Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published January 2002

Soil Bioengineering as an Alternative for Roadside Management: Benefit-Cost Analysis Case Study

Abstract

As an environmentally compatible and cost-efficient alternative for roadside management, soil bioengineering has become increasingly important and attractive. Soil bioengineering uses live plants and plant parts as building materials for engineering and ecologically sound solutions to erosion control, slope and stream bank stabilization, landscape restoration, and wildlife habitats. However, not all decision makers are aware of the specific benefits of this approach. This case study applied a benefit-cost analysis to an experimental soil bioengineering demonstration project to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of soil bioengineering as an alternative to traditional roadside management. Traditional roadside management methods (geotechnical solutions) were used as the baseline, and soil bioengineering treatments were treated as an investment alternative. Cost savings, along with other environmental benefits, were assessed and compared with construction costs. The effects of life cycle, effectiveness, and discounting were included in the analysis to ensure comparability between both treatments. The analytical results demonstrate that soil bioengineering methods, if technically feasible, could be adopted to produce equal or better economic and environmental results. The findings of the research project and the economic analysis indicate that soil bioengineering is an efficient and environmentally beneficial tool for roadside management.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Lewis L. Soil Bioengineering. An Alternative for Roadside Management: A Practical Guide. Technology and Development Program, 7700-Transportation Management. 0077 1801–SDTDC (San Dimas Technology and Development Center). USDA Forest Service, 2000.
2. Lewis E., Hagen S., Maurer M., and Salisbury S. Washington DOT Investigates the Soil Bioengineering Alternative. Public Works Magazine, Aug. 2000, pp. 42–44.
3. McPherson G. E., Simpson J. R., Peper P. J., and Xiao Q. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Modesto’s Municipal Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture, Vol. 25, No. 5, 1999, pp. 235–248.
4. Cost of Stormwater Treatment for California Urbanized Areas. California State Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 1998.
5. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Stormwater Rule. EPA 833-R-99-002. Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
6. Soil Bioengineering as an Alternative in Roadside Management. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 2001.
7. Gray D. H., and Sotir R. B. Biotechnical Stabilization of Steepened Slopes. Presented at 74th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 22–28, 1995.
8. Sotir R. Brushing Up on Erosion Control. American City and County, Feb. 1998, pp. 18–25.
9. Schiechtl H. M., and Stern R. Ground Bioengineering Techniques for Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Blackwell Science, Oxford, England, 1997.
10. Dowling Associates, Inc., Kitelson and Associates, ECON Northwest, and Rao Associates. WSDOT Mobility Project Prioritization Process: B/C Software User’s Guide. Oakland, Calif., 2000.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published: January 2002
Issue published: January 2002

Rights and permissions

© 2002 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Shannon Hagen
Washington State Department of Transportation, 310 Maple Park Avenue, Olympia, WA 98504
Sandra Salisbury
Washington State Department of Transportation, 310 Maple Park Avenue, Olympia, WA 98504
Marlies Wierenga
Washington State Department of Transportation, 310 Maple Park Avenue, Olympia, WA 98504
George Xu
Washington State Department of Transportation, 310 Maple Park Avenue, Olympia, WA 98504
Lisa Lewis
USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 550, Prineville, OR 97754

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 45

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 2

  1. Bioengineering Techniques Adopted for Controlling Riverbanks’ Superfic...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Approach to Greenways and Natural Paths in Spain
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub