http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.001
Abstract: Conservation
buffers are considered to be effective practices for repairing impaired
streams and restoring multiple ecosystem functions in degraded
agricultural watersheds. Six different planning strategies for targeting
their placement within watersheds were compared in terms of
cost-effectiveness for environmental improvement in the 144 km2
Neshanic River Watershed in New Jersey, USA. The strategies included
two riparian-focused strategies, two soil survey-based strategies and
two topography-based strategies that focus traditionally on water
quality benefits. Each strategy was used to prioritize locations to
install conservation buffers. An analytical methodology was employed to
evaluate the level of multiple benefits (water quality improvement,
erosion control, wildlife habitat improvement, and stormwater
mitigation) and buffer establishment and maintenance costs provided by
each strategy. The comparison results showed that the riparian-focused
strategies were least cost-effective (their cost-effectiveness measure
ranges from 0.17 to 0.18) compared to both soil survey-based and
topography-based buffer targeting strategies (from 0.21 to 0.31).
Although the riparian-focused strategies are popular and simple to
administer, alternative placement strategies should be considered when
riparian-focused strategies cannot meet the environmental goals,
additional environmental concerns are involved and the program cost is
of a great concern. The appropriate strategies to compare, the specific
evaluation criteria, and the proper scoring system depend upon specific
land characteristics and issues that are important in a given watershed.
Specific comparative results may not be directly transferable to other
watersheds or planning areas, but the methodological framework developed
can be a useful tool for planners to compare alternative
multiple-function buffer strategies.
Figure 1. The land use distribution in 2002 in Neshanic River Watershed, New Jersey
Highlights
►
Integrate multiple environmental benefits to compare six conservation
buffer targeting strategies.
► Two riparian-focused buffer strategies have the lowest cost-effectiveness of 0.18.
► Soil survey-based strategy focusing on sediment movement has the highest cost-effectiveness of 0.31.
► Two topography-based strategies and soil survey-based strategy on water movement have cost-effectiveness around 0.22.
► The alternative buffer targeting strategies should be used when considering multiple environmental benefits and cost.
by Z. Qiua , and M.G. Dosskeyb
► Two riparian-focused buffer strategies have the lowest cost-effectiveness of 0.18.
► Soil survey-based strategy focusing on sediment movement has the highest cost-effectiveness of 0.31.
► Two topography-based strategies and soil survey-based strategy on water movement have cost-effectiveness around 0.22.
► The alternative buffer targeting strategies should be used when considering multiple environmental benefits and cost.
by Z. Qiua , and M.G. Dosskeyb
- a New Jersey Institute of Technology, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, Newark, NJ, 07102, United States. Tel.: +1 973 596 5357; fax: +1 973 596 3586.
- b USDA Forest Service, National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE, United States
Available online 31 May 2012
In Press, Corrected Proof
Keywords: Conservation buffers; Multiple criteria; Soil erodibility; Hydrological sensitivity; Wildlife habitat; Impervious surface
No comments:
Post a Comment