Assessing ammonia emission abatement measures in agriculture: Farmers' costs and society's benefits – A case study for Lower Saxony, Germany

Wagner, Stephen; Angenendt, Elisabeth; Beletskaya, Olga; Zeddies, J.

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.008

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wagner et al [63] assessed the costs and benefits of manure storage cover and application techniques in Lower Saxony, Germany, and reported similar results as our findings. They found that the implementation of concrete storage covers and slurry injection could reduce NH 3 emissions by 25% amounting to net benefits of 505 M€ and a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.2.…”

Section: Cost-benefit Assessment Of Ammonia Emission Abatement Optionssupporting

confidence: 86%

Costs and benefits of agricultural ammonia emission abatement options for compliance with European air quality regulations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In Europe, ammonia (NH 3) emissions strongly contribute to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution and associated premature human mortality. The National Emission Ceilings Directive 2016/2284/EU has set an obligation for all European Union countries to reduce the NH 3 emissions by 6%, relative to 2005, by 2020. This study aims to assess the costs and benefits of four NH 3 emission abatement options for the compliance of the agricultural sector with the commitments of the European air quality regulatory framework. A regional atmospheric model (WRF/Chem) was used to assess the effects of regulating NH 3 emissions reductions on PM2.5 concentrations over Europe. Nonmarket valuation techniques (value of statistical life) were used to monetize the associated health outcomes. Results: We calculated that 16 out of the 28 EU member states exceeded their 2020 NH 3 emission ceilings in 2016. The highest exceedances from the 2020 emission commitment level occurred in Latvia (15%), Germany (12%) and the UK (12%). Simulation of the required NH 3 emission reduction by WRF/Chem showed that relatively large reductions in PM2.5 concentrations occur over central-western Europe and the UK. The largest health benefits (> 5% reduction in premature mortality) were found for Scandinavia. The economic benefit from avoided premature deaths over Europe amounts to 14,837 M€/year. The costs of four NH 3 emission abatement options, where each would fully achieve the required emission reduction, range from 80 M€/year for low nitrogen feed to 3738 M€/year for low-emission animal housing, with covered manure storage (236 M€/year) and urea fertilizer application (253 M€/year), in between. Conclusion: Our analysis indicates that the costs of compliance by the agricultural sector with the commitments of the European air quality regulations are much lower than the economic benefit. Thus, much more ambitious reduction commitments for NH 3 emissions could be applied by the EU-28. The monetization of the health benefits of NH 3 emission abatement policies and the assessment of the implementation costs can help policy-makers devise effective air pollution control programmes.

show abstract

Section: Cost-benefit Assessment Of Ammonia Emission Abatement Optionssupporting

confidence: 86%

Costs and benefits of agricultural ammonia emission abatement options for compliance with European air quality regulations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…are selected as the top three significant pollutants emitted from industry. However, NH 3 is the only air pollutant indicator in the agricultural sector released by MEIC and is thus considered to be the most significant pollutant from agriculture (Wagner et al, 2017). Table B2 of Appendix B.…”

Section: Variables and Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comprehensive environmental efficiency of socioeconomic sectors in China: An analysis based on a non-separable bad output SBM

Han

Guan

et al. 2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasingly high frequency of heavy air pollution in most regions of China signals the urgent need for the transition to an environmentally friendly production performance by socioeconomic sectors for the sake of people's health and sustainable development. Focusing on CO2 and major air pollutants, this paper presents a comprehensive environmental efficiency index based on evaluating the environmental efficiency of major socioeconomic sectors, including agriculture, power, industry, residential and transportation, at the province level in China in 2010 based on a slack-based measure DEA model with non-separable bad output and weights determined by the coefficient of variation method. In terms of the environment, 5, 16, 6, 7 and 4 provinces operated along the production frontier for the agricultural, power, industrial, residential and transportation sectors, respectively, in China in 2010, whereas Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Ningxia, Hubei and Yunnan showed lowest efficiency correspondingly. The comprehensive environmental efficiency index varied from 0.3863 to 0.9261 for 30 provinces in China, with a nationwide average of 0.6383 in 2010; Shanghai ranked at the top, and Shanxi was last. Regional disparities in environmental efficiency were identified. A more detailed inefficiency decomposition and benchmarking analysis provided insight for understanding the source of comprehensive environmental inefficiency and, more specifically, the reduction potential for CO2 and air pollutants. Some specific research and policy implications were uncovered from this work

show abstract

“…Generally, conventional farming supports the society mostly with the provisioning services or market outputs, and is usually considered as a producer of negative impacts (Zhukova et al, 2017;Wagner et al, 2017). Meanwhile, organic farming is usually considered as a provider of supporting and regulating services due to its low input during the production process (Jespersen et al, 2017;Krause & Machek, 2018), which are usually considered as non-market outputs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lot of research has been done on the analysis of the issues of non-market agricultural aspects, usually focusing on evaluation of the benefit or damage by agriculture to the society. Certain research has been dedicated to the analysis of the benefit provided by certain farming systems (Szabo, 2010;Jianjun et al, 2013;Albert et al 2017, et al), otherthe value of damage (Pretty et al, 2000;Kubickova, 2004;Wagner et al, 2017 et al). Other research is dedicated to the identification of the value of particular farming systems effects, as dairy non-market effects (Baskaran et al, 2009a), crops (Christensen, 2011;Takatsuka et al, 2006), olives (Arriaza et al, 2008), pastures (Baskaran et al, 2009b) or focusing on the outputs of organic farming (Aldanondo-Ochoa et al, 2009;Jespersen et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Assessment of Farming System Outputs: Lithuanian Case Study

Novikova

Rocchi

Startienė

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture provides people with different market outputs. However, market outputs are not the only kind of output provided by agriculture: non-market outputs are produced jointly with the market ones in an agroecosystem. All the outputs produced by agriculture can be classified as the ecosystem services. The magnitude and levels of farming outputs depend on different technologies of production; i.e. different farming systems generate different outputs. Assessing the output of agriculture is quite simple in terms of the market value, but not so easy for non-market outputs. Moreover, evaluation of market and non-market outputs is usually performed separately. The objectives of this paper are to present an integrated evaluation framework for the outputs, marketable and non-marketable, associated with different farming systems. For the case study, we proposed the evaluation of the market and non-market output, associated with milk production in Lithuania, considering both organic and conventional production. In terms of the market evaluation, the results have shown that organic farming produced a value 1.24 times higher than conventional, while the valuation result associated with the non-market output is 83 time higher in organic than in conventional one. The study is the first attempt to develop a framework for integrated evaluation of farming outputs, taking into account market and non-market outputs and considering different types of farming systems.

show abstract

Assessing ammonia emission abatement measures in agriculture: Farmers' costs and society's benefits – A case study for Lower Saxony, Germany

Cited by 19 publications

References 29 publications

Costs and benefits of agricultural ammonia emission abatement options for compliance with European air quality regulations

Costs and benefits of agricultural ammonia emission abatement options for compliance with European air quality regulations

The comprehensive environmental efficiency of socioeconomic sectors in China: An analysis based on a non-separable bad output SBM

Integrated Assessment of Farming System Outputs: Lithuanian Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About