Environmental Management

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 256–267 | Cite as

Cost-Effective Mitigation of Diffuse Pollution: Setting Criteria for River Basin Management at Multiple Locations

  • Mike Hutchins
  • Carlo Fezzi
  • Ian Bateman
  • Paulette Posen
  • Amelie Deflandre-Vlandas


A case study of the Yorkshire Derwent (UK) catchment is used to illustrate an integrated approach for assessing the viability of policy options for reducing diffuse nitrate losses to waterbodies. For a range of options, modeling methods for simulating river nitrate levels are combined with techniques for estimating the economic costs to agriculture of modifying those levels. By incorporating spatially explicit data and information on catchment residence times (which may span many decades particularly in areas of groundwater discharge) a method is developed for efficient spatial targeting of measures, for example, to the most at-risk freshwater environments. Combining hydrological and economic findings, the analysis reveals that, in terms of cost-effectiveness, the ranking of options is highly sensitive to both (i) whether or not specific stretches of river within a catchment are regarded as a priority for protection, and (ii) the criterion of nitrate concentration deemed most appropriate as an indicator of the health of the environment. Therefore, given the focus under European legislation upon ecological status of freshwaters, these conclusions highlight the need to improve understanding of mechanistic linkages between the chemical and biological dynamics of aquatic systems.


Water framework directive Diffuse pollution Nitrate Cost-effectiveness 



For graphical output of water quality analysis, the authors are grateful for the assistance provided at CEH by Jemima Rance and Helen Davies. We also thank Colin Neal for his helpful comments. EDINA at Edinburgh University Data Library and Defra are acknowledged as the sources for the Agricultural Census data. The analysis undertaken in this article is stimulated in particular by the Catchment hydrology, Resources, Economics and Management (ChREAM) project, funded under the joint ESRC, BBSRC and NERC Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme (award number RES-227-25-0024).


