Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Is it worth protecting groundwater from diffuse pollution with agri-environmental schemes? A hydro-economic modeling approach.
J Environ Manage. 2013 Oct 15; 128:62-74.JE

Abstract

In Europe, 30% of groundwater bodies are considered to be at risk of not achieving the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 'good status' objective by 2015, and 45% are in doubt of doing so. Diffuse agricultural pollution is one of the main pressures affecting groundwater bodies. To tackle this problem, the WFD requires Member States to design and implement cost-effective programs of measures to achieve the 'good status' objective by 2027 at the latest. Hitherto, action plans have mainly consisted of promoting the adoption of Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES). This raises a number of questions concerning the effectiveness of such schemes for improving groundwater status, and the economic implications of their implementation. We propose a hydro-economic model that combines a hydrogeological model to simulate groundwater quality evolution with agronomic and economic components to assess the expected costs, effectiveness, and benefits of AES implementation. This hydro-economic model can be used to identify cost-effective AES combinations at groundwater-body scale and to show the benefits to be expected from the resulting improvement in groundwater quality. The model is applied here to a rural area encompassing the Hesbaye aquifer, a large chalk aquifer which supplies about 230,000 inhabitants in the city of Liege (Belgium) and is severely contaminated by agricultural nitrates. We show that the time frame within which improvements in the Hesbaye groundwater quality can be expected may be much longer than that required by the WFD. Current WFD programs based on AES may be inappropriate for achieving the 'good status' objective in the most productive agricultural areas, in particular because these schemes are insufficiently attractive. Achieving 'good status' by 2027 would demand a substantial change in the design of AES, involving costs that may not be offset by benefits in the case of chalk aquifers with long renewal times.

Authors+Show Affiliations

BRGM (French Geological Survey), Water Department, 1039 rue de Pinville, 34000 Montpellier, France. c.herivaux@brgm.frNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23722175

Citation

Hérivaux, Cécile, et al. "Is It Worth Protecting Groundwater From Diffuse Pollution With Agri-environmental Schemes? a Hydro-economic Modeling Approach." Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 128, 2013, pp. 62-74.
Hérivaux C, Orban P, Brouyère S. Is it worth protecting groundwater from diffuse pollution with agri-environmental schemes? A hydro-economic modeling approach. J Environ Manage. 2013;128:62-74.
Hérivaux, C., Orban, P., & Brouyère, S. (2013). Is it worth protecting groundwater from diffuse pollution with agri-environmental schemes? A hydro-economic modeling approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.058
Hérivaux C, Orban P, Brouyère S. Is It Worth Protecting Groundwater From Diffuse Pollution With Agri-environmental Schemes? a Hydro-economic Modeling Approach. J Environ Manage. 2013 Oct 15;128:62-74. PubMed PMID: 23722175.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Is it worth protecting groundwater from diffuse pollution with agri-environmental schemes? A hydro-economic modeling approach. AU - Hérivaux,Cécile, AU - Orban,Philippe, AU - Brouyère,Serge, Y1 - 2013/05/28/ PY - 2012/02/24/received PY - 2013/04/23/revised PY - 2013/04/29/accepted PY - 2013/6/1/entrez PY - 2013/6/1/pubmed PY - 2014/6/12/medline KW - AEP KW - AEP* KW - AES KW - AFI KW - Agri-environmental schemes KW - B KW - C KW - C(R) KW - CAP KW - Cost-benefit analysis KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis KW - D KW - D(C) KW - D(P) KW - E KW - E* KW - EBI KW - European water framework directive KW - Groundwater KW - Ha KW - Hydro-economic model KW - NB KW - NLOSS KW - NO(3) KW - S KW - WFD KW - agri-environmental footprint index KW - agri-environmental payment KW - agri-environmental payment required to reach the target effectiveness E* KW - agri-environmental scheme KW - benefits KW - common agricultural policy KW - cost for the regulator KW - cost for the society KW - damage costs KW - damage costs resulting from averting behaviour of tap water consumers KW - damage costs resulting from avoidance actions taken by tap water producers KW - effectiveness KW - environmental benefits index KW - hectare KW - implementation area KW - mean annual nitrate leaching KW - net benefits KW - nitrate concentration at groundwater-withdrawal points KW - nitrate concentration at representative quality-monitoring points KW - nitrate concentration in groundwater KW - target effectiveness KW - water framework Directive SP - 62 EP - 74 JF - Journal of environmental management JO - J. Environ. Manage. VL - 128 N2 - In Europe, 30% of groundwater bodies are considered to be at risk of not achieving the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 'good status' objective by 2015, and 45% are in doubt of doing so. Diffuse agricultural pollution is one of the main pressures affecting groundwater bodies. To tackle this problem, the WFD requires Member States to design and implement cost-effective programs of measures to achieve the 'good status' objective by 2027 at the latest. Hitherto, action plans have mainly consisted of promoting the adoption of Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES). This raises a number of questions concerning the effectiveness of such schemes for improving groundwater status, and the economic implications of their implementation. We propose a hydro-economic model that combines a hydrogeological model to simulate groundwater quality evolution with agronomic and economic components to assess the expected costs, effectiveness, and benefits of AES implementation. This hydro-economic model can be used to identify cost-effective AES combinations at groundwater-body scale and to show the benefits to be expected from the resulting improvement in groundwater quality. The model is applied here to a rural area encompassing the Hesbaye aquifer, a large chalk aquifer which supplies about 230,000 inhabitants in the city of Liege (Belgium) and is severely contaminated by agricultural nitrates. We show that the time frame within which improvements in the Hesbaye groundwater quality can be expected may be much longer than that required by the WFD. Current WFD programs based on AES may be inappropriate for achieving the 'good status' objective in the most productive agricultural areas, in particular because these schemes are insufficiently attractive. Achieving 'good status' by 2027 would demand a substantial change in the design of AES, involving costs that may not be offset by benefits in the case of chalk aquifers with long renewal times. SN - 1095-8630 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23722175/Is_it_worth_protecting_groundwater_from_diffuse_pollution_with_agri_environmental_schemes_A_hydro_economic_modeling_approach_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301-4797(13)00311-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -