Comparing Green and Grey Infrastructure Using Life Cycle Cost and Environmental Impact: A Rain Garden Case Study in Cincinnati,OH

Green infrastructure (GI) is quickly gaining ground as a less costly, greener alternative to traditional methods of stormwater management. One popular form of GI is the use of rain gardens to capture and treat stormwater. We used life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare environmental impacts of residential rain gardens constructed in the Shepherd's Creek watershed of Cincinnati, Ohio to those from a typical detain and treat system. LCA is an internationally standardized framework for analyzing the potential environmental performance of a product or service by including all stages in its life cycle, including material extraction, manufacturing, use, and disposal. Complementary to the life cycle environmental impact assessment, the life cycle costing approach was adopted to compare the equivalent annual costs of each of these systems. These analyses were supplemented by modeling alternative scenarios to capture the variability in implementing a GI strategy. Our LCA models suggest rain garden costs and impacts are determined by labor requirement; the traditional alternative's impacts are determined largely by the efficiency of wastewater treatment, while costs are determined by the expense of tunnel construction. Gardens were found to be the favorable option, both financially (~42% cost reduction) and environmentally (62‐98% impact reduction). Wastewater utilities may find significant life cycle cost and environmental impact reductions in implementing a rain garden plan.     

Impact of drought‐related vaccination on livestock mortality in pastoralist areas of Ethiopia

Under a national Livestock Policy Forum in Ethiopia the impact of livestock vaccination during drought was assessed in order to inform the development of a best‐practice guideline. For each of the different types of vaccine used during drought years there was no significant difference in livestock mortality, for any species, in vaccinated compared with non‐vaccinated herds. The limited impact of vaccination on livestock mortality was attributed to weaknesses in the design and implementation of vaccination programmes, including use of inappropriate vaccines, low vaccination coverage, problems with vaccine dosing, incorrect timing of vaccination and problems with vaccine storage. If these weaknesses could be overcome vaccination could be a useful means to protect livestock assets, with considerable benefit‐cost ratios. Vaccination should be conducted as a standard preventive measure during normal years, and programme design should be informed by participatory epidemiological studies.