  1. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Davies H, Day B, Deflandre A, Di Falco S, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Hutchins M, Jones A, Kay D, Leeks G, Lewis M, Lovett A, Neal C, Posen P, Rigby D, Turner K (2006a) Analysing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the Water Framework Directive. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006b) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 60(2):450–460. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boorman DB (2003) LOIS in-stream water quality modelling. Part 2: results and scenarios. Science of the Total Environment 314–316:397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boorman DB (2007) Towards benchmarking an in-stream water quality model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. British Survey of Fertiliser Practice (2005) Fertiliser use on farm crops for crop year 2004. Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt TP, Haycock NE (1993) Controlling losses of nitrate by changing land-use. In: Burt TP, Heathwaite AL, Trudgill ST (eds) Nitrate: processes, patterns and management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp 341–368Google Scholar
  7. Carey MA, Chadha D (1998) Modelling the hydraulic relationship between the river Derwent and the Corallian limestone aquifer. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 31:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centre for Ecology, Hydrology (2003) Hydrometric register and statistics 1996–2000. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers BJ, Lord EI, Nicholson FA, Smith KA (1999) Predicting nitrogen availability and losses following application of organic manures to arable land: MANNER. Soil Use and Management 15:137–143Google Scholar
  10. Cobbing JE, Moreau M, Shand P, and Lancaster, A (2004). Baseline report series 14: The corallian of Oxfordshire and Wiltshire. British geological survey commissioned report CR/04/262 N. Environment agency national groundwater & contaminated land centre. Technical report NC/99/74/14Google Scholar
  11. Cooper DM, Naden PS (1998) Approaches to delivery modelling in LOIS. Science of the Total Environment 210/211:483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Defra (2000). Fertiliser recommendation for agricultural and horticultural crops. Defra report RB209, produced by ADASGoogle Scholar
  13. Defra (2004). Developing measures to promote catchment sensitive farming, joint Defra – HM Treasury consultation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Defra (2007). An inventory of measures to control diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA). Report prepared by ADAS and IGERGoogle Scholar
  15. Defra and National Assembly for Wales (2005), Farm business survey, 1982-2005 [computer files] Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], August 2006Google Scholar
  16. Eatherall A, Boorman DB, Williams RJ, Kowe R (1998) Modelling in-stream water quality in LOIS. Science of the Total Environment 210/211:499–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Environment Agency (2008), “Water framework directive. Detailed pressures and risks—revisions made January 2008.” (
  18. Fezzi C, Hutchins M, Rigby D, Bateman I, Posen P, Hadley D (2008a). Integrated assessment of water framework directive nitrate reduction measures. Agricultural Economics (submitted)Google Scholar
  19. Fezzi C, Rigby D, Bateman I, Posen P, Hadley D (2008b) Estimating the range of economic impacts arising from nutrient leaching reduction policies. Agricultural Economics 39:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller RM, Smith GM, Sanderson JM, Hill RA, Thompson AG (2002) The UK land cover map 2000: construction of a parcel-based vector map from satellite images. The Cartographic Journal 39:15–25Google Scholar
  21. Hutchins MG, Deflandre A, Boorman DB (2006) Performance benchmarking linked diffuse pollution and in-stream water quality models. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie Supplement - Large Rivers 17(161):133–154Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins MG, Dilks C, Davies HN, Deflandre A (2007) Issues of diffuse pollution model complexity arising from performance benchmarking. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11:647–662Google Scholar
  23. Hutchins MG, Deflandre-Vlandas A, Posen PE, Davies HN, Neal C (2008) How do river nitrate concentrations respond to changes in land-use? A modelling case-study of headwaters in the River Derwent catchment, North Yorkshire, UK. Environmental Modelling and Assessment (submitted)Google Scholar
  24. Institute of Hydrology (1980). Low flow studies report. Wallingford UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Jarvis SC, Scholefield D, Pain B (1995) Nitrogen cycling in grazing systems. In: Bacon PE (ed) Nitrogen fertilisation in the environment. Marcel Dekker Inc,  Google Scholar
  26. Kronvang B, Jeppesen E, Conley DJ, Sondergaard M, Larsen SE, Ovesen NB, Carstensen J (2005) Nutrient pressures and ecological response to nutrient loading reductions in Danish streams, lakes and coastal waters. Journal of Hydrology 304:274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lord EI (1992) Modelling of nitrate leaching: nitrate sensitive areas. Aspects of Applied Biology 30:19–28Google Scholar
  28. Maidstone CP, Parr W (2002) Phosphorus in rivers: ecology and management. The Science of the Total Environment 282(283):31–36Google Scholar
  29. National Rivers Authority (1994) River Derwent catchment management plan consultation report. National Rivers Authority Northumbria & Yorkshire Region, Leeds, UK 97 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Nevens F, Rehuel D (2003) Effects of cutting or grazing grass swards on herbage yield, nitrogen uptake and residual soil nitrate at different levels of N fertilisation. Grass and Forage Science 58:431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scholefield D, Lockyer DR, Whitehead DC, Tyson KC (1991) A model to predict transformations and losses of nitrogen in UK pastures grazed by beef cattle. Plant and Soil 132:165–177Google Scholar
  32. Shaffer MJ (2002) Nitrogen modelling for soil management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57:417–425Google Scholar
  33. Smedley PL, Neumann I, Farrell R (2004) Baseline report series 10: the Chalk aquifer of Yorkshire and North Humberside. British geological survey commissioned report, CR/04/128; Environment Agency Report, NC/99/74/10Google Scholar
  34. Stalnacke P, Vandsemb SM, Vassilijev A, Grimvall A, Jolanki G (2004) Changes in nutrient levels in some eastern European rivers in response to large-scale changes in agriculture. Water Science and Technology 49:29–36Google Scholar
  35. Sylvester-Bradley R (1993) Scope for more efficient use of fertiliser nitrogen. Soil Use and Management 9:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wade AJ, Whitehead PG, Hornberger GM, Snook DL (2002) On modelling the flow controls on macrophyte and epiphyte dynamics in a lowland permeable catchment: the river Kennet in southern England. The Science of the Total Environment 282(283):375–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitehead DC (1995) Grassland nitrogen. CAB International, p 397 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Hutchins
    • 1
  • Carlo Fezzi
    • 2
  • Ian Bateman
    • 2
  • Paulette Posen
    • 2
  • Amelie Deflandre-Vlandas
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWallingfordUK
  2. 2.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations