IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v141y2015icp58-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costs and benefits of ammonia and particulate matter abatement in German agriculture including interactions with greenhouse gas emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Wagner, Susanne
  • Angenendt, Elisabeth
  • Beletskaya, Olga
  • Zeddies, Jürgen

Abstract

The abatement of ammonia (NH3) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in agriculture reduces damages to human health and biodiversity and provides benefits for society, but also imposes costs on farmers. As NH3 and PM emissions partly originate from the same activities as greenhouse gases, interactions may exist between NH3 and PM emission abatement and greenhouse gas emissions. This study is aimed at estimating the costs and benefits of NH3 and PM emission abatement measures, considering interactions with agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. We combined an economic-ecological farm model for estimating emission reductions and abatement costs with an integrated environmental impact assessment model for estimating the benefits for human health and biodiversity, with applications to three Federal States in Germany. We reasoned that benefits exceed costs and that synergies with greenhouse gas reduction exist. All NH3 and PM emission abatement measures affected greenhouse gases. In crop production, conservation tillage increased farmers' gross margins and reduced both PM emissions and, via soil carbon sequestration, also greenhouse gas emissions. The benefits depended on the soil type and its carbon sequestration potential, which differ across regions. The substitution of urea fertiliser for calcium ammonium nitrate reduced both NH3 and greenhouse gas emissions. In livestock production, the measures with the highest net benefits were chemical washers for exhaust-air purification, injection or cultivator manure application and concrete manure storage cover. Low-protein pig feeding increased farmers' gross margins and also achieved high net benefits, with the benefits of greenhouse gas emission reduction exceeding those of NH3 emission reduction. Low-protein poultry feeding and biofilters for air purification yielded negative net benefits and were therefore not recommended for implementation. The results confirm interactions of NH3 and PM emission abatement measures with greenhouse gas emissions and suggest that all relevant emission types be integrated in an analysis. Air pollution abatement and climate change mitigation have mainly been addressed in separate policies. Our results suggest that these policies are better integrated so as to stimulate synergies and to define the appropriate ambition level of emission reduction targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Wagner, Susanne & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Beletskaya, Olga & Zeddies, Jürgen, 2015. "Costs and benefits of ammonia and particulate matter abatement in German agriculture including interactions with greenhouse gas emissions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 58-68.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:141:y:2015:i:c:p:58-68
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X15300263
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.09.003?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scheele, Martin & Isermeyer, Folkhard & Schmitt, Günther, 1993. "Umweltpolitische Strategien zur Lösung der Stickstoffproblematik in der Landwirtschaft," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 42(08).
    2. Dominic Moran & Michael Macleod & Eileen Wall & Vera Eory & Alistair McVittie & Andrew Barnes & Robert Rees & Cairistiona F. E. Topp & Andrew Moxey, 2011. "Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for UK Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 93-118, February.
    3. MacLeod, Michael & Moran, Dominic & Eory, Vera & Rees, R.M. & Barnes, Andrew & Topp, Cairistiona F.E. & Ball, Bruce & Hoad, Steve & Wall, Eileen & McVittie, Alistair & Pajot, Guillaume & Matthews, Rob, 2010. "Developing greenhouse gas marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural emissions from crops and soils in the UK," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(4), pages 198-209, May.
    4. Brink, Corjan & van Ierland, Ekko & Hordijk, Leen & Kroeze, Carolien, 2005. "Cost_effective emission abatement in agriculture in the presence of interrelations: cases for the Netherlands and Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 59-74, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wagner, Susanne & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Beletskaya, Olga & Zeddies, Jürgen, 2017. "Assessing ammonia emission abatement measures in agriculture: Farmers' costs and society's benefits – A case study for Lower Saxony, Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 70-80.
    2. Yekimov Sergiy, 2023. "Study of the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural production Czech Republic," Papers 2305.13253, arXiv.org.
    3. Vissers, Luuk S.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Saatkamp, Helmut W., 2021. "Exploring the performance of system changes in Dutch broiler production to balance animal welfare, ammonia emissions and particulate matter emissions with farm profitability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. De Pue, David & Bral, Andreas & Buysse, Jeroen, 2019. "Abatement of ammonia emissions from livestock housing fine-tuned according to impact on protected habitats," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Hauke F. Deeken & Alexandra Lengling & Manuel S. Krommweh & Wolfgang Büscher, 2023. "Improvement of Piglet Rearing’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Using Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers—A Two-Year Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-30, February.
