Literature DB >> 26789365

Tackling agricultural diffuse pollution: What might uptake of farmer-preferred measures deliver for emissions to water and air?

A L Collins1, Y S Zhang2, M Winter3, A Inman3, J I Jones4, P J Johnes5, W Cleasby6, E Vrain7, A Lovett7, L Noble8.   

Abstract

Mitigation of agricultural diffuse pollution poses a significant policy challenge across Europe and particularly in the UK. Existing combined regulatory and voluntary approaches applied in the UK continue to fail to deliver the necessary environmental outcomes for a variety of reasons including failure to achieve high adoption rates. It is therefore logical to identify specific on-farm mitigation measures towards which farmers express positive attitudes for higher future uptake rates. Accordingly, a farmer attitudinal survey was undertaken during phase one of the Demonstration Test Catchment programme in England to understand those measures towards which surveyed farmers are most receptive to increasing implementation in the future. A total of 29 on-farm measures were shortlisted by this baseline farm survey. This shortlist comprised many low cost or cost-neutral measures suggesting that costs continue to represent a principal selection criterion for many farmers. The 29 measures were mapped onto relevant major farm types and input, assuming 95% uptake, to a national scale multi-pollutant modelling framework to predict the technically feasible impact on annual agricultural emissions to water and air, relative to business as usual. Simulated median emission reductions, relative to current practise, for water management catchments across England and Wales, were estimated to be in the order sediment (20%)>ammonia (16%)>total phosphorus (15%) ≫ nitrate/methane (11%)>nitrous oxide (7%). The corresponding median annual total cost of the modelled scenario to farmers was £3 ha(-1)yr(-1), with a corresponding range of -£84 ha(-1)yr(-1) (i.e. a net saving) to £33 ha(-1)yr(-1). The results suggest that those mitigation measures which surveyed farmers are most inclined to implement in the future would improve the environmental performance of agriculture in England and Wales at minimum to low cost per hectare.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Agricultural pollution; Farmer attitudes; Mitigation; Multi-pollutant modelling; Uncertainty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26789365     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  8 in total

1.  Nutrient loads from agricultural and forested areas in Finland from 1981 up to 2010-can the efficiency of undertaken water protection measures seen?

Authors:  Sirkka Tattari; Jari Koskiaho; Maiju Kosunen; Ahti Lepistö; Jarmo Linjama; Markku Puustinen
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Seasonal persistence of faecal indicator organisms in soil following dairy slurry application to land by surface broadcasting and shallow injection.

Authors:  Christopher J Hodgson; David M Oliver; Robert D Fish; Nicholas M Bulmer; A Louise Heathwaite; Michael Winter; David R Chadwick
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2016-09-04       Impact factor: 6.789

3.  Major agricultural changes required to mitigate phosphorus losses under climate change.

Authors:  M C Ockenden; M J Hollaway; K J Beven; A L Collins; R Evans; P D Falloon; K J Forber; K M Hiscock; R Kahana; C J A Macleod; W Tych; M L Villamizar; C Wearing; P J A Withers; J G Zhou; P A Barker; S Burke; J E Freer; P J Johnes; M A Snell; B W J Surridge; P M Haygarth
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  The sources and dynamics of fine-grained sediment degrading the Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) beds of the River Torridge, Devon, UK.

Authors:  S Pulley; A Goubet; I Moser; S Browning; A L Collins
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 7.963

5.  Tackling unintended consequences of grazing livestock farming: Multi-scale assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs for water pollution mitigation scenarios.

Authors:  Yusheng Zhang; Bruce Griffith; Steve Granger; Hadewij Sint; Adrian L Collins
Journal:  J Clean Prod       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 9.297

6.  Assessing the potential impacts of a revised set of on-farm nutrient and sediment 'basic' control measures for reducing agricultural diffuse pollution across England.

Authors:  A L Collins; J P Newell Price; Y Zhang; R Gooday; P S Naden; D Skirvin
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 7.  Small Water Bodies in Great Britain and Ireland: Ecosystem function, human-generated degradation, and options for restorative action.

Authors:  William D Riley; Edward C E Potter; Jeremy Biggs; Adrian L Collins; Helen P Jarvie; J Iwan Jones; Mary Kelly-Quinn; Steve J Ormerod; David A Sear; Robert L Wilby; Samantha Broadmeadow; Colin D Brown; Paul Chanin; Gordon H Copp; Ian G Cowx; Adam Grogan; Duncan D Hornby; Duncan Huggett; Martyn G Kelly; Marc Naura; Jonathan R Newman; Gavin M Siriwardena
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 7.963

8.  Current advisory interventions for grazing ruminant farming cannot close exceedance of modern background sediment loss - Assessment using an instrumented farm platform and modelled scaling out.

Authors:  A L Collins; Y Zhang; H R Upadhayay; S Pulley; S J Granger; P Harris; H Sint; B Griffith
Journal:  Environ Sci Policy       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 5.581

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.