IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12278-d926920.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs

Author

Listed:
  • Santosh R. Ghimire

    (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Athens, GA 30605, USA)

  • Adam C. Nayak

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA)

  • Joel Corona

    (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460, USA)

  • Rajbir Parmar

    (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Athens, GA 30605, USA)

  • Raghavan Srinivasan

    (Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, Temple, TX 76502, USA)

  • Katie Mendoza

    (Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, Temple, TX 76502, USA)

  • John M. Johnston

    (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Athens, GA 30605, USA)

Abstract

Riparian buffer zones (RBZs) have been shown to be effective best management practices (BMPs) in controlling non-point source pollutants in waterbodies. However, the holistic sustainability assessment of individual RBZ designs is lacking. We present a methodology for evaluating the holistic sustainability of RBZ policy scenarios by integrating environmental and economic indicators simulated in three watersheds in the southeastern USA. We developed three unique sets of 40, 32, and 48 RBZ policy scenarios as decision management objectives (DMOs), respectively, in Back Creek, Sycamore Creek, and Greens Mill Run watersheds (Virginia and North Carolina) by combining the RBZ—widths with vegetation types (grass, urban, naturalized, wildlife, three-zone forest, and two-zone forest). We adapted the RBZ—hydrologic and water quality system assessment data of instream water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids—sediment and biochemical oxygen demand) as environmental indicators, recently published by U.S. EPA. We calculated 20-year net present value costs as economic indicators using the RBZ’s establishment, maintenance, and opportunity costs data published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The mean normalized net present value costs varied by DMOs ranging from 4% (grass RBZ—1.9 m) to 500% (wildlife RBZ—91.4 m) across all watersheds, due primarily to the width and the opportunity costs. The mean normalized environmental indicators varied by watersheds, with the largest change in total nitrogen due to urban RBZs in Back Creek (60–95%), Sycamore Creek (37–91%), and Greens Mill (52–93%). The holistic sustainability assessments revealed the least to most sustainable DMOs for each watershed, from least sustainable wildlife RBZ (score of 0.54), three-zone forest RBZ (0.32), and three-zone forest RBZ (0.62), respectively, for Back Creek, Sycamore Creek, and Greens Mill, to most sustainable urban RBZ (1.00) for all watersheds.

Suggested Citation

  • Santosh R. Ghimire & Adam C. Nayak & Joel Corona & Rajbir Parmar & Raghavan Srinivasan & Katie Mendoza & John M. Johnston, 2022. "Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-33, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12278-:d:926920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12278/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12278/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David C. Roberts & Christopher D. Clark & Burton C. English & William M. Park & Roland K. Roberts, 2009. "Estimating Annualized Riparian Buffer Costs for the Harpeth River Watershed," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 894-913.
    2. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    3. Timo Kuosmanen & Mika Kortelainen, 2005. "Measuring Eco‐efficiency of Production with Data Envelopment Analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(4), pages 59-72, October.
    4. Bonham, John G. & Bosch, Darrell J. & Pease, James W., 2006. "Cost-Effectiveness of Nutrient Management and Buffers: Comparisons of Two Spatial Scenarios," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Santosh R. Ghimire & Joel Corona & Rajbir Parmar & Gouri Mahadwar & Raghavan Srinivasan & Katie Mendoza & John M. Johnston, 2021. "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, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-28, November.
    6. Zhang, Bing & Bi, Jun & Fan, Ziying & Yuan, Zengwei & Ge, Junjie, 2008. "Eco-efficiency analysis of industrial system in China: A data envelopment analysis approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 306-316, December.
    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. Trinks, Arjan & Mulder, Machiel & Scholtens, Bert, 2020. "An Efficiency Perspective on Carbon Emissions and Financial Performance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Lucio Cecchini & Francesco Romagnoli & Massimo Chiorri & Biancamaria Torquati, 2023. "Eco-Efficiency and Its Determinants: The Case of the Italian Beef Cattle Sector," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Joanna Domagała, 2021. "Economic and Environmental Aspects of Agriculture in the EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Zhou, Anhua & Li, Jun, 2021. "Investigate the impact of market reforms on the improvement of manufacturing energy efficiency under China’s provincial-level data," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    5. Zhou, Haibo & Yang, Yi & Chen, Yao & Zhu, Joe, 2018. "Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 1-16.
    6. Beltrán-Esteve, Mercedes & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J., 2015. "Assessing environmental performance trends in the transport industry: Eco-innovation or catching-up?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 570-580.
    7. Yongyoon Suh & Hyeonju Seol & Hyerim Bae & Yongtae Park, 2014. "Eco-efficiency Based on Social Performance and its Relationship with Financial Performance," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(6), pages 909-919, December.
    8. Onat, Nuri C. & Noori, Mehdi & Kucukvar, Murat & Zhao, Yang & Tatari, Omer & Chester, Mikhail, 2017. "Exploring the suitability of electric vehicles in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 631-642.
    9. OA Carboni & P. Russu, 2014. "Measuring Environmental and Economic Efficiency in Italy: an Application of the Malmquist-DEA and Grey Forecasting Model," Working Paper CRENoS 201401, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    10. Beltrán-Esteve, Mercedes & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J., 2017. "Assessing environmental performance in the European Union: Eco-innovation versus catching-up," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 240-252.
    11. Mariam Camarero & Juana Castillo & Andrés Picazo-Tadeo & Cecilio Tamarit, 2013. "Eco-Efficiency and Convergence in OECD Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 55(1), pages 87-106, May.
    12. Yang Li & An-Chi Liu & Shu-Mei Wang & Yiting Zhan & Jingran Chen & Hsiao-Fen Hsiao, 2022. "A Study of Total-Factor Energy Efficiency for Regional Sustainable Development in China: An Application of Bootstrapped DEA and Clustering Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, April.
    13. Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Juana Castillo & Mercedes Beltrán-Esteve, 2013. "A dynamic approach to measuring ecological-economic performance with directional distance functions: greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union," Working Papers 1304, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    14. Ilton Leal & Pauli Almada Garcia & Márcio Almeida D’Agosto, 2012. "A data envelopment analysis approach to choose transport modes based on eco-efficiency," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 767-781, October.
    15. Yongyi Cheng & Tianyuan Shao & Huilin Lai & Manhong Shen & Yi Li, 2019. "Total-Factor Eco-Efficiency and Its Influencing Factors in the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    16. Marlena Gołaś & Piotr Sulewski & Adam Wąs & Anna Kłoczko-Gajewska & Kinga Pogodzińska, 2020. "On the Way to Sustainable Agriculture—Eco-Efficiency of Polish Commercial Farms," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & Beltrán-Esteve, Mercedes & Gómez-Limón, José A., 2012. "Assessing eco-efficiency with directional distance functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 798-809.
    18. Zheng, Saina & Lam, Chor-Man & Hsu, Shu-Chien & Ren, Jingzheng, 2018. "Evaluating efficiency of energy conservation measures in energy service companies in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 580-591.
    19. Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & Castillo-Giménez, Juana & Beltrán-Esteve, Mercedes, 2014. "An intertemporal approach to measuring environmental performance with directional distance functions: Greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 173-182.
    20. Halkos, George & Petrou, Kleoniki Natalia, 2019. "Treating undesirable outputs in DEA: A critical review," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 97-104.

    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:19:p:12278-:d:926920. 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.