Browsing by Author "Seghetta, Michele"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology
    (Wiley, 2019-09-18) Sykes, Alasdair J.; Macleod, Michael; Eory, Vera; Rees, Robert M.; Payen, Florian; Myrgiotis, Vasilis; Williams, Mathew; Sohi, Saran; Hillier, Jon; Moran, Dominic; Manning, David A. C.; Goglio, Pietro; Seghetta, Michele; Williams, Adrian; Harris, Jim A.; Dondini, Marta; Walton, Jack; House, Joanna; Smith, Pete
    To limit warming to well below 2°C, most scenario projections rely on greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRTs); one such GGRT uses soil carbon sequestration (SCS) in agricultural land. In addition to their role in mitigating climate change, SCS practices play a role in delivering agroecosystem resilience, climate change adaptability, and food security. Environmental heterogeneity and differences in agricultural practices challenge the practical implementation of SCS, and our analysis addresses the associated knowledge gap. Previous assessments have focused on global potentials, but there is a need among policy makers to operationalise SCS. Here, we assess a range of practices already proposed to deliver SCS, and distil these into a subset of specific measures. We provide a multi‐disciplinary summary of the barriers and potential incentives toward practical implementation of these measures. First, we identify specific practices with potential for both a positive impact on SCS at farm level, and an uptake rate compatible with global impact. These focus on: a. optimising crop primary productivity (e.g. nutrient optimisation, pH management, irrigation) b. reducing soil disturbance and managing soil physical properties (e.g. improved rotations, minimum till) c. minimising deliberate removal of C or lateral transport via erosion processes (e.g. support measures, bare fallow reduction) d. addition of C produced outside the system (e.g. organic manure amendments, biochar addition) e. provision of additional C inputs within the cropping system (e.g. agroforestry, cover cropping) We then consider economic and non‐cost barriers and incentives for land managers implementing these measures, along with the potential externalised impacts of implementation. This offers a framework and reference point for holistic assessment of the impacts of SCS. Finally, we summarise and discuss the ability of extant scientific approaches to quantify the technical potential and externalities of SCS measures, and the barriers and incentives to their implementation in global agricultural systems.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Environmental-economic analysis of integrated organic waste and wastewater management systems: a case study from Aarhus City (Denmark)
    (MDPI, 2018-10-17) Thomsen, Marianne; Romeo, Daina; Caro, Dario; Seghetta, Michele; Cong, Rong-Gang
    This study presents a comparative analysis of the environmental and economic performances of four integrated waste and wastewater management scenarios in the city of Aarhus in Denmark. The purpose of this analysis is to deliver decision support regarding whether (i) the installation of food waste disposers in private homes (AS1) or (ii) separate collection and transport of organic waste to biogas plants is a more viable environmental and economic solution (AS2). Higher environmental benefits, e.g., mitigation of human health impacts and climate change, are obtained by transforming the existing waste combustion system into scenario (ii). Trade-offs in terms of increased marine eutrophication and terrestrial ecotoxicity result from moving up the waste hierarchy; i.e., from waste incineration to biogas production at wastewater treatment plants with anaerobic sludge digestion. Scenario (i) performs with lower energy efficiency compared to scenario (ii). Furthermore, when considering the uncertainty in the extra damage cost to the sewer system that may be associated to the installation of food waste disposers, scenario (ii) is the most flexible, robust, and less risky economic solution. From an economic, environmental, and resource efficiency point of view, separate collection and transport of biowaste to biogas plants is the most sustainable solution.