English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Agriculture is facing stringent requirements for nutrient loss reductions. These reductions should be done cost-effectively. For instance, the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) emphasizes cost-effective- ness in reaching good water status in European river basins by 2015. River Basin Management Plans specify the eventual reduction targets, which will differ between the basins. These differences have implica- tions on cost-effectiveness assessments: changing the level of total abatement changes the relative shares of measures in the cost-effective allocation. In this paper we develop a model which determines the cost-ef- fective allocation of three alternative measures to reduce phosphorus loss from fields. The model allows for comparisons with cost and reductions of all possible allocations. We show that, even for homogenous re- gions, the cost-effective allocation of measures is strongly dependent on the target level, and that using the allocation from one reduction level as a guideline for other levels violates cost-effectiveness seriously. On the grounds of these results we give recommendations for cost-effectiveness assessments in the context of the WFD.

Does scale matter?Cost-effectiveness of agricultural nutrient abatement when target level varies