Affiliation:
1. Department of Natural Resources Development and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece
2. Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), 14469 Potsdam, Germany
3. Soils and Environment Research Centre, Irish Food and Agriculture Development Authority (TEAGASC), Johnstown Castle, Y35 TC97 Wexford, Ireland
4. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Environmental Engineering, University of Zielona Góra, 65-417 Zielona Góra, Poland
Abstract
To achieve national and global air quality and climate change objectives, the agricultural sector increasingly requires dependable decision support tools for gaseous emissions at the farm level. We evaluated thirteen greenhouse gas (GHG)-based decision support systems (DSS), considering criteria such as not only the accessibility, user-friendliness, stakeholder involvement, sustainability methodology, and modeling aspects, but also the input parameters and outputs provided, all crucial for decision making. While most DSSs provide information for facilitating their use, only four are suitable for inexperienced users, and stakeholder participation in DSS development is infrequent. The dominant methodology for farm-level GHG estimation is IPCC 2006, with quantitative models primarily used for indicators’ assessment. Scenario and contribution analyses are the prevailing decision support approaches. Soil, crop, and fertilizer types are the most implemented non-livestock-related inputs, while climate- and feed-related costs are the least required. All DSSs assess farm-level mitigation measures, but less than half offer sustainability consultation. These tools promote environmental sustainability by evaluating mitigation strategies, disseminating farm sustainability information, and guiding sustainable farm management. Yet, challenges such as disparate estimation methods, result variations, comparison difficulties, usability concerns, steep learning curves, the lack of automation, the necessity for multiple tools, the limited integration of the results, and changing regulations hinder their wider adoption.
Funder
European Regional Development Fund of the European Union and Greek national funds
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Geography, Planning and Development,Building and Construction
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献