Project Drawdown calculated a lot of possible solutions, and then ordered them by impact and/or cost, and explained the best 100.
That (possible) impact and cost (time, material, number of people etc ...) would be very cool indicators for each measure. I assume it's not easy to calculate.
But each measure to fix the water cycle is very location specific with its impact.
You have wet climates, dry climates, normal climates, dry climates with too much rain at once, dry climates with no rain at all, close to the sea, close to lake, etc ...
Then the items in your landscape: agricultural fields, prairies, forests, streams, valleys, deserts, rocky areas, etc ...
All of these will filter out certain solutions. Some are highlighted with bigger effects, some are not possible for that situation.
Not every area has the same (native) animal population to maintain & regenerate the systems as well.
Maybe if we order them a bit context related it is easier for people to understand what measures could be implemented.
Eg. A categorization based upon: city, urban, rivers, small streams, prairies, veggie production, forests, roads, etc ...
A lot of solutions will de "duplicated" in multiple categories, but it seems like a more natural way to get a better idea of what you can do to fix your water cycle problem on a part of the landscape you can control. Many of the solutions can't be kept separate as well (fungi & bacteria without vegetation, dead biomass, etc ...)
I would think more in a design system (how permaculture is supposed to work) then in how it currently is practiced a lot (want things of interest in the system, before realizing why or the pros/cons in your context). (eg. people want a swale, start to really search deep in it, but then only much later find out it is not suitable for their land, and has no real use in it).
A calculated impact would be nice.
If you can show the almond farmer how he can rehydrate his property in different ways, so he understands the costs/savings potential and how his future production will look like, then you have a big win I think.
(cover crops, extra cash crops, diversity, different cash trees, reduce pesticides, fix natural nutrient system, create wet areas, create water storage, help fixing waterways upstream (more averaged water availability), etc ...)
Hi, thanks for the comment. Yes I think the solutions will be location specific to a degree, so purely linear top 100 list doesnt make as much sense for water...Dividing it by types of terrain and climate would be one way to have a better list...
Project Drawdown calculated a lot of possible solutions, and then ordered them by impact and/or cost, and explained the best 100.
That (possible) impact and cost (time, material, number of people etc ...) would be very cool indicators for each measure. I assume it's not easy to calculate.
But each measure to fix the water cycle is very location specific with its impact.
You have wet climates, dry climates, normal climates, dry climates with too much rain at once, dry climates with no rain at all, close to the sea, close to lake, etc ...
Then the items in your landscape: agricultural fields, prairies, forests, streams, valleys, deserts, rocky areas, etc ...
All of these will filter out certain solutions. Some are highlighted with bigger effects, some are not possible for that situation.
Not every area has the same (native) animal population to maintain & regenerate the systems as well.
Maybe if we order them a bit context related it is easier for people to understand what measures could be implemented.
Eg. A categorization based upon: city, urban, rivers, small streams, prairies, veggie production, forests, roads, etc ...
A lot of solutions will de "duplicated" in multiple categories, but it seems like a more natural way to get a better idea of what you can do to fix your water cycle problem on a part of the landscape you can control. Many of the solutions can't be kept separate as well (fungi & bacteria without vegetation, dead biomass, etc ...)
I would think more in a design system (how permaculture is supposed to work) then in how it currently is practiced a lot (want things of interest in the system, before realizing why or the pros/cons in your context). (eg. people want a swale, start to really search deep in it, but then only much later find out it is not suitable for their land, and has no real use in it).
A calculated impact would be nice.
If you can show the almond farmer how he can rehydrate his property in different ways, so he understands the costs/savings potential and how his future production will look like, then you have a big win I think.
(cover crops, extra cash crops, diversity, different cash trees, reduce pesticides, fix natural nutrient system, create wet areas, create water storage, help fixing waterways upstream (more averaged water availability), etc ...)
Hi, thanks for the comment. Yes I think the solutions will be location specific to a degree, so purely linear top 100 list doesnt make as much sense for water...Dividing it by types of terrain and climate would be one way to have a better list...