IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i15p6841-d1711499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing the Green Watershed Index (GWI) in the Razey Watershed, Meshginshahr County, NW Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Akbar Irani

    (Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran)

  • Roghayeh Jahdi

    (Department of Forest Science and Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran)

  • Zeinab Hazbavi

    (Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Water Management Research Center, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran)

  • Raoof Mostafazadeh

    (Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Water Management Research Center, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran)

  • Abazar Esmali Ouri

    (Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Water Management Research Center, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran)

Abstract

This paper presents the Green Watershed Index (GWI) methodology, focusing on the 17 sustainability indicators selected in the Razey watershed, NW Iran. Field surveys and data collection have provided the possibility of field inspection and measurement of the present condition of the watershed and the indicators taken. Based on the degree of compliance with the required process, each indicator was scored from 0 to 10 and classified into three categories: unsustainable, semi-sustainable, and sustainable. Using the Entropy method to assign weight to each indicator and formulating a proportional mathematical relationship, the GWI score for each sub-watershed was derived. Spatial changes regarding the selected indicators and, consequently, the GWI were detected in the study area. Development of water infrastructure, particularly in the upstream sub-watersheds, plays a great role in increasing the GWI score. The highest weight is related to environmental productivity (0.26), and the five indicators of water footprint, knowledge management and information quality system, landscape attractiveness, waste recycling, and corruption control have approximately zero weight due to their monotonous spatial distribution throughout sub-watersheds. Only sub-watershed R1 has the highest score (5.13), indicating a semi-sustainable condition. The rest of the sub-watersheds have unsustainable conditions (score below 5). Concerning the GWI, the watershed is facing a critical situation, necessitating the implementation of management and conservation strategies that align with the sustainability level of each sub-watershed.

