Assessing evidence on the agronomic and environmental impacts of turfgrass irrigation management

In recent years, rising competition for water coupled with new environmental regulations has exerted pressure on water allocations for turfgrass irrigation. In this article, we reviewed published scientific and industry evidence on the agronomic and environmental impacts of turfgrass irrigation using a robust systematic review methodology. Our focus was on the links between (i) irrigation management (amount and frequency), (ii) agronomic responses to irrigation (turf quality, growth rates and rooting) and (iii) environmental impacts (nitrogen leaching). Based on an initial screening of 653 studies and data extracted from 83 papers, our results show that in most cases, under moderate levels of deficit irrigation (50%–60% of actual evapotranspiration), turf quality can be maintained at an acceptable level but with lower water consumption compared to irrigating back to field capacity. Irrigation beyond field capacity was found to increase the risk of nutrient leaching. However, evidence also showed that the concentration and total loss of math formula in leachate were influenced more by nitrogen (N) rates, soil characteristics, turfgrass species and turfgrass growth rates than by irrigation practices. Our analyses suggest that turfgrass irrigation should be scheduled to apply water at moderate levels of deficit irrigation, sufficient to maintain turfgrass quality but limited to promote a deep and extensive rooting system. The findings provide new insights and valuable evidence for both scientists and practitioners involved in turfgrass research and management

Efficient Efficiency? Assessing the Administrative Efficacy of Illinois' Energy Efficiency Programs

The purpose of this study is to analyze the efficacy of program administration for Illinois' utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs. The analysis provides insights regarding portfolio- and sector-level comparisons between Illinois' energy efficiency programs and those operated in other states. It also provides insights as to the use and cost-effectiveness of specific energy efficiency programs offered by various program administrators within the state of Illinois. Furthermore, this study hopes to provide insights with respect to the efficacy of programs offered through DCEO administration and those programs offered through utility administration.Ope

Does removal of federal subsidies discourage urban development? An evaluation of the US Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

Urban development relies on many factors to remain viable, including infrastructure, services, and government provisions and subsidies. However, in situations involving federal or state level policy, development responds not just to one regulatory signal, but also to multiple signals from overlapping and competing jurisdictions. The 1982 U.S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CoBRA) offers an opportunity to study when and how development restrictions and economic disincentives protect natural resources by stopping or slowing urban development in management regimes with distributed authority and responsibility. CoBRA prohibits federal financial assistance for infrastructure, post-storm disaster relief, and flood insurance in designated sections (CoBRA units) of coastal barriers. How has CoBRA's removal of these subsidies affected rates and types of urban development? Using building footprint and real estate data (n = 1,385,552 parcels), we compare density of built structures, land use types, residential house size, and land values within and outside of CoBRA units in eight Southeast and Gulf Coast states. We show that CoBRA is associated with reduced development rates in designated coastal barriers. We also demonstrate how local responses may counteract withdrawal of federal subsidies. As attention increases towards improving urban resilience in high hazard areas, this work contributes to understanding how limitations on infrastructure and insurance subsidies can affect outcomes where overlapping jurisdictions have competing goals

A Wrench in the Machine

Federal, state, and local government funding helps stimulate urban development, with growth machine politics playing an important role in determining where subsidies are allocated. The U.S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) was enacted to curb the role of federal subsidies in fostering development along hazardous coastal barriers, providing an opportunity to explore how local growth politics are influenced by the removal of one source of government funding. In this study, we used a series of interview-based case studies to investigate why certain areas in the CBRA developed while most did not. In most cases, the CBRA obstructed local growth coalitions, isolating landowners from the resources necessary to improve the growth potential of their land interests. However, in cases where development occurred within the CBRA, we often found evidence that powerful growth machines were able to acquire replacement subsidies from state and local governments, suggesting these actions are a key driver in overcoming the financial barriers posed by the CBRA. This study revealed how growth machines could be hampered by removing access to the financial resources of one level of government, despite the potential to be undermined by intervention at other levels. In an era of increasing coastal risks, subsidy removal can be an effective tool for managing coastal growth, even when authority over land use decisions is limited.</p