IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v35y2015i4d10.1007_s10669-015-9575-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing cumulative effects of multiple activities in New England watersheds

Author

Listed:
  • Christy M. Foran

    (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
    ERDC Environmental Laboratory)

  • Michael J. Narcisi

    (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

  • Amelia C. Bourne

    (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

  • Igor Linkov

    (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center)

Abstract

A cumulative effect analysis (CEA) is a tool that can be utilized for the review of multiple anthropogenic projects or activities for the purposes of planning, regulation, conservation, or the general evaluation of environmental health. Such an assessment is problematic because spatially consistent and temporally repeated data informing the condition of a location are often not available. When such data can be identified, the potential response of that resource to additional impacts may be unpredictable. Despite these limitations, in many cases, it may be critical to identify those locations for further scrutiny which may be vulnerable to collective impacts from development or other environmental challenges. Here, we present an approach which considers the vulnerability of aquatic resources in relation to the anticipated effects of development-related activities that could be used to identify locations where the potential for cumulative effects is the greatest. This application considers CEA in the context of identifying where development-related activities of minimal impact may be viewed as relatively more substantial when viewed cumulatively. We identify HUC 8-level watersheds where the current resource condition and anticipated development-related activities may have greater potential to result in an impact on watershed condition (i.e., water quality, water quantity, and habitat value). The vulnerability of the watershed was estimated from the number, type, and location of a specific suite of reported activities. The existing condition of the watershed was measured as a function of existing assessments of resource conditions. The relationship between the vulnerability and the existing watershed condition was used to project future conditions and to identify watersheds that warrant further scrutiny. This is a unique approach to CEA which allows for transparent, repeatable identification of watersheds which may be adversely impacted by further activities or projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Christy M. Foran & Michael J. Narcisi & Amelia C. Bourne & Igor Linkov, 2015. "Assessing cumulative effects of multiple activities in New England watersheds," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 511-520, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:35:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-015-9575-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-015-9575-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-015-9575-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-015-9575-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Z. A. Collier & J. H. Lambert & I. Linkov, 2015. "Application of systems modeling and risk assessment to address real-world decision-making challenges," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 425-426, December.

    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. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Xiao Deng & Xi Guo & Yenchun Jim Wu & Min Chen, 2021. "Perceived Environmental Dynamism Promotes Entrepreneurial Team Member’s Innovation: Explanations Based on the Uncertainty Reduction Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    5. Xiaonan Wang & Licheng Wang & Jianping Chen & Shouting Zhang & Paolo Tarolli, 2020. "Assessment of the External Costs of Life Cycle of Coal: The Case Study of Southwestern China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-26, August.
    6. Lamprinakis, L. & Rodriguez, D. G. P. & Prestvik, A. S. & Veidal, A. & Klimek, B., 2017. "31 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1705 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON FOOD SYSTEM DYNAMICS A Mixed Methods Approach Towards Mapping and Economic Valuation of the Divici-Pojejena Wetland Ecosystem," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276889, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    7. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    9. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    10. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Managing environmental risk in agriculture: a systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 27-46.
    11. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    12. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    13. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "The limitations of applying benefit transfer to assess the value of ecosystem services in a “generic” peri-urban, coastal town in Australia," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152183, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    15. Chris Dumas & Pete Schuhmann & John C. Whitehead, 2004. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water Quality Improvement with the Benefit Transfer Method: An Introduction for Non-Economists," Working Papers 04-12, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    16. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    17. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    18. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    19. Tumaneng-Diete, Tessie & Page, Ashley & Binney, Jim, 2005. "Assessing the economic values of exotic invasive plants on areas of conservation significance in Queensland," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 139287, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Research Reports 107744, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:35:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-015-9575-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.