    6. Manuel S. Krommweh & Hauke F. Deeken & Hannah Licharz & Wolfgang Büscher, 2021. "Heating Performance and Ammonia Removal of a Single-Stage Bioscrubber Pilot Plant with Integrated Heat Exchanger under Field Conditions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Florian Ahrens & Johann Land & Susan Krumdieck, 2022. "Decarbonization of Nitrogen Fertilizer: A Transition Engineering Desk Study for Agriculture in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-24, July.
    8. Reidsma, Pytrik & Janssen, Sander & Jansen, Jacques & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2018. "On the development and use of farm models for policy impact assessment in the European Union – A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 111-125.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lengers, Bernd & Britz, Wolfgang & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Trade-off of feasibility against accuracy and cost efficiency in choosing indicators for the abatement of GHG-emissions in dairy farming," Discussion Papers 162877, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Minihan, Erin S. & Wu, Ziping, 2011. "The Potential Economic and Environmental Costs of GHG Mitigation Measures for Cattle Sectors in Northern Ireland," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108779, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Blandford, David & Gaasland, Ivar & Vardal, Erling, 2016. "Now that the party’s over: achieving GHG emission reduction commitments in Norwegian agriculture," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236330, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Wettemann, Patrick Johannes Christopher & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2017. "An efficiency-based concept to assess potential cost and greenhouse gas savings on German dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 27-37.
    5. Jeong, Kwangbok & Hong, Taehoon & Kim, Jimin & Cho, Kyuman, 2019. "Development of a multi-objective optimization model for determining the optimal CO2 emissions reduction strategies for a multi-family housing complex," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 118-131.
    6. Blandford, David & Gaasland, Ivar & Vårdal, Erling, 2014. "GHG abatement welfare cost curves for Norwegian agriculture," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169734, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Xing Zhao & Xin Zhang, 2022. "Research on the Evaluation and Regional Differences in Carbon Emissions Efficiency of Cultural and Related Manufacturing Industries in China’s Yangtze River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    8. Isabel Teichmann, 2015. "An Economic Assessment of Soil Carbon Sequestration with Biochar in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1476, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Albert Ayorinde Abegunde, 2017. "Local communities’ belief in climate change in a rural region of Sub-Saharan Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1489-1522, August.
    10. Benjamin Dequiedt & Vera Eory & Juliette Maire & Cairstiona F.E. Topp & Robert Rees & Peter Zander & Moritz Reckling & Nicole Schlaefke, 2015. "Mitigation costs through alternative crop rotations in agriculture: an assessment for 5 European regions," Working Papers 1502, Chaire Economie du climat.
    11. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    12. Oswald Marinoni & Martijn Grieken, 2016. "ABATE: A New Tool to Produce Marginal Abatement Cost Curves," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 48(2), pages 367-377, August.
    13. de Oliveira Silva, Rafael & Barioni, Luis G. & Albertini, Tiago Zanett & Eory, Vera & Topp, Cairistiona F.E. & Fernandes, Fernando A. & Moran, Dominic, 2015. "Developing a nationally appropriate mitigation measure from the greenhouse gas GHG abatement potential from livestock production in the Brazilian Cerrado," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 48-55.
    14. Benjamin Dequiedt & Dominic Moran, 2014. "The cost of emissions mitigation by legume crops in French agriculture," Working Papers 1410, Chaire Economie du climat.
    15. Yong Zhu & Congjia Huo, 2022. "The Impact of Agricultural Production Efficiency on Agricultural Carbon Emissions in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Branca, Giacomo & Lipper, Leslie & Sorrentino, Alessandro, 2012. "Benefit-costs analysis of climate-related agricultural investments in Africa: a case study," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124109, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    17. Lin Meng & Wentao Si, 2022. "Pro-Environmental Behavior: Examining the Role of Ecological Value Cognition, Environmental Attitude, and Place Attachment among Rural Farmers in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-24, December.
    18. Monika Komorowska & Marcin Niemiec & Jakub Sikora & Anna Szeląg-Sikora & Zofia Gródek-Szostak & Pavol Findura & Hatice Gurgulu & Joanna Stuglik & Maciej Chowaniak & Atılgan Atılgan, 2022. "Closed-Loop Agricultural Production and Its Environmental Efficiency: A Case Study of Sheep Wool Production in Northwestern Kyrgyzstan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Lal, R., 2011. "Sequestering carbon in soils of agro-ecosystems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 33-39.
    20. Peng, Bin-Bin & Xu, Jin-Hua & Fan, Ying, 2018. "Modeling uncertainty in estimation of carbon dioxide abatement costs of energy-saving technologies for passenger cars in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 306-319.

    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:agisys:v:141:y:2015:i:c:p:58-68. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.