Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

Table 2:
Modelled cost-curve for the control of ammonium pollution from the
model dairy system (Model 1) averaged across each of the climate,
drainage and soil texture Cost-Cube scenarios
Cost-step Measure description Pollutant Annual Cost (£)
loss (%)
0 Baseline 100 0
1 Integrate fertiliser with manure 77 -8,467
2 Introduce clover to grassland system 72 -10,782
3 Do not apply slurry to well connected areas 62 -10,499
4 Avoid grazing high-risk fields when wet 58 -10,349
5 Establish artificial wetland 44 -8,515
6 Change fertiliser type 34 -6,622
7 Allow drainage to deteriorate 30 -5,122
8 Avoid slurry spreading at times of high risk 25 -1,816
9 Reduce dietary nitrogen intake 17 9,014
10 Do not apply fertiliser to well-connected areas 16 10,949
11 Export 50% of slurry 14 16,593
12 Aeration of slurry 12 22,994
13 Install hedges and reduce field size 11 33,288
14 Establish a riparian strip 10 38,054
15 Reduce stock count 8 88,663
16 Avoid fertiliser spreading at times of high risk 8 103,663
17 Reduce field stock rates when wet 8 111,983
18 Batch storage of slurry 8 132,093
19 Use slowly available nitrogen fertiliser 8 187,098
DISCUSSION
The Cost-Cube framework is a highly flexible and valuable tool for ranking potential
control measures in the development of catchment sensitive management plans.
The explicit representation of the mode of action of measures, and the potential to
use both empirical data and expert opinion, gives it potential value as a decision
tool for reaching a consensus about pollution source and mitigation in stakeholder
discussions. The use of this approach has also highlighted the need for further field
investigations to refine the efficiency values of the ‘top five’ measures, as these
are considerably less precise than their financial costs and especially sensitive to
location. Further details of the effects of artificial wetlands and management of the
hydrological connectivity of drained cracking clay soils would be clear priorities in this
regard. This modelling approach also has the potential to be linked to a Geographic
Information System (GIS) to provide national coverage and could also be used to
optimise for mitigation of multiple pollutants simultaneously.
Further development of such cost benefit analyses should also take account of the
potential externalities of pollution control. For example, there would be additional
benefits to reducing nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser use in terms of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions through a reduction in energy required to manufacture
98