IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v106y2012i1p11-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Roberts, Anna M.
  • Pannell, David J.
  • Doole, Graeme
  • Vigiak, Olga

Abstract

A target to reduce phosphorus flows into the Gippsland Lakes in south-eastern Australia by 40% in order to improve water quality has previously been established by stakeholders. This target, like many others worldwide, has been set mostly on the basis of environmental concerns, with limited consideration of issues such as technical feasibility, socio-economic constraints, political factors and associated costs and benefits. An integrated analysis at the catchment scale is undertaken to assess the agricultural land management changes required to achieve this target, and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these changes. Based on assumptions used, it appears technically feasible to achieve a 40% reduction in P load entering the Lakes. However, the least-costly way of doing so would require around A$1 billion over 25years, a dramatic increase in the current levels of funding provided for management. Results of a sensitivity analysis indicate that there is little or no chance of investment in a 40% reduction being cost-effective. On the other hand, a 20% P reduction could be achieved at much lower cost: around $80 million over 25years and requiring more modest land-management changes. Reliance on voluntary adoption of ‘Current Recommended Practices’ is unlikely to deliver changes in management practices at the scale required to have sufficient environmental impacts. Enforcement of existing regulations for the dairy industry would be amongst the most cost-effective management strategies. The major implications of this work for agriculturally induced diffuse-source pollution include the need for feedback between goal setting and program costs, and consideration of factors such as the levels of landholder adoption of new practices that are required and the feasibility of achieving those adoption levels. Costs, landholder adoption of new practices and socio-political risks appear neglected in the formulation of many water quality programs. The study provides a demonstration of an approach to integrated multidisciplinary research addressing complex environmental problems with multiple decision makers, multiple stakeholders, and high uncertainty. On the evidence of experience in this study, the approach deserves consideration in other contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberts, Anna M. & Pannell, David J. & Doole, Graeme & Vigiak, Olga, 2012. "Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 11-22.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:106:y:2012:i:1:p:11-22
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2011.10.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X11001594
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.10.009?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pannell, David J., 1997. "Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: theoretical framework and practical strategies," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 139-152, May.
    2. Pannell, David J. & Roberts, Anna M. & Park, Geoff & Curatolo, April & Marsh, Sally P. & Alexander, Jennifer, 2011. "Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia," Working Papers 102455, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Alfons Weersink & Scott Jeffrey & David Pannell, 2002. "Farm-Level Modeling for Bigger Issues," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 123-140.
    4. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    5. A. Yang & G. Huang & X. Qin, 2010. "An Integrated Simulation-Assessment Approach for Evaluating Health Risks of Groundwater Contamination Under Multiple Uncertainties," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(13), pages 3349-3369, October.
    6. Dono, Gabriele & Mazzapicchio, Graziano, 2010. "Uncertain water supply in an irrigated Mediterranean area: An analysis of the possible economic impact of climate change on the farm sector," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 361-370, July.
    7. Sharpley, Andrew N. & Gburek, William J. & Folmar, G. & Pionke, H. B., 1999. "Sources of phosphorus exported from an agricultural watershed in Pennsylvania," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 77-89, July.
    8. Suzi Kerr & Kit Rutherford & Kelly Lock, 2007. "Nutrient Trading in Lake Rotorua: Goals and Trading Caps," Working Papers 07_08, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    9. Leon, L. F. & Booty, W. G. & Bowen, G. S. & Lam, D. C. L., 2004. "Validation of an agricultural non-point source model in a watershed in southern Ontario," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 59-75, February.
    10. Maticic, Brane, 1999. "The impact of agriculture on ground water quality in Slovenia: standards and strategy," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(2-3), pages 235-247, May.
    11. Kay, Paul & Edwards, Anthony C. & Foulger, Miles, 2009. "A review of the efficacy of contemporary agricultural stewardship measures for ameliorating water pollution problems of key concern to the UK water industry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 67-75, February.
    12. Rice, Ronald W. & Izuno, Forrest T. & Garcia, Raymond M., 2002. "Phosphorus load reductions under best management practices for sugarcane cropping systems in the Everglades Agricultural Area," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 17-39, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    2. Kragt, Marit E. & Robertson, Michael J., 2014. "Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-157.
    3. Kopke, Emma & Young, John & Kingwell, Ross, 2008. "The relative profitability and environmental impacts of different sheep systems in a Mediterranean environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 85-94, March.
    4. Janssen, Sander J.C. & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farmer behaviour as affected by policy and technological innovations: bio-economic farm models," Reports 9293, Wageningen University, SEAMLESS: System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society.
    5. Doole, Graeme & Pannell, David J., 2011. "Evaluating environmental policies under uncertainty through application of robust nonlinear programming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(4), pages 1-18.
    6. Doole, Graeme J. & Kingwell, Ross, 2015. "Efficient economic and environmental management of pastoral systems: Theory and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 73-84.
    7. Hebat Hisham Mohd Yusoff & Normaz Wana Ismail & Nitty Hirawaty Kamarulzaman, 2020. "Assessing the comparative advantage of integrated farming and feedlot production system of the ruminant sector in Malaysia: A policy analysis matrix approach," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(1), pages 227-238, June.
    8. Doris Läpple & Thia Hennessy & Carol Newman, 2013. "Quantifying the Economic Return to Participatory Extension Programmes in Ireland: an Endogenous Switching Regression Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 467-482, June.
    9. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    10. Dono, Gabriele & Cortignani, Raffaele & Doro, Luca & Giraldo, Luca & Ledda, Luigi & Pasqui, Massimiliano & Roggero, Pier Paolo, 2013. "Adapting to uncertainty associated with short-term climate variability changes in irrigated Mediterranean farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Kopke, Emma & Kingwell, Ross S. & Young, John, 2005. "A farm-level economic assessment of the Australian Merino, Dohne Merino, and South African Meat Merino sheep breeds in southern Australia," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137934, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Robbins, W, 2010. "Learning with Hard Labour: University Students as Workers," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 36(1), pages 103-120.
    13. Kelly Lock & Suzi Kerr, 2008. "Nutrient Trading in Lake Rotorua: Overview of a Prototype System," Working Papers 08_02, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    14. Emile Noël, 1996. "Quelques réflexions sur les perspectives politico-institutionnelles de l'intégration européenne en 2000 et au-delà," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 39, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    15. Mustajoki, Jyri & Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Lindstedt, Mats R.K., 2006. "Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 278-292, October.
    16. Jackson, T.M. & Hanjra, Munir A. & Khan, S. & Hafeez, M.M., 2011. "Building a climate resilient farm: A risk based approach for understanding water, energy and emissions in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 729-745.
    17. Gosme, Marie & Suffert, Frédéric & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène, 2010. "Intensive versus low-input cropping systems: What is the optimal partitioning of agricultural area in order to reduce pesticide use while maintaining productivity?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 110-116, February.
    18. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    19. Bennett, Anne L. & Pannell, David J., 1998. "Economic evaluation of a weed-activated sprayer for herbicide application to patchy weed populations," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-20.
    20. Sheaves, Marcus & Brookes, Justin & Coles, Rob & Freckelton, Marnie & Groves, Paul & Johnston, Ross & Winberg, Pia, 2014. "Repair and revitalisation of Australia׳s tropical estuaries and coastal wetlands: Opportunities and constraints for the reinstatement of lost function and productivity," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 23-38.

    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:106:y:2012:i:1:p:11-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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: Nithya Sathishkumar (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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.