ArticleACS ES&T water2025
Mitigating Wildfire Impact on Water Quality through Climate-Based Financing: A Case Study of the Provo River Watershed.
Article in ACS ES&T water, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following wildfires, riverine water quality in forested watersheds is prone to degradation, impacting drinking water treatment and potentially causing increased carbon emissions because of additional electricity consumption during treatment. We explore the potential for climate-based financing to support wildfire mitigation and watershed restoration by reducing potential water treatment energy demand following a fire within the Provo River watershed, Utah, USA. We model pre- and post-wildfire erosion and water quality in the Provo River using GeoWEPP. We use energy data from a water treatment plant in the watershed and literature data to estimate the increase in energy use for treating degraded water. We find that most watershed areas are not subject to large treatment demand changes, but a few hotspots are prone to increased sediment loads. In the Provo River watershed, on average, a fire in a single 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) subwatershed corresponds to an additional 350 metric tonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent (CO
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.