MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost‐effective Targeting of Riparian Buffers

2004· article· en· W2090969660 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Wanhong Yang, Alfons Weersink

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Water Network
KeywordsRiparian zoneWatershedRiparian bufferEnvironmental scienceMarginal costBuffer stripWatershed managementMarginal utilityEnvironmental resource managementAgricultureComputer scienceEconomicsHabitatGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops an integrated economic, hydrologic and GIS modeling framework to examine the cost‐effective targeting of land retirement for establishing riparian buffers in agricultural watersheds. Previous studies have examined the efficiency of targeting large land parcels for retirement or targeting management practices such as conservation tillage but have not considered narrow variable buffer strips. An empirical application of the framework in the Canagagigue Creek watershed in Ontario shows that average and marginal costs of sediment abatement increase at an increasing rate as the environmental goal becomes more stringent. The locations of the buffer strips vary across the watershed and are not necessarily located on those sites with greatest slope or those adjacent to visible streams. Cost effectiveness is further increased if the targeting is extended to allow for the width of the buffer strip to vary by location rather than assume a uniform width. The modeling results have important policy implications for the design of conservation stewardship programs such as setting appropriate environmental health goals based on marginal abatement costs relative to marginal benefits, and setting physical characteristics of the riparian buffers for selection along the drainage network in targeted sub‐catchments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207