4.6 Article

Remediating Agricultural Legacy Nutrient Loads in the Baltic Sea Region

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13073872

关键词

Baltic Sea; eutrophication; legacy nutrient loads; abatement costs; agriculture

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [818309]
  2. APC
  3. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [818309] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Baltic Sea is heavily affected by eutrophication, and the costs for remediating legacy nutrient loads are still unclear. Preliminary estimates suggest that addressing these nutrients would require billions to over a hundred billion euros, but it is not infeasible and may even bring economic benefits in the long run.
The Baltic Sea is considered the marine water body most severely affected by eutrophication within Europe. Due to its limited water exchange nutrients have a particularly long residence time in the sea. While several studies have analysed the costs of reducing current nutrient emissions, the costs for remediating legacy nutrient loads of past emissions remain unknown. Although the Baltic Sea is a comparatively well-monitored region, current data and knowledge is insufficient to provide a sound quantification of legacy nutrient loads and much less their abatement costs. A first rough estimation of agricultural legacy nutrient loads yields an accumulation of 0.5-4.0 Mt N and 0.3-1.2 Mt P in the Baltic Sea and 0.4-0.5 Mt P in agricultural soils within the catchment. The costs for removing or immobilising this amount of nutrients via deep water oxygenation, mussel farming and soil gypsum amendment are in the range of few tens to over 100 billion euro. These preliminary results are meant as a basis for future studies and show that while requiring serious commitment to funding and implementation, remediating agricultural legacy loads is not infeasible and may even provide economic benefits to local communities in the long run.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据