IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v182y2020ics0308521x20300160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of environmental impact abatement measures in a European pig production system

Author

Listed:
  • Pexas, Georgios
  • Mackenzie, Stephen G.
  • Wallace, Michael
  • Kyriazakis, Ilias

Abstract

Many emerging technologies and alternative farm management practices have the potential to improve the sustainability of pig production systems. The implementation of such practices is not always economically viable. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of such environmental mitigation strategies in pig systems, using an Environmental Abatement Cost analysis. We considered four pig housing (improved insulation, increased ventilation efficiency, frequent slurry removal, increased slurry dilution) and three manure management related abatement strategies (anaerobic digestion, slurry acidification, slurry separation), implemented as stand-alone and as a set of “pig housing–pig housing” and “pig housing–manure management” combinations. We calculated their annual equivalent value through a discounted cash flow analysis and then their annualised abatement potential through a cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment. The baseline system against which the analysis was conducted was a typical Danish pig production system, over a 25-year time horizon. The environmental impact categories considered were Non-Renewable Resource Use (NRRU), Non-Renewable Energy Use (NREU), Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification Potential (AP) and Eutrophication Potential (EP). Pig housing–anaerobic digestion combinations were the most cost-effective options for GWP, NRRU and NREU. Their abatement costs ranged from −€0.237 to €0.70 per tonne CO2 eq., −€0.146 to €0.36 per g Sb eq. and -€1.75−04 to €3.11−04 per GJ abated respectively. Anaerobic digestion was the most cost-effective stand-alone investment for GWP (−€0.206 per tonne CO2 eq.), NRRU (−€0.0493 per g Sb eq.) and NREU (−€1.00−04 per GJ), and slurry acidification for AP (€303 per tonne SO2− eq.) and EP (€1190 per tonne PO43− eq.) mitigation. Overall, measures for mitigation of GWP, NRRU and NREU required higher investments than for AP and EP, but also generated profit. The framework developed in this study can potentially aid decision making in the choice of environmentally and economically sustainable pig system modifications.

Suggested Citation

  • Pexas, Georgios & Mackenzie, Stephen G. & Wallace, Michael & Kyriazakis, Ilias, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of environmental impact abatement measures in a European pig production system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:182:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x20300160
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20300160
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102843?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. Avinash K. Dixit & Robert S. Pindyck, 1994. "Investment under Uncertainty," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 5474.
    2. Vera Eory & Cairistiona F. E. Topp & Adam Butler & Dominic Moran, 2018. "Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 627-645, September.
    3. Tomaschek, Jan, 2015. "Marginal abatement cost curves for policy recommendation – A method for energy system analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 376-385.
    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. Justas Streimikis & Ahmad Bathaei & Dalia Štreimikienė, 2024. "Sustainability assessment of the agriculture sector using best worst method: Case study of Baltic states," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 5611-5626, October.
    2. Ogunpaimo, Oyinlola Rafiat & Buckley, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & O'Neill, Stephen, 2023. "Farm-Level Assessments of Greenhouse Gas Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Emissions: Understanding the Implications of Interactions and Heterogeneity," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334541, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    3. Jun-gyu Kim & In-bok Lee & Sang-yeon Lee & Deuk-young Jeong & Young-bae Choi & Jeong-hwa Cho & Rack-woo Kim & Andre Aarnink, 2022. "Development of an Air-Recirculated Ventilation System for a Piglet House, Part 2: Determination of the Optimal Module Combination Using the Numerical Model," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Ali Heidarzadeh Vazifehkhoran & Alberto Finzi & Francesca Perazzolo & Elisabetta Riva & Omar Ferrari & Giorgio Provolo, 2022. "Nitrogen Recovery from Different Livestock Slurries with an Innovative Stripping Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-17, June.

    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. Oscar Gutiérrez & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2011. "Real options with unknown-date events," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 171-198, May.
    2. Arve, Malin & Zwart, Gijsbert, 2023. "Optimal procurement and investment in new technologies under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Marks, Phillipa & Marks, Brian, 2007. "Spectrum Allocation, Spectrum Commons and Public Goods: the Role of the Market," MPRA Paper 6785, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Pierre‐Richard Agénor, 2004. "Macroeconomic Adjustment and the Poor: Analytical Issues and Cross‐Country Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 351-408, July.
    5. Atal, Vidya & Bar, Talia & Gordon, Sidartha, 2016. "Project selection: Commitment and competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 30-48.
    6. Prelipcean, Gabriela & Boscoianu, Mircea, 2019. "Aspect Regarding the Design of Active Strategies for Venture Capital Financing – the Flexible Adjustment for Romania as a Frontier Capital Market," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2019), Rovinj, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 12-14 September 2019, pages 187-196, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    7. Waters, James, 2015. "Optimal design and consequences of financial disclosure regulation: a real options approach," MPRA Paper 63369, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Golub, Alexander (Голуб, Александр), 2018. "Methodological Issues of Assessing Investment Risks in Projects Weakening the Dependence of the Russian Economy on Natural Resources and Providing a Transition to Low-Carbon Development [Методологи," Working Papers 071802, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    9. Suleyman Basak & Georgy Chabakauri, 2012. "Dynamic Hedging in Incomplete Markets: A Simple Solution," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(6), pages 1845-1896.
    10. Casper Agaton, 2017. "Coal, Renewable, or Nuclear? A Real Options Approach to Energy Investments in the Philippines," International Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 6(2), pages 50-62.
    11. Pringles, Rolando & Olsina, Fernando & Penizzotto, Franco, 2020. "Valuation of defer and relocation options in photovoltaic generation investments by a stochastic simulation-based method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 846-864.
    12. Jaewon Jung, 2023. "Multinational Firms and Economic Integration: The Role of Global Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Alvarez, Luis H. R., 1998. "Exit strategies and price uncertainty: a Greenian approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 43-56, January.
    14. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 1999. "Exploring the internalization rationale for international investment: wholly owned subsidiary versus technology licensing in the worldwide chemical industry," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6430, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    15. Chen Yu-Fu & Funke Michael, 2004. "Working Time and Employment Under Uncertainty," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(3), pages 1-23, September.
    16. Nick Bloom & Stephen Bond & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Uncertainty and Investment Dynamics," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(2), pages 391-415.
    17. Keppler, Jan Horst & Quemin, Simon & Saguan, Marcelo, 2022. "Why the sustainable provision of low-carbon electricity needs hybrid markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    18. Song, Dandan & Wang, Huamao & Yang, Zhaojun, 2014. "Learning, pricing, timing and hedging of the option to invest for perpetual cash flows with idiosyncratic risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-11.
    19. Khanh Hoang, 2022. "How does corporate R&D investment respond to climate policy uncertainty? Evidence from heavy emitter firms in the United States," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 936-949, July.
    20. Sauer, Johannes & Zilberman, David, 2009. "Innovation Behaviour At Farm Level – Selection And Identification," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51073, Agricultural Economics Society.

    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:182:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x20300160. 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.