Groundwater is one of the most vital natural resources worldwide. However, shallow aquifers are prone to contamination, posing significant risks to human health, livestock, agricultural productivity, and economic growth. Identifying appropriate land management strategies is critical for mitigating groundwater vulnerability to pollution. This study evaluates groundwater vulnerability to pollution under various land management scenarios using the modified DRASTIC model in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. The analysis incorporates multiple parameters within the ArcGIS environment, including depth to water table, net recharge, aquifer characteristics, soil properties, topography, vadose zone, hydraulic conductivity, and land use/land cover (LULC). In this study, LULC was added as an additional parameter to enhance the DRASTIC model. Groundwater vulnerability to pollution was evaluated under four distinct land management scenarios: baseline, agricultural expansion, urbanization, and reforestation. A single-parameter sensitivity analysis and a map removal sensitivity analysis were performed to identify the most influential parameters affecting groundwater vulnerability under the baseline LULC conditions. The result revealed that groundwater vulnerability in Bahir Dar City under baseline conditions is primarily influenced by LULC and net recharge. The areal average groundwater vulnerability to pollution index at the baseline scenario was 184. Agricultural expansion and urbanization increased the areal average groundwater vulnerability to pollution by 4.9 % and 1.6 %, respectively, while the reforestation scenario reduced it by 1.6 %. These findings highlight the critical role of effective land management practices, such as reforestation, in mitigating groundwater susceptibility to pollution. The results also indicate that groundwater vulnerability to pollution varies across different geological formations. Therefore, given the influence of geological variability on groundwater vulnerability, incorporating geological considerations into urban expansion planning is essential for minimizing the risk of groundwater contamination.

Groundwater is one of the most vital natural resources worldwide. However, shallow aquifers are prone to contamination, posing significant risks to human health, livestock, agricultural productivity, and economic growth. Identifying appropriate land management strategies is critical for mitigating groundwater vulnerability to pollution. This study evaluates groundwater vulnerability to pollution under various land management scenarios using the modified DRASTIC model in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. The analysis incorporates multiple parameters within the ArcGIS environment, including depth to water table, net recharge, aquifer characteristics, soil properties, topography, vadose zone, hydraulic conductivity, and land use/land cover (LULC). In this study, LULC was added as an additional parameter to enhance the DRASTIC model. Groundwater vulnerability to pollution was evaluated under four distinct land management scenarios: baseline, agricultural expansion, urbanization, and reforestation. A single-parameter sensitivity analysis and a map removal sensitivity analysis were performed to identify the most influential parameters affecting groundwater vulnerability under the baseline LULC conditions. The result revealed that groundwater vulnerability in Bahir Dar City under baseline conditions is primarily influenced by LULC and net recharge. The areal average groundwater vulnerability to pollution index at the baseline scenario was 184. Agricultural expansion and urbanization increased the areal average groundwater vulnerability to pollution by 4.9 % and 1.6 %, respectively, while the reforestation scenario reduced it by 1.6 %. These findings highlight the critical role of effective land management practices, such as reforestation, in mitigating groundwater susceptibility to pollution. The results also indicate that groundwater vulnerability to pollution varies across different geological formations. Therefore, given the influence of geological variability on groundwater vulnerability, incorporating geological considerations into urban expansion planning is essential for minimizing the risk of groundwater contamination.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) remains neutral when it comes to the weak and strong sustainability worldviews. However, although its manuals do not contain any references to these concepts, it can support both through physical and monetary accounting. Given that strong sustainability is better suited to monitor environmental sustainability, we provide insights into how SEEA can contribute to promote the use of strong sustainability indicators.From a strong sustainability perspective, environmental sustainability requires identifying elements of natural capital to be preserved (critical natural capital) and at the level at which they should be preserved (reference values). SEEA and its manuals do not explicitly define the first element, but the concept of 'reference values' is implicitly embedded with the 'ecosystem condition accounts' introduced in the Ecosystem Accounting (EA) manual. As such, EA is the most relevant element of the SEEA