IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v73y2017icp100-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The potential benefits of on-farm mitigation scenarios for reducing multiple pollutant loadings in prioritised agri-environment areas across England

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Y.
  • Collins, A.L.
  • Jones, J.I.
  • Johnes, P.J.
  • Inman, A.
  • Freer, J.E.

Abstract

Mitigation of diffuse water pollution from agriculture is a key national environmental policy objective in England. With the recent introduction of the new agri-environment scheme, Countryside Stewardship, there is an increased emphasis on the macro-spatial targeting of on-farm mitigation measures to reduce pollutant pressures, and a concomitant need to forecast the technically feasible impacts of on-farm measures detailed in current policy and their associated costs and benefits. This paper reports the results of a modelling application to test these limits in the context of the associated costs and benefits for the reduction of diffuse water pollution from agriculture for each Water Framework Directive (WFD) water management catchment (WMC) and nationally. Four mitigation scenarios were modelled, including pollutant source control measures only (SC), mobilisation control measures only (MC), delivery control measures only (DC) and measures for source, mobilisation and delivery control (SMDC) combined. Projected impacts on nitrate, phosphorus and sediment export to water, ammonia, methane and nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere, together with the associated costs to the agricultural sector were estimated for each WFD WMC and nationally. Median WMC-scale reductions (with uncertainty ranges represented by 5th–95th percentiles) in current agricultural emissions, were predicted to be highest for the SMDC scenario; nitrate (18%, 11–23%), phosphorus (28%, 22–37%), sediment (25%, 18–43%), ammonia (26%, 17–32%), methane (13%, 7–18%) and nitrous oxide (18%, 16–20%). The median benefit-to-cost ratios (with uncertainty ranges represented by 5th–95th percentiles) were predicted to be in the following order; DC (0.15, 0.09–0.65), MC (0.19, 0.09–0.95), SMDC (0.31, 0.20–1.39) and SC (0.44, 0.19–2.48). Of the four scenarios simulated, the SC and SMDC suites of measures have the greatest potential to deliver reductions in BAU emissions from agriculture, and the best benefit:cost ratio.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Y. & Collins, A.L. & Jones, J.I. & Johnes, P.J. & Inman, A. & Freer, J.E., 2017. "The potential benefits of on-farm mitigation scenarios for reducing multiple pollutant loadings in prioritised agri-environment areas across England," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 100-114.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:100-114
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117300138
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Orlińska-Woźniak, Paulina & Wilk, Paweł & Szalińska, Ewa, 2020. "Delimitation of nutrient vulnerable zones - a comprehensive method to manage a persistent problem of agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Tsakiridis, Andreas & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Cullen, Paula & ÓhUallacháin, Daire & Sheridan, Helen & Stout, Jane, 2021. "Examining the relationship between farmer participation in an agri-environment scheme and the quantity and quality of semi-natural habitats on farms - An Irish case study," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315280, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & McCosker, Kevin & Northey, Adam, 2018. "Assessing cost-effectiveness when environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), July.
    4. John Rolfe & Jill Windle & Kevin McCosker & Adam Northey, 2018. "Assessing cost‐effectiveness when environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), pages 373-393, July.
    5. Tsakiridis, Andreas & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Cullen, Paula & Ó hUallacháin, Daire & Sheridan, Helen & Stout, Jane, 2022. "Examining the relationship between farmer participation in an agri-environment scheme and the quantity and quality of semi-natural habitats on Irish farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:100-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.