IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i11p6630-d826672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying a Coupled Hydrologic-Economic Modeling Framework: Evaluating Alternative Options for Reducing Impacts for Downstream Locations in Response to Upstream Development

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Amaya

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

  • Faye Duchin

    (Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180, USA)

  • Erich Hester

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

  • John C. Little

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

Abstract

Economic input-output and watershed models provide useful results, but these kinds of models do not use the same spatial units, which typically limits their integration. A modular hydrologic-economic modeling framework is designed to couple the Rectangular Choice-of-Technology (RCOT) model, a physically constrained, input-output (I-O) model, with the Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF). Integrating these two models can address questions relevant to both economists and hydrologists, beyond addressing only administrative or watershed concerns. This framework is utilized to evaluate alternative future development prospects within Fauquier County, northern Virginia, specifically residential build-up, and agricultural intensification in the upstream location of the local watershed. Scenarios are designed to evaluate the downstream impacts on watershed health caused by upstream development and changes made within the economic sectors in response to these impacts. In the first case, an alternative residential water technology is more efficient than the standard for ensuring adequate water supply downstream. For scenarios involving upstream agricultural intensification, a crop shift from grains to fruits and vegetables is the most efficient of the alternatives considered. This framework captures two-way feedback between watershed and economic systems that expands the types of questions one can address beyond those that can be analyzed using these models individually.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Amaya & Faye Duchin & Erich Hester & John C. Little, 2022. "Applying a Coupled Hydrologic-Economic Modeling Framework: Evaluating Alternative Options for Reducing Impacts for Downstream Locations in Response to Upstream Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6630-:d:826672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6630/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6630/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter L. Daniels & Manfred Lenzen & Steven J. Kenway, 2011. "The Ins And Outs Of Water Use -- A Review Of Multi-Region Input--Output Analysis And Water Footprints For Regional Sustainability Analysis And Policy," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 353-370, October.
    2. Faye Duchin, 2005. "A world trade model based on comparative advantage with m regions, n goods, and k factors," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 141-162.
    3. Scrieciu, S. Serban, 2007. "The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Bohringer and Loschel (2006)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 678-684, February.
    4. Faye Duchin & Stephen Levine, 2012. "The rectangular sector-by-technology model: not every economy produces every product and some products may rely on several technologies simultaneously," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 1(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Singh, Shweta & Compton, Jana E. & Hawkins, Troy R. & Sobota, Daniel J. & Cooter, Ellen J., 2017. "A Nitrogen Physical Input-Output Table (PIOT) model for Illinois," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 194-203.
    6. Smakhtin, Vladimir U. & Revenga, C. & Doll, P., 2004. "Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments," IWMI Research Reports H031758, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Neely Law & Lawrence Band & Morgan Grove, 2004. "Nitrogen input from residential lawn care practices in suburban watersheds in Baltimore county, MD," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 737-755.
    8. Faye Duchin & Stephen H. Levine, 2011. "Sectors May Use Multiple Technologies Simultaneously: The Rectangular Choice-Of-Technology Model With Binding Factor Constraints," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 281-302, March.
    9. Leontief, Wassily, 1970. "Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 52(3), pages 262-271, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dilekli, Naci & Cazcarro, Ignacio, 2019. "Testing the SDG targets on water and sanitation using the world trade model with a waste, wastewater, and recycling framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Faye Duchin, 2017. "Resources for Sustainable Economic Development: A Framework for Evaluating Infrastructure System Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Ignacio Cazcarro & Carlos A. López‐Morales & Faye Duchin, 2019. "The global economic costs of substituting dietary protein from fish with meat, grains and legumes, and dairy," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(5), pages 1159-1171, October.
    4. Joseph Palazzo & Roland Geyer & Sangwon Suh, 2020. "A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 815-829, August.
    5. Li, Yilin & Chen, Bin & Li, Chaohui & Li, Zhi & Chen, Guoqian, 2020. "Energy perspective of Sino-US trade imbalance in global supply chains," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Rueda-Cantuche, José M. & Amores, Antonio F., 2010. "Consistent and unbiased carbon dioxide emission multipliers: Performance of Danish emission reductions via external trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 988-998, March.
    7. Chen, Z.M. & Chen, G.Q., 2011. "Embodied carbon dioxide emission at supra-national scale: A coalition analysis for G7, BRIC, and the rest of the world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2899-2909, May.
    8. Wu, X.D. & Guo, J.L. & Ji, Xi & Chen, G.Q., 2019. "Energy use in world economy from household-consumption-based perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 287-298.
    9. Wu, X.F. & Chen, G.Q., 2018. "Coal use embodied in globalized world economy: From source to sink through supply chain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 978-993.
    10. Wimmer, Lorenz & Kluge, Jan & Zenz, Hannes & Kimmich, Christian, 2023. "Predicting structural changes of the energy sector in an input–output framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    11. Roxana Juliá & Faye Duchin, 2013. "Land Use Change and Global Adaptations to Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Christine Roxanne Hung & Paul Kishimoto & Volker Krey & Anders Hammer Strømman & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2022. "ECOPT2: An adaptable life cycle assessment model for the environmentally constrained optimization of prospective technology transitions," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(5), pages 1616-1630, October.
    13. Kratena, Kurt, 2008. "From ecological footprint to ecological rent: An economic indicator for resource constraints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 507-516, January.
    14. Anke Schaffartzik & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Nina Eisenmenger, 2015. "Raw Material Equivalents: The Challenges of Accounting for Sustainability in a Globalized World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-26, April.
    15. Malik, Arunima & Lenzen, Manfred & Ely, Rômulo Neves & Dietzenbacher, Erik, 2014. "Simulating the impact of new industries on the economy: The case of biorefining in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 84-93.
    16. Eisenmenger, Nina & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Schaffartzik, Anke & Giljum, Stefan & Bruckner, Martin & Schandl, Heinz & Wiedmann, Thomas O. & Lenzen, Manfred & Tukker, Arnold & Koning, Arjan, 2016. "Consumption-based material flow indicators — Comparing six ways of calculating the Austrian raw material consumption providing six results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 177-186.
    17. Rocco, Matteo V. & Golinucci, Nicolò & Ronco, Stefano M. & Colombo, Emanuela, 2020. "Fighting carbon leakage through consumption-based carbon emissions policies: Empirical analysis based on the World Trade Model with Bilateral Trades," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    18. Carlos A. L�pez-Morales & Faye Duchin, 2015. "Economic Implications Of Policy Restrictions On Water Withdrawals From Surface And Underground Sources," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 154-171, June.
    19. Xiangzheng Deng & Fan Zhang & Zhan Wang & Xing Li & Tao Zhang, 2014. "An Extended Input Output Table Compiled for Analyzing Water Demand and Consumption at County Level in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-20, May.
    20. Rehkamp, Sarah & Canning, Patrick, 2018. "Measuring Embodied Blue Water in American Diets: An EIO Supply Chain Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 179-188.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6630-:d:826672. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.