in terms of advancing strong sustainability accounting. Given that ecosystem condition accounting is still in its early stages and that ecosystem condition is currently challenging to determine, three actions are proposed to better integrate strong sustainability in SEEA. First, the next revision of the SEEA Central Framework should be more explicit in how SEEA supports weak and strong sustainability. It should also consider how SEEA is linked to the wider indicator landscape (including the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Biodiversity Framework). Second, ecosystem condition accounting needs to be further developed, as the more abundant extent accounts cannot capture the quality of ecosystems. Third, ecosystem condition accounting could build on other strong sustainability indicator initiatives such as Planetary Boundaries or the Environmental Sustainability Gap framework that have consistently integrated reference values in the accounting practices. These actions would provide additional means to interpret environmental sustainability beyond the direction of progress as is often the case.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) remains neutral when it comes to the weak and strong sustainability worldviews. However, although its manuals do not contain any references to these concepts, it can support both through physical and monetary accounting. Given that strong sustainability is better suited to monitor environmental sustainability, we provide insights into how SEEA can contribute to promote the use of strong sustainability indicators. From a strong sustainability perspective, environmental sustainability requires identifying elements of natural capital to be preserved (critical natural capital) and at the level at which they should be preserved (reference values). SEEA and its manuals do not explicitly define the first element, but the concept of 'reference values' is implicitly embedded with the 'ecosystem condition accounts' introduced in the Ecosystem Accounting (EA) manual. As such, EA is the most relevant element of the SEEA in terms of advancing strong sustainability accounting. Given that ecosystem condition accounting is still in its early stages and that ecosystem condition is currently challenging to determine, three actions are proposed to better integrate strong sustainability in SEEA. First, the next revision of the SEEA Central Framework should be more explicit in how SEEA supports weak and strong sustainability. It should also consider how SEEA is linked to the wider indicator landscape (including the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Biodiversity Framework). Second, ecosystem condition accounting needs to be further developed, as the more abundant extent accounts cannot capture the quality of ecosystems. Third, ecosystem condition accounting could build on other strong sustainability indicator initiatives such as Planetary Boundaries or the Environmental Sustainability Gap framework that have consistently integrated reference values in the accounting practices. These actions would provide additional means to interpret environmental sustainability beyond the direction of progress as is often the case.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) remains neutral when it comes to the weak and strong sustainability worldviews. However, although its manuals do not contain any references to these concepts, it can support both through physical and monetary accounting. Given that strong sustainability is better suited to monitor environmental sustainability, we provide insights into how SEEA can contribute to promote the use of strong sustainability indicators. From a strong sustainability perspective, environmental sustainability requires identifying elements of natural capital to be preserved (critical natural capital) and at the level at which they should be preserved (reference values). SEEA and its manuals do not explicitly define the first element, but the concept of 'reference values' is implicitly embedded with the 'ecosystem condition accounts' introduced in the Ecosystem Accounting (EA) manual. As such, EA is the most relevant element of the SEEA in terms of advancing strong sustainability accounting. Given that ecosystem condition accounting is still in its early stages and that ecosystem condition is currently challenging to determine, three actions are proposed to better integrate strong sustainability in SEEA. First, the next revision of the SEEA Central Framework should be more explicit in how SEEA supports weak and strong sustainability. It should also consider how SEEA is linked to the wider indicator landscape (including the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Biodiversity Framework). Second, ecosystem condition accounting needs to be further developed, as the more abundant extent accounts cannot capture the quality of ecosystems. Third, ecosystem condition accounting could build on other strong sustainability indicator initiatives such as Planetary Boundaries or the Environmental Sustainability Gap framework that have consistently integrated reference values in the accounting practices. These actions would provide additional means to interpret environmental sustainability beyond the direction of progress as is often the case.