Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T20:39:33.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Societal choice and communicating the European nitrogen challenge

from Part V - European nitrogen policies and future challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2011

By
Dave S. Reay ,
Clare M. Howard ,
Albert Bleeker ,
Pete Higgins ,
Keith Smith ,
Henk Westhoek ,
Trudy Rood ,
Mark R. Theobald ,
Alberto Sanz Cobeña  and
Robert M. Rees
...Show all authors
Edited by
Mark A. Sutton ,
Clare M. Howard ,
Jan Willem Erisman ,
Gilles Billen ,
Albert Bleeker ,
Peringe Grennfelt ,
Hans van Grinsven  and
Bruna Grizzetti
Dave S. Reay
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh School of Geosciences
Clare M. Howard
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Albert Bleeker
Affiliation:
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands
Pete Higgins
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Keith Smith
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Henk Westhoek
Affiliation:
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Trudy Rood
Affiliation:
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Mark R. Theobald
Affiliation:
Technical University of Madrid/Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Alberto Sanz Cobeña
Affiliation:
Technical University of Madrid
Robert M. Rees
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College
Dominic Moran
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College
Stefan Reis
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Mark A. Sutton
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Clare M. Howard
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Jan Willem Erisman
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Gilles Billen
Affiliation:
CNRS and University of Paris VI
Albert Bleeker
Affiliation:
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands
Peringe Grennfelt
Affiliation:
Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL)
Hans van Grinsven
Affiliation:
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Bruna Grizzetti
Affiliation:
European Commission Joint Research Centre
Get access

Summary

Executive summary

Nature of the problem

  • Increased public and institutional awareness of both the benefits and threats of nitrogen has the potential to greatly increase the efficacy of nitrogen policy.

  • Insufficient recognition of the financial, behavioural and cultural barriers to achieving an optimal nitrogen future risks policy antagonisms and failure.

  • Here we examine some of the key societal levers for and barriers to achieving an optimal nitrogen future in Europe, drawing lessons from the more-developed societal and policy challenge of climate change mitigation.

Key findings/state of knowledge

  • There is currently a very low level of public and media awareness of nitrogen impacts and policies. However, awareness is high regarding the threats and benefits of ‘carbon’ to society (e.g. energy use and enhanced climate change).

  • Many national climate change mitigation policies now overtly recognize the importance of societal choice, and are increasingly utilizing behavioural change strategies to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

  • In achieving an optimal nitrogen future, lessons can and should be learned from existing climate change-focused communication and behavioural science (e.g. use of a ‘segmented strategy’ to reach disparate groups of stakeholders).

  • Key sectors where societal choice has the potential to greatly influence nitrogen use efficiency include food production, consumption and waste.

Type
Chapter
Information
The European Nitrogen Assessment
Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives
 , pp. 585 - 601
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

