“Guardianship” and the “Rural Workshop”—The First Quarter-century of U.K. Experience in Nature Conservation

In the U.K., the Countryside Act of 1968 represented the first “updating” of the pioneering National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949. Through the archival material that survives for the Ministry of Agriculture and Nature Conservancy, the paper commemorates that first quarter-century of post-war adjustment to the needs of farming and wildlife conservation. It does so through a case study of the documented discussion, both inter-agency and within separate counsels, of whether agricultural improvement grants should be paid for land scheduled as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The post-war assumptions of both parties were shattered by clashes over the SSSIs of Cavenham Heath (Suffolk) and Waddingham Common (Lincolnshire). Characterized as a “cold” war, there was a point beyond which antipathy served no one's interests. Fully aware of the options available to policy-makers, both parties recognized the Countryside Bill as an opportunity to obtain greater protection for SSSIs without prejudicing the larger notions of guardianship of the rural resource and the importance that continued to be given to the countryside as the farmer's “workshop”.     

Evaluating Pre‐ and Post‐Fire Peak Discharge Predictions across Western U.S. Watersheds

This study reviews five models commonly used in post‐fire hydrologic assessments: the Rowe Countryman and Storey (RCS), United States Geological Survey (USGS) Linear Regression Equations, USDA Windows Technical Release 55 (USDA TR‐55), Wildcat5, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC‐HMS). The models are applied to eight diverse basins in the western United States (U.S.) (Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, and Washington) affected by wildfires and assessed by input parameters, calibration methods, model constraints, and performance. No one model is versatile enough for application to all study sites. Results show inconsistency between model predictions for events across the sites and less confidence with larger return periods (25‐ and 50‐year events) and post‐fire predictions. The RCS method performs well, but application is limited to southern California. The USGS linear regression model has wider regional application, but performance is less reliable at the large recurrence intervals and post‐fire predictions are reliant on a subjective modifier. Of the three curve number‐based models, Wildcat5 performs best overall without calibration, whereas the calibrated TR‐55 and HEC‐HMS models show significant improvement in pre‐fire predictions. Results from our study provide information and guidance to ultimately improve model selection for post‐fire prediction and encourage uniform parameter acquisition and calibration across the western U.S.     

Water Footprint of 65 Mid‐ to Large‐Sized U.S. Cities and Their Metropolitan Areas

Conventional indicators of water use for urban areas account primarily for direct water use. In contrast, our objective here is to employ the water footprint (WF) concept and methodology to include the virtual or indirect water use to assess the production‐side and consumption‐side WF of 65 United States (U.S.) cities. The 65 cities include the largest metropolitan areas and some of the major mid‐sized cities in the U.S. We use metropolitan areas to define our city boundaries as this is the native spatial resolution of the main datasets used. To estimate the urban WFs, we integrated large and disparate datasets, including commodity flow (agricultural, livestock, and industrial commodities), water use, and socioeconomic data. By analyzing the estimated WF values, we found indirect water use accounts on average for 66% of the WF of consumption. We found some cities are net virtual water exporters (11 of 65) because they rely heavily on direct water uses or are heavy producers of industrial commodities. Also, WF patterns vary widely across the U.S. but regional patterns seem to emerge. For example, the dense cities of the U.S. northeast megaregion have a significantly low per capita WF relative to the other cities, while cities in the Gulf Coast megaregion have a significantly higher industrial WF of production and consumption. Furthermore, there is inequality in the WF of consumption where a few cities account for a disproportionate share of the total U.S. urban water uses.