Abstract:Use of fertilizers has enabled a massive increase in crop production yields. However, this has come with severe negative externalities (e.g., greenhouse gas emission; eutrophication of non-agricultural ecosystems). Eco-innovations are one option to reduce the environmental impact of fertilizers without compromising fertilizer productivity. Although numerous eco-innovations in the domain of fertilizers are available, they have not yet seen a sufficient adoption rate. In this paper we explore main drivers for adoption of eco-innovations in the German fertilizer supply chain based on empirical investigations at three levels of the fertilizer supply chain: producers, traders, and farmers. We strive to take a "chain perspective" on environmental concerns and knowledge of fertilizer specific eco-innovations. The study was carried out in two steps: initially we conducted exploratory expert interviews with eight actors of the fertilizer supply chain. The statements generated thereby fed into a questionnaire answered by 57 participants stemming from fertilizer production (n = 12), traders (n = 34) and farmers (n = 11) level. Findings suggest that drivers for eco-innovations are perceived differently by the various actors in the fertilizer supply chain. Overall knowledge on eco-innovations decreases downstream the chain. By taking a chain perspective on the adoption of eco-innovation, our paper contributes to the emerging body of literature on drivers for eco-innovation, and also maps out managerial implications of fostering the implementation of eco-innovations in the fertilizer supply chain.
Numerous innovations have been developed in the fertilizer and plant nutrition area in recent decades. However, the adoption of many new products and techniques at farm level is still low. In this paper, based on a literature review, we explore the main drivers for innovation adoption or rejection. By splitting up the extant research landscape into disruptive and continuous innovations and innovation types (product, process and innovation of other types), we aim to identify drivers explaining innovation adoption in the fertilizer sector in particular and in the agricultural sector in general.
The aim of this paper is to analyse to what extent the existing eco-innovations in the German fertilizer domain might reduce the fertilizer carbon footprint without compromising on crop productivity. The continuously growing demand for agricultural products will require a further increase in agricultural production mostly achieved with additional external inputs (fossil energy, pesticides, irrigation water and fertilizers). Fertilizer in general and nitrogen fertilizers in particular are major factors for yield increases in crop production. On the other hand, emissions of greenhouse gases play a dominant role in the debate on the environmental burden of fertilizers. Typical mineral fertilizers were compared with so-called stabilized nitrogen fertilizers and secondary raw material fertilizers in this study. Additionally, an effect of the combination of irrigation with fertilization (i.e. fertigation) was investigated. With an adopted life cycle assessment approach focusing on CO<sub>2</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O emission, the carbon footprints of the different fertilizer options were considered. The calculations showed that especially the use of stabilized nitrogen fertilizer reduced the fertilization-related carbon footprint up to 13%. However, because of higher costs or incomplete supply chain relationships, adoption of these innovations is expected to be rather limited in the near future. Fertilizers made from secondary raw materials resulted in similar carbon footprints as mineral ones, but they can help to close nutrient cycles and use by-products of other production processes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.