,AEP (2007). European Association for Grain Legume Research. www.grainlegumes.com/aep/production/growing_gl_in_europe/grain_legumes_crops_adapted_to_all_european_regions (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
Bax, J. A. and Schils, R. L. M. (1993). Animal responses to white clover. In: White Clover in Europe: State of the Art, pp. 7–16. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Bickerstaff, K. and Walker, G. (2001). Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 11, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blennow, K. and Persson, P. (2009). Climate change: motivation for taking measure to adapt. Global Environmental Change, 19, 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, C., Grinsven, H., Jacobsen, B. H.et al. (2011). Costs and benefits of nitrogen in the environment. In: The European Nitrogen Assessment, ed. Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W.et al. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Büchner, F. L., Hoekstra, J., Berg, S. W., Wieleman, F. and Rossum, C. T. M. (2007) Quantifying Health Effects of Nutrition, RIVM Report 350080001/2007.
Project, Carbon Disclosure (2010). www.cdproject.net (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
,CBF (2010). Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Your Bay Footprint. http://www.cbf.org/yourbayfootprint/ (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
Crutzen, P. J., Mosier, A. R., Smith, K. A. and Winiwarter, W. (2008). N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels, Atmospheric Chemistry Physics, 8, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, J., Helms, M. and Aiking, H. (2006). Protein consumption and sustainability: diet diversity in EU-15. Ecological Economics, 59, 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckers, J. (2010) What policy should be adopted to curtail the negative global health impacts associated with the consumption of farmed animal products?Res Publica, 16, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,DEFRA (2008). A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours. www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-report.pdf
Denman, K. L.et al. (2007) In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, ed. Solomon, S., et al., pp. 499–587. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dentener, F.et al. (2006). Nitrogen and sulfur deposition on regional and global scales: a multimodel evaluation. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 20, GB4003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deugd, M., Roling, N. and Smaling, E. M. A. (1998). A new praxeology for integrated nutrient management, facilitating innovation with and by farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 71, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victoria, EPA (2010). www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/personal/results.asp (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
Vries, W., Leip, A., Reinds, G. J.et al. (2011). Geographic variation in terrestrial nitrogen budgets across Europe. In: The European Nitrogen Assessment, eds. Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W.et al. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Directgov, UK (2010). UK Government Digital Service: Carbon Calculator. http://carboncalculator.direct.gov.uk/index.html (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
Duffy, R. and Fearne, A. (2009). Value perceptions of farm assurance in the red meat supply chain. British Food Journal, 111, 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,EC (2008). Agriculture in the European Union: Statistical and Economic Information 2007. European Commission, Brussels.
,FAO (2006). Livestock Report 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
,FAO (2009). FAOSTAT Statistical Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://faostat.fao.org/
,FEFAC (2008). Feed and Food Statistical Yearbook 2007. FEFAC- European Feed Manufacturers Federation, Brussels.Google Scholar
Flessa, H., Ruser, R., Dörsch, P.et al. (2002). Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) from two farming systems in southern Germany. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 91, 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, J. N., et al. (2004). Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry, 70, 153–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, J. N., Burke, M., Bradford, G. E.et al. (2007). International trade in meat: the tip of the pork chop. Ambio, 36, 622–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, C., McKinney, S. and Harbans, L. (2007). Nitrogen credit trading tool to facilitate market based water quality trading. Proceedings of the Soil and Water Conservation Society, Florida, USA, July 2007.Google Scholar
Halberg, N. (1999). Indicators of resource use and environmental impact for use in a decision aid for Danish livestock farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 76, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P. and Reid, R. S. (2009). Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,INI (2010). International Nitrogen Initiative. www.initrogen.org (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
Kenyon, P. M. and Barker, M. E. (1998). Attitudes towards meat-eating in vegetarian and non-vegetarian teenage girls in England: an ethnographic approach. Appetite, 30, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurthy, A., Moore, J. K., Zender, C. S. and Luo, C. (2007). Effects of atmospheric inorganic nitrogen deposition on ocean biogeochemistry. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, G02019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamarque, J.-F.et al. (2005). Assessing future nitrogen deposition and carbon cycle feedback using a multimodel approach: analysis of nitrogen deposition. Journal of Geophysical Research, D19303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futures, Legume (2010). www.legumefutures.eu (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
