IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v119y2022ics0264837722001752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeting sustainable greenhouse agriculture policies in China and Denmark: A comparative study

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Suxia
  • Deichmann, Majken
  • Moro, Mariú A.
  • Andersen, Lars S.
  • Li, Fulin
  • Dalgaard, Tommy
  • McKnight, Ursula S.

Abstract

Greenhouse agriculture has become vitally important in promoting sustainable food supplies globally, especially by encouraging local production and consumption practices. However, it also represents an industry with a high risk for groundwater pollution due to much higher application limits allowed for nitrogen fertilizers compared to conventional agriculture. Although sufficient focus has been placed on characterizing any environmental impacts stemming from agriculture, including greenhouses, the influence of social, economic and political aspects on this process are generally overlooked. This one-sided focus may be partly due to the complexity of environmental systems, i.e. in measuring the state of the system accurately. However, any actions taken by a government, i.e. in the form of policy instruments, will play a key role in ensuring the safety and quality of agricultural products and the surrounding environmental systems. Insufficient knowledge regarding policy and related influential factors may thus slow the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and ultimately inhibit environmental protection. In light of this, a cross-national comparative study was carried out to enable a systematic understanding of Chinese and Danish greenhouse agriculture policy using the agro-environmental DPSIR (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) indicator framework. We critically examined whether current legislative steps for mitigating anthropogenic sources of N-pollution are suitably aimed at the parameters controlling (driving) specific pressures/impacts on groundwater. The potential for reaction (feedback/responses) within each legislative system, as well as the key gaps in policy responses for monitoring both water and N-fertilizer applied in greenhouses were identified. Notably, most responses are found to target only the pressure component of the framework. This discovery opens the door for the development of additional response mechanisms, which together could result in more sustainable policy measures for greenhouse agriculture that may be more effective, more quickly. Although many countermeasures exist for control of land, water and fertilizer use at the national level in both countries, their deployment depends heavily on effective stakeholder engagement and local-level adoption strategies, indicating a more holistic and multi-objective (less fragmented) policy approach is needed. Importantly, this paper demonstrates an alternative implementation of the DPSIR framework, where comparative study applications may be used to enable mutual learning that may enhance the uptake of disruptive solutions (technological and/or policy advancement), recognizing that incremental change may not be cost-efficient or sustainable especially for regions with critical water issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Suxia & Deichmann, Majken & Moro, Mariú A. & Andersen, Lars S. & Li, Fulin & Dalgaard, Tommy & McKnight, Ursula S., 2022. "Targeting sustainable greenhouse agriculture policies in China and Denmark: A comparative study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:119:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722001752
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722001752
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106148?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. Muhammad Junaid & Asadullah Shaikh & Mahmood Ul Hassan & Abdullah Alghamdi & Khairan Rajab & Mana Saleh Al Reshan & Monagi Alkinani, 2021. "Smart Agriculture Cloud Using AI Based Techniques," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Jellason, Nugun P. & Robinson, Elizabeth J. Z. & Ogbaga, Chukwuma C., 2021. "Agriculture 4.0: is sub-Saharan Africa ready?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113550, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Dajun Shen & Juan Wu, 2017. "State of the Art Review: Water pricing reform in China," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 198-232, March.
    4. Chen, Huang & Liu, Kexin & Hou, Lingling, 2021. "How Does Agricultural Insurance Alter Income Distribution?," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315880, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Salomon, Markus & Schmid, Elisabeth & Volkens, Annette & Hey, Christian & Holm-Müller, Karin & Foth, Heidi, 2016. "Towards an integrated nitrogen strategy for Germany," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 158-166.
    6. Lisbeth Flindt Jørgensen & Karen G. Villholth & Jens Christian Refsgaard, 2017. "Groundwater management and protection in Denmark: a review of pre-conditions, advances and challenges," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 868-889, November.
    7. Oecd, 2009. "Assessing Environmental Management Capacity: Towards a Common Reference Framework," OECD Environment Working Papers 8, OECD Publishing.
    8. Cooper, Philip, 2013. "Socio-ecological accounting: DPSWR, a modified DPSIR framework, and its application to marine ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 106-115.
    9. David Hall, 2021. "Future Agricultural Economics and Food Policy?," Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, in: Agricultural Economics and Food Policy in New Zealand, chapter 0, pages 409-413, Palgrave Macmillan.
    10. Jeroen J. L. Candel & Sebastian Lakner & Guy Pe’er, 2021. "Europe’s reformed agricultural policy disappoints," Nature, Nature, vol. 595(7869), pages 650-650, July.
