Hans Estrup Andersen

Water quality management and climate change mitigation: cost-effectiveness of joint implementation in the Baltic Sea region

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Water quality management and climate change mitigation: cost-effectiveness of joint implementation in the Baltic Sea region. / Nainggolan, Doan; Hasler, Berit; Andersen, Hans Estrup; Gyldenkærne, Steen; Termansen, Mette.

In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 144, 02.2018, p. 12-26.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{506c192f760f4ce9bf584bf5ce8de151,
title = "Water quality management and climate change mitigation: cost-effectiveness of joint implementation in the Baltic Sea region",
abstract = "This paper explores the scope for simultaneously managing nutrient abatement and climate change mitigation inthe Baltic Sea (BS) region through the implementation of a selection of measures. The analysis is undertakenusing a cost-minimisation model for the entire BS region, the BALTCOST model. In the present research, themodel has been extended to include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions effects, enabling us to analyse the tradeoffsbetween cost-effective GHG and nutrient load reductions. We run the model for four different scenarios inorder to compare the environmental and economic consequences of contrasting strategies: single environmentalobjective management versus joint implementation strategy. The results show that implementing land-basedmeasures with a sole focus on water quality (to meet the HELCOM's 2013 Baltic Sea Action Plan nutrientabatement targets) can produce climate change mitigation co-benefits equivalent to 2.3% of the 2005 emissionlevel (from agriculture and waste water combined) for the entirety of the BS region. More interestingly, a jointimplementation strategy can deliver further climate change mitigation benefit (i.e. up to 5.4%) at a marginalcost that is comparable to mitigation costs reported by other studies for efficient technologies. All in all theresults demonstrate that a joint strategy to improve water quality and to reduce climate change is economicallybeneficial. Our findings show that the cost and the outcome of the implementation vary between countries. Thisillustrates the need to develop a joint regional policy for water and climate regulation that fully considers theasymmetry in both the expected effects and cost distribution across the countries in the region.",
keywords = "Trade-off Water management Climate change mitigation Co-benefit Cost-minimisation Economic-hydrological model",
author = "Doan Nainggolan and Berit Hasler and Andersen, {Hans Estrup} and Steen Gyldenk{\ae}rne and Mette Termansen",
year = "2018",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.026",
language = "English",
volume = "144",
pages = "12--26",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Water quality management and climate change mitigation: cost-effectiveness of joint implementation in the Baltic Sea region

AU - Nainggolan, Doan

AU - Hasler, Berit

AU - Andersen, Hans Estrup

AU - Gyldenkærne, Steen

AU - Termansen, Mette

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - This paper explores the scope for simultaneously managing nutrient abatement and climate change mitigation inthe Baltic Sea (BS) region through the implementation of a selection of measures. The analysis is undertakenusing a cost-minimisation model for the entire BS region, the BALTCOST model. In the present research, themodel has been extended to include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions effects, enabling us to analyse the tradeoffsbetween cost-effective GHG and nutrient load reductions. We run the model for four different scenarios inorder to compare the environmental and economic consequences of contrasting strategies: single environmentalobjective management versus joint implementation strategy. The results show that implementing land-basedmeasures with a sole focus on water quality (to meet the HELCOM's 2013 Baltic Sea Action Plan nutrientabatement targets) can produce climate change mitigation co-benefits equivalent to 2.3% of the 2005 emissionlevel (from agriculture and waste water combined) for the entirety of the BS region. More interestingly, a jointimplementation strategy can deliver further climate change mitigation benefit (i.e. up to 5.4%) at a marginalcost that is comparable to mitigation costs reported by other studies for efficient technologies. All in all theresults demonstrate that a joint strategy to improve water quality and to reduce climate change is economicallybeneficial. Our findings show that the cost and the outcome of the implementation vary between countries. Thisillustrates the need to develop a joint regional policy for water and climate regulation that fully considers theasymmetry in both the expected effects and cost distribution across the countries in the region.

AB - This paper explores the scope for simultaneously managing nutrient abatement and climate change mitigation inthe Baltic Sea (BS) region through the implementation of a selection of measures. The analysis is undertakenusing a cost-minimisation model for the entire BS region, the BALTCOST model. In the present research, themodel has been extended to include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions effects, enabling us to analyse the tradeoffsbetween cost-effective GHG and nutrient load reductions. We run the model for four different scenarios inorder to compare the environmental and economic consequences of contrasting strategies: single environmentalobjective management versus joint implementation strategy. The results show that implementing land-basedmeasures with a sole focus on water quality (to meet the HELCOM's 2013 Baltic Sea Action Plan nutrientabatement targets) can produce climate change mitigation co-benefits equivalent to 2.3% of the 2005 emissionlevel (from agriculture and waste water combined) for the entirety of the BS region. More interestingly, a jointimplementation strategy can deliver further climate change mitigation benefit (i.e. up to 5.4%) at a marginalcost that is comparable to mitigation costs reported by other studies for efficient technologies. All in all theresults demonstrate that a joint strategy to improve water quality and to reduce climate change is economicallybeneficial. Our findings show that the cost and the outcome of the implementation vary between countries. Thisillustrates the need to develop a joint regional policy for water and climate regulation that fully considers theasymmetry in both the expected effects and cost distribution across the countries in the region.

KW - Trade-off Water management Climate change mitigation Co-benefit Cost-minimisation Economic-hydrological model

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.026

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.026

M3 - Journal article

VL - 144

SP - 12

EP - 26

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

ER -