Suggested Citation

  • Akbar Irani & Roghayeh Jahdi & Zeinab Hazbavi & Raoof Mostafazadeh & Abazar Esmali Ouri, 2025. "Characterizing the Green Watershed Index (GWI) in the Razey Watershed, Meshginshahr County, NW Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:6841-:d:1711499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/6841/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/6841/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ayat Ullah & Miroslava Bavorova & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Giri Prasad Kandel, 2024. "Climate change and rural livelihoods: The potential of extension programs for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 4992-5004, October.
    2. Henrique Chaves & Suzana Alipaz, 2007. "An Integrated Indicator Based on Basin Hydrology, Environment, Life, and Policy: The Watershed Sustainability Index," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(5), pages 883-895, May.
    3. Philip Lawn, 2005. "An Assessment of the Valuation Methods Used to Calculate the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and Sustainable Net Benefit Index (SNBI)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 185-208, June.
    4. Jorge Alejandro Silva, 2023. "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse for Sustainable Water Resources Management: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-31, July.
    5. Nazila Alaei & Raoof Mostafazadeh & Abazar Esmali Ouri & Zeinab Hazbavi & Mearaj Sharari & Guangwei Huang, 2022. "Spatial Comparative Analysis of Landscape Fragmentation Metrics in a Watershed with Diverse Land Uses in Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    6. Iyelitzin Núñez-Razo & José de Anda & Héctor Barrios-Piña & Luis Alberto Olvera-Vargas & Mariana García-Ruíz-García & Sofía Hernández-Morales, 2023. "Development of a Watershed Sustainability Index for the Santiago River Basin, Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-32, May.
    7. Ding He & Jingchong Hu & Jie Zhang, 2023. "Assessment of Sustainable Development Suitability in Linear Cultural Heritage—A Case of Beijing Great Wall Cultural Belt," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    8. Mohamed Abdel-Basset & Abduallah Gamal & Ripon K. Chakrabortty & Michael Ryan & Nissreen El-Saber, 2021. "A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Green Building Indicators under an Uncertain Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    9. Ine Vandecasteele & Inés Marí i Rivero & Claudia Baranzelli & William Becker & Ilda Dreoni & Carlo Lavalle & Okke Batelaan, 2018. "The Water Retention Index: Using land use planning to manage water resources in Europe," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 122-131, March.
    10. Christopher Dickens & Matthew McCartney & David Tickner & Ian J. Harrison & Pablo Pacheco & Brown Ndhlovu, 2020. "Evaluating the Global State of Ecosystems and Natural Resources: Within and Beyond the SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Lawn, Philip A., 2003. "A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 105-118, February.
    12. Bunga Ludmila Rendrarpoetri & Ernan Rustiadi & Akhmad Fauzi & Andrea Emma Pravitasari, 2024. "Sustainability Assessment of the Upstream Bengawan Solo Watershed in Wonogiri Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-29, February.
    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. O'Mahony, Tadhg & Escardó-Serra, Paula & Dufour, Javier, 2018. "Revisiting ISEW Valuation Approaches: The Case of Spain Including the Costs of Energy Depletion and of Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 292-303.
    2. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    3. Long, Xianling & Ji, Xi, 2019. "Economic Growth Quality, Environmental Sustainability, and Social Welfare in China - Provincial Assessment Based on Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-176.
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Gorko, Nicole E. & Weisdorf, Michael A. & Carnes, Austin W. & Collins, Cathrine E. & Franco, Carol & Gehres, Lillian R. & Knobloch, Jenna M. & Matson, Gayle E. & , 2015. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Oregon from 1960–2010 and recommendations for a comprehensive shareholder's report," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-7.
    5. Xiang Ji & Jiasen Sun & Qunwei Wang & Qianqian Yuan, 2019. "Revealing Energy Over-Consumption and Pollutant Over-Emission Behind GDP: A New Multi-criteria Sustainable Measure," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 54(4), pages 1391-1421, December.
    6. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2018. "Genuine Economic Progress in the United States: A Fifty State Study and Comparative Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 29-35.
    7. Brennan, Andrew John, 2013. "A critique of the perceived solid conceptual foundations of ISEW & GPI — Irving Fisher's cognisance of human-health capital in ‘net psychic income’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-166.
    8. Brennan, Andrew John, 2008. "Theoretical foundations of sustainable economic welfare indicators -- ISEW and political economy of the disembedded system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Van der Slycken, Jonas & Bleys, Brent, 2020. "A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Angelica-Nicoleta NECULĂESEI, 2015. "About Welfare In Cultural Context," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 7, pages 407-414, April.
    11. Emanuele Felice, 2012. "Neither dashboard nor 'mashup' indices: an empirical wealth approach as a pathway to a comprehensive measure of development," UHE Working papers 2012_01, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
    12. Emanuele Felice, 2016. "The Misty Grail: The Search for a Comprehensive Measure of Development and the Reasons for GDP Primacy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(5), pages 967-994, September.
    13. Posner, Stephen M. & Costanza, Robert, 2011. "A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1972-1980, September.
    14. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2020. "Design and meaning of the genuine progress indicator: A statistical analysis of the U.S. fifty-state model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    15. Philip Lawn, 2014. "Measuring sustainable economic welfare," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 23, pages 348-370, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Philip Lawn, 2007. "A Stock-Take of Green National Accounting Initiatives," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 427-460, January.
    17. Günseli BERIK, 2020. "Measuring what matters and guiding policy: An evaluation of the Genuine Progress Indicator," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 159(1), pages 71-94, March.
    18. Bleys, Brent, 2008. "Proposed changes to the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare: An application to Belgium," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 741-751, February.
    19. Hayashi, Takashi, 2015. "Measuring rural–urban disparity with the Genuine Progress Indicator: A case study in Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 260-271.
    20. Lawn, Philip, 2013. "The failure of the ISEW and GPI to fully account for changes in human-health capital — A methodological shortcoming not a theoretical weakness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 167-177.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:2025:i:15:p:6841-:d:1711499. 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.