 55, 220–225. [Google Scholar]
- He, Y.; Wang, P.; Sheng, H.; Wang, D.; Huang, M.; Cao, C. Sustainability of riparian zones for non-point source pollution control in Chongming Island: Status, challenges, and perspectives. J. Cleaner Prod. 2020, 244, 118804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USDA. A Landowner’s Guide to the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Warwick, RI, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- USDA. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Warwick, RI, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- USDA. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Available online: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-enhancement/index (accessed on 7 May 2021).
Baseline RBZ (Average Width) | Description | National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Practice Scenarios and Assumptions for Cost Assessment [7] |
---|---|---|
Grass RBZ (8 m) | This buffer consisted of only grasses and forbs and was typically used along small streams and other drainages that flow through crop fields and pastures. | Practice 390—Riparian Herbaceous Cover Scenario #1: Warm Season Grass with Forbs. This scenario included establishment costs but specifically excluded opportunity costs. However, we added opportunity costs due to corn and soybeans cropping consistent with the NRCS’s other agricultural field Practice Scenarios. The opportunity cost due to land rental prices was estimated consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Reserve Program’s (CRP) annual rental payment rates [40]. |
Urban RBZ (23 m) | This buffer area consisted of Low-, Medium-, and High-Density Residential land use types. | Practice 393—Filter Strip Scenario #16—Filter Strip, Native species, Foregone Income. This Scenario included establishment costs and opportunity costs due to corn and soybean crops. In lieu of forgone income for the crops’ yields, land rental rates were applied in urban settings assuming that foregone income due to crops would be uncommon in urban settings. The opportunity cost due to land rental prices was estimated consistent with the USDA CRP annual rental payment rates. |
Wildlife RBZ (46 m) | This buffer consisted of evergreen forest. Typical sites included former riparian forests, speculation property, or any non-forest condition which contained undesirable types of vegetation. | Practice: 391—Riparian Forest Buffer Scenario #11—Bare Root Hardwoods with tubes, 741 trees /hectare (300 trees /acre). This Scenario included establishment costs and opportunity costs (foregone income) due to corn crops. However, the opportunity costs were split between corn and soybeans consistent with all other case scenarios. |
Naturalized RBZ (23 m) | This buffer consisted of forested wetlands. This was an inexpensive natural buffer that could be supplemented by interplanting tree and shrub seedlings as needed to achieve desired stocking densities. | Practice 391—Riparian Forest Buffer Scenario #14—Natural regeneration with some limited tree planting. This Scenario included the establishment costs of the buffer of trees and shrubs into a suitably prepared site located adjacent to and up-gradient from a watercourse or water body. |