Leip, A., Achermann, B., Billen, G.et al. (2011). Integrating nitrogen fluxes at the European scale. In: The European Nitrogen Assessment, ed. Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W.et al. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Williams, F., Mwatsama, M., Birt, C.et al. (2008). Estimating the cardiovascular mortality burden attributable to the Common Agricultural Policy on dietary saturated fats. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luick, R. (1998). Ecological and socio-economic implications of livestock-keeping systems on extensive systems in south-western Germany. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35, 979–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D. and Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet, 370, 1253–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, D., MacLeod, M., Wall, E.et al. (2008). UK marginal abatement cost curves for the agriculture and land use, land-use change and forestry sectors out to 2022, with qualitative analysis of options to 2050. In: 83rd Annual Conference, Agricultural Economics Society, March 30-April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Naylor, R., Steinfeid, H., Falcon, W.et al. (2005). Losing the links between livestock and land. Science, 310, 1621–1622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M. and Almeida, O. T. (2006). Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology, 20, 1595–1603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, F. A., Smith, K. A., Chambers, B. J. and Lord, E. I. (2000). Prediction of farm manure nitrogen availability and losses following land application (manner). Animal, Agricultural and Food Processing Wastes, 441–448.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S. J. and Popkin, B. M. (2003). Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977–1998. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 450–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,NinE (2009). The Barsac Declaration: Environmental Sustainability and the Demitarian Diet, prepared under the lead of the Nitrogen in Europe (NinE) programme of the European Science Foundation. www.nine-esf.org/sites/nine-esf.org/files/Barsac%20Declaration%20V3.pdf.
,NitroEurope IP (2010). NitroEurope Young Scientists' Forum. www.nitroeurope.eu/ysf (Site accessed 1 August 2010).
Norat, T., Bingham, S., Ferrari, P.et al. (2005). Meat, fish and colorectal cancer risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97, 906–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oenema, O., Bleeker, A., Braathen, N. A.et al. (2011). Nitrogen in current European policies. In: The European Nitrogen Assessment, ed. Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W.et al. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oikonomou, V., Becchis, F., Steg, L. and Russolillo, D. (2009). Energy saving and energy efficiency concepts for policy making. Energy Policy, 37, 4787–4796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, J. E., Schelde, K., Weiske, A.et al. (2006). Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, S. J. and Hulme, M. (2009). An iconic approach for representing climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19, 402–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paracchini, M. L., Petersen, J.-E., Hoogeveen, Y.et al. (2008). High Nature Value Farmland in Europe: An Estimate of the Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy.Google Scholar
Petersen, S. O., Regina, K., Pöllinger, A.et al. (2006). Nitrous oxide emissions from organic and conventional crop rotations in five European countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112, 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, T. (2008). Understanding Behaviours in a Farming Context: Bringing Theoretical and Applied Evidence Together from across DEFRA and Highlighting Policy Relevance and Implications for Future Research. DEFRA, London.Google Scholar
Rochon, J. J., Doyle, C. J., Greef, J. M.et al. (2004). Grazing legumes in Europe: a review of their status, management, benefits, research needs and future prospects. Grass and Forage Science, 59, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampei, Y. and Aoyagi-Usui, M. (2009). Mass-media coverage, its influence on public awareness of climate-change issues, and implications for Japan's national campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Global Environmental Change: Human Policy Dimensions, 19, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebek, L. B. J. and Temme, E. H. M. (2009). Human Protein Requirements and Protein Intake and the Conversion of Vegetable Protein into Animal Protein, External Report. Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Simon, M. F. and Garagorry, F. L. (2005) The expansion of agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Conservation, 32, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smil, V. (2004) Enriching the Earth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T.et al. (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Svirejeva-Hopkins, A., Reis, S., Magid, J.et al. (2011). Nitrogen flows and fate in urban landscapes. In: The European Nitrogen Assessment, ed. Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W.et al. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
,UNECE (2010). Options for Revising the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone: Reactive Nitrogen, Report by the co-chairs of the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen, Presented to the Working Group on Strategies and Review 47th session. ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2010/13. www.unece.org/env/lrtap/WorkingGroups/wgs/docs47th%20session.htm
,UNEP and WHRC (2007). Reactive Nitrogen in the Environment: Too Much or Too Little of a Good Thing. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris.Google Scholar
Urwin, K. and Jordan, A. (2008). Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change, 18, 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventour, L. (2008). The Food We Waste, Food Waste Report version 2, RBC405–0010. Waste and Resources Action Plan.Google Scholar
WRAP (Waste and Resource Action Plan), (2008). The food we waste. http://www.wrap.org.uk.
,WRI/WBCSD (2010). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. www.ghgprotocol.org (Site accessed 1 August 2010).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×