    11. Ludmila Rattis & Paulo M. Brando & Marcia N. Macedo & Stephanie A. Spera & Andrea D. A. Castanho & Eduardo Q. Marques & Nathane Q. Costa & Divino V. Silverio & Michael T. Coe, 2021. "Climatic limit for agriculture in Brazil," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(12), pages 1098-1104, December.
    12. Paschalidis Ch. D. & Petropoulos D. P. & Sotiropoulos S. S. & Paschalidis D. Ch. & Christodoulou Ch. N. & Papakonstantinou L. D., 2021. "The Evolution of Agricultural Employment in Greece," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 11(4), pages 1-6.
    13. Liu, Yansui, 2018. "Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-4.
    14. Hamid El Bilali & Carola Strassner & Tarek Ben Hassen, 2021. "Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-67, June.
    15. Hirbod Assa & Meng (Simon) Wang, 2021. "Price Index Insurances in the Agriculture Markets," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 286-311, April.
    16. ., 2021. "Agriculture and the environment," Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Iraq, chapter 8, pages 133-160, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Butrico Gina M. & Kaplan David H., 2018. "Greenhouse Agriculture in the Icelandic Food System," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 10(4), pages 711-724, December.
    18. David Hall, 2021. "Agricultural Economics and Food Policy in New Zealand," Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-3-030-86300-5, October.
    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. Kosha J. Mehta, 2022. "Effect of sleep and mood on academic performance—at interface of physiology, psychology, and education," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Wiranarongkorn, K. & Im-orb, K. & Patcharavorachot, Y. & Maréchal, F. & Arpornwichanop, A., 2023. "Comparative techno-economic and energy analyses of integrated biorefinery processes of furfural and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural from biomass residue," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    4. Yu, Fangping & Xiang, Zhiyuan & Wang, Xuanhe & Yang, Mo & Kuang, Haibo, 2023. "An innovative tool for cost control under fragmented scenarios: The container freight index microinsurance," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Zhang, Pengyan & Yang, Dan & Qin, Mingzhou & Jing, Wenlong, 2020. "Spatial heterogeneity analysis and driving forces exploring of built-up land development intensity in Chinese prefecture-level cities and implications for future Urban Land intensive use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Jianglin Lu & Keqiang Wang & Hongmei Liu, 2022. "Residents’ Selection Behavior of Compensation Schemes for Construction Land Reduction: Empirical Evidence from Questionnaires in Shanghai, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, December.
    7. Lü, Da & Gao, Guangyao & Lü, Yihe & Xiao, Feiyan & Fu, Bojie, 2020. "Detailed land use transition quantification matters for smart land management in drylands: An in-depth analysis in Northwest China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Yang, Yuanyuan & Bao, Wenkai & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Scenario simulation of land system change in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Weijia Chen & Yongquan Lu & Guilin Liu, 2022. "Balancing cropland gain and desert vegetation loss: The key to rural revitalization in Xinjiang, China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 1122-1145, September.
    10. Wang, Bo & Li, Fan & Feng, Shuyi & Shen, Tong, 2020. "Transfer of development rights, farmland preservation, and economic growth: a case study of Chongqing’s land quotas trading program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Xu, Tingting & Gao, Jay & Li, Yuhua, 2019. "Machine learning-assisted evaluation of land use policies and plans in a rapidly urbanizing district in Chongqing, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Yin, Xu & Wang, Jing & Li, Yurui & Feng, Zhiming & Wang, Qianyi, 2021. "Are small towns really inefficient? A data envelopment analysis of sampled towns in Jiangsu province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Lili Guo & Yuting Song & Mengqian Tang & Jinyang Tang & Bright Senyo Dogbe & Mengying Su & Houjian Li, 2022. "Assessing the Relationship among Land Transfer, Fertilizer Usage, and PM 2.5 Pollution: Evidence from Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Liu, Yansui & Zhou, Yang, 2021. "Territory spatial planning and national governance system in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. Siyu Yue & Huaien Li & Fengmin Song, 2023. "Temporal–Spatial Variations in the Economic Value Produced by Environmental Flows in a Water Shortage Area in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Li, Jintao & Dong, Haoran & Li, Shaoxing, 2024. "Economic development and optimal allocation of land use in ecological emigration area in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    17. Guo, Wen-Chung & Tseng, Ping-Lun, 2023. "COVID-19, bank risk, and capital regulation: The aggregate shock and social distancing," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 155-173.
    18. Xia, Min & Zhang, Yanyuan & Zhang, Zihong & Liu, Jingjie & Ou, Weixin & Zou, Wei, 2020. "Modeling agricultural land use change in a rapid urbanizing town: Linking the decisions of government, peasant households and enterprises," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Zehua Wang & Fachao Liang & Sheng-Hau Lin, 2023. "Can socially sustainable development be achieved through homestead withdrawal? A hybrid multiple-attributes decision analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Zhang, Yuanxia & Halder, Pradipta & Zhang, Xiaoning & Qu, Mei, 2020. "Analyzing the deviation between farmers' Land transfer intention and behavior in China's impoverished mountainous Area: A Logistic-ISM model approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    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:lauspo:v:119:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722001752. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.