Three-zone forest RBZ (34 m) | This composite buffer consisted of three zones: zone 1 (4.6 m to 9.1 m wide undisturbed forest) that contained trees along the edge of the stream; zone 2 (9.1 m to 30.5 m wide managed forest) that filtered sediment and nutrients that passed through zone 3; zone 3 (6.1 m to 9.1 m wide grass strip). | This composite RBZ of three zones (zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3) included three Practice Scenarios: zone 1 (Practice 391—Riparian Forest Buffer Scenario #2—Bare-root, hand planted, conifers, hardwoods, shrubs); zone 2 (Practice 391—Riparian Forest Buffer Scenario #7—Shrub Planting, 1680 stems/hectare (680 stems/acre), no tubes); and zone 3 (Practice 390—Riparian Herbaceous Cover Scenario #1: Warm Season Grass with Forbs). All zone Scenarios included establishment costs and opportunity costs (foregone income) due to corn and soybean crops. The opportunity costs were split between corn and soybeans, consistent with all other scenarios. The average width of zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3 were 6.9 m, 19.8 m, and 7.6 m, respectively. |
Two-zone forest RBZ (27 m) | A two-zone forest RBZ would be a modification to the three-zone forest RBZ with an elimination of zone 3. | This composite RBZ of two zones (zone 1 and zone 2) included two Practice Scenarios: zone 1 (Practice 391—Riparian Forest Buffer Scenario #2—Bare-root, hand planted, conifers, hardwoods, shrubs) and zone 2 (Practice 391—Riparian Forest Buffer Scenario #7—Shrub Planting, 1680 stems/hectare (680 stems/acre), no tubes). Both zone Scenarios included establishment costs and opportunity costs due to corn and soybean crops. The opportunity costs were split between corn and soybeans, consistent with all other scenarios. |
Back Creek RBZ DMOs—Width | DMO | Sycamore Creek RBZ DMOs—Width | DMO | Greens Mill Run RBZ DMOS—Width | DMO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grass RBZ—1.9 m | DMO1 | Urban RBZ—5.7 m | DMO1 | Grass RBZ—1.9 m | DMO1 |
Grass RBZ—3.8 m | DMO2 | Urban RBZ—11.5 m | DMO2 | Grass RBZ—3.8 m | DMO2 |
Grass RBZ—5.7 m | DMO3 | Urban RBZ—17.2 m | DMO3 | Grass RBZ—5.7 m | DMO3 |
Grass RBZ—7.6 m | DMO4 | Urban RBZ—22.9 m | DMO4 | Grass RBZ—7.6 m | DMO4 |
Grass RBZ—9.5 m | DMO5 | Urban RBZ—28.6 m | DMO5 | Grass RBZ—9.5 m | DMO5 |
Grass RBZ—11.4 m | DMO6 | Urban RBZ—34.4 m | DMO6 | Grass RBZ—11.4 m | DMO6 |
Grass RBZ—13.3 m | DMO7 | Urban RBZ—40.1 m | DMO7 | Grass RBZ—13.3 m | DMO7 |
Grass RBZ—15.9 m | DMO8 | Urban RBZ—45.8 m | DMO8 | Grass RBZ—15.9 m | DMO8 |
Urban RBZ—5.7 m | DMO9 | Three-zone forest RBZ—8.6 m | DMO9 | Urban RBZ—5.7 m | DMO9 |
Urban RBZ—11.5 m | DMO10 | Three-zone forest RBZ—17.2 m | DMO10 | Urban RBZ—11.5 m | DMO10 |
Urban RBZ—17.2 m | DMO11 | Three-zone forest RBZ—25.7 m | DMO11 | Urban RBZ—17.2 m | DMO11 |
Urban RBZ—22.9 m | DMO12 | Three-zone forest RBZ—34.3 m | DMO12 | Urban RBZ—22.9 m | DMO12 |
Urban RBZ—28.6 m | DMO13 | Three-zone forest RBZ—42.9 m | DMO13 | Urban RBZ—28.6 m | DMO13 |
Urban RBZ—34.4 m | DMO14 | Three-zone forest RBZ—51.5 m | DMO14 | Urban RBZ—34.4 m | DMO14 |
Urban RBZ—40.1 m | DMO15 | Three-zone forest RBZ—60 m | DMO15 | Urban RBZ—40.1 m | DMO15 |
Urban RBZ—45.8 m | DMO16 | Three-zone forest RBZ—68.6 m | DMO16 | Urban RBZ—45.8 m | DMO16 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—8.6 m | DMO17 | Two-zone forest RBZ—6.7 m | DMO17 | Naturalized RBZ—5.7 m | DMO17 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—17.2 m | DMO18 | Two-zone forest RBZ—13.4 m | DMO18 | Naturalized RBZ—11.5 m | DMO18 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—25.7 m | DMO19 | Two-zone forest RBZ—20 m | DMO19 | Naturalized RBZ—17.2 m | DMO19 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—34.3 m | DMO20 | Two-zone forest RBZ—26.7 m | DMO20 | Naturalized RBZ—22.9 m | DMO20 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—42.9 m | DMO21 | Two-zone forest RBZ—33.4 m | DMO21 | Naturalized RBZ—28.6 m | DMO21 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—51.5 m | DMO22 | Two-zone forest RBZ—40.1 m | DMO22 | Naturalized RBZ—34.4 m | DMO22 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—60 m | DMO23 | Two-zone forest RBZ—46.7 m | DMO23 | Naturalized RBZ—40.1 m | DMO23 |
Three-zone forest RBZ—68.6 m | DMO24 | Two-zone forest RBZ—53.4 m | DMO24 | Naturalized RBZ—45.8 m | DMO24 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—6.7 m | DMO25 | Wildlife RBZ—11.4 m | DMO25 | Three-zone forest RBZ—8.6 m | DMO25 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—13.4 m | DMO26 | Wildlife RBZ—22.9 m | DMO26 | Three-zone forest RBZ—17.2 m | DMO26 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—20 m | DMO27 | Wildlife RBZ—34.3 m | DMO27 | Three-zone forest RBZ—25.7 m | DMO27 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—26.7 m | DMO28 | Wildlife RBZ—45.7 m | DMO28 | Three-zone forest RBZ—34.3 m | DMO28 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—33.4 m | DMO29 | Wildlife RBZ—57.1 m | DMO29 | Three-zone forest RBZ—42.9 m | DMO29 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—40.1 m | DMO30 | Wildlife RBZ—68.6 m | DMO30 | Three-zone forest RBZ—51.5 m | DMO30 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—46.7 m | DMO31 | Wildlife RBZ—80 m | DMO31 | Three-zone forest RBZ—60 m | DMO31 |
Two-zone forest RBZ—53.4 m | DMO32 | Wildlife RBZ—91.4 m | DMO32 | Three-zone forest RBZ—68.6 m | DMO32 |
Wildlife RBZ—11.4 m | DMO33 | Two-zone forest RBZ—6.7 m | DMO33 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—22.9 m | DMO34 | Two-zone forest RBZ—13.4 m | DMO34 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—34.3 m | DMO35 | Two-zone forest RBZ—20 m | DMO35 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—45.7 m | DMO36 | Two-zone forest RBZ—26.7 m | DMO36 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—57.1 m | DMO37 | Two-zone forest RBZ—33.4 m | DMO37 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—68.6 m | DMO38 | Two-zone forest RBZ—40.1 m | DMO38 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—80 m | DMO39 | Two-zone forest RBZ—46.7 m | DMO39 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—91.4 m | DMO40 | Two-zone forest RBZ—53.4 m | DMO40 | ||
Wildlife RBZ—11.4 m | DMO41 | ||||
Wildlife RBZ—22.9 m | DMO42 | ||||
Wildlife RBZ—34.3 m | DMO43 | ||||
Wildlife RBZ—45.7 m | DMO44 | ||||
Wildlife RBZ—57.1 m | DMO45 | ||||
Wildlife RBZ—68.6 m | DMO46 | ||||
Wildlife RBZ—80 m | DMO47 | ||||
Wildlife RBZ—91.4 m | DMO48 |
Cost Item | Three-Zone Forest RBZ | Two-Zone Forest RBZ | Grass RBZ | Urban RBZ | Wildlife RBZ | Naturalized RBZ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | Cost (2021) | 20-Y NPV | |
(E) Establishment cost subtotal | 2184 | 2184 | 2590 | 2590 | 766 | 766 | 605 | 605 | 5812 | 5812 | 1453 | 1453 |
(O) Opportunity cost subtotal | 620 | 8436 | 620 | 8436 | 620 | 8436 | 205 | 2787 | 620 | 8436 | - | - |
(M) Maintenance (10% of E) | 217 | 2970 | 259 | 3521 | 77 | 1043 | 59 | 820 | 581 | 7897 | 146 | 1977 |
Total Unit NPV Costs ($/hectare) = E + O + M | 3025 | 13,591 | 3472 | 14,547 | 1465 | 10,245 | 870 | 4213 | 7013 | 22,146 | 1599 | 3430 |
Annualized NPV cost ($/hectare) | - | 1001 | - | 1070 | - | 754 | - | 309 | - | 1628 | - | 252 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ghimire, S.R.; Nayak, A.C.; Corona, J.; Parmar, R.; Srinivasan, R.; Mendoza, K.; Johnston, J.M. Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912278
Ghimire SR, Nayak AC, Corona J, Parmar R, Srinivasan R, Mendoza K, Johnston JM. Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912278
Chicago/Turabian StyleGhimire, Santosh R., Adam C. Nayak, Joel Corona, Rajbir Parmar, Raghavan Srinivasan, Katie Mendoza, and John M. Johnston. 2022. "Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912278
APA StyleGhimire, S. R., Nayak, A. C., Corona, J., Parmar, R., Srinivasan, R., Mendoza, K., & Johnston, J. M. (2022). Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs. Sustainability, 14(19), 12278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912278