Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

„Mennyit ér” a fenntarthatóság? – Esettanulmány az externális hatások mérésére azok internalizálására (What is sustainability worth? – A case study of measuring and internalizing negative environmental effects of logistics operation)

A fenntarthatóság központi kérdés a gazdálkodástudományban, ezen belül a logisztikában, hiszen a környezetre rótt szennyezésben e vállalati működési területnek is jelentős a szerepe. A szerzők dolgozata egy konkrét hazai esettanulmány segítségével vizsgálja a kérdéskört. Azt elemzik, vajon egy, az Európai Unióban is új kamiontípus (az ún. EuroCombi) alkalmazása a logisztikai folyamatokban milyen externális hatásokkal jár. Elemzésükben kísérletet tesznek ezeknek az externális hatásoknak a pénzben kifejezett mérésére. Azért fontos mindez, mert e mérés és számszerűsítés nélkül lehetetlen ezeknek a hatásoknak az internalizálása, vagyis belsővé tétele. Így mérés nélkül sem az érintett vállalatok tulajdonosai, sem azok belső döntéshozói, de a külső szabályozó szereplők sem tudják bevonni e hatásokat gazdasági döntéseikbe. Ez a mérés nem egyszerű feladat, de nem is lehetetlen. Mindenképpen alapját, előfeltételét képezi azonban annak, hogy ilyen jellegű döntéseknél az érintettek a társadalmi, környezeti érdekeket is érvényesíteni tudják. ____ Sustainability is a key issue today both for practitioners and researchers. This is true especially for logisticians. Logistics is a function that has a significant CO2 emission and also destructs transportation infrastructure that burden our environment. The article is focusing on these issues with the help of a Hungarian case study. It analysis the effect of applying a new, long and heavy type of truck, called EuroCombi. It presents a methodology usable for measuring these negative external effects in Forint. Without proper measurement internalization of costs these externalities generate is impossible. As it will be presented in details, such a measurement is although not very easy but achievable.

Evaluation of corporate environmental management approaches: A framework and application

This article proposes a framework to evaluate corporate environmental strategies. In the proposed framework, a company's environmental risks are analyzed on two dimensions, One dimension, the endogenous environmental risks, arises from the internal operations of the company. The other dimension, the exogenous environmental risks, are determined by the company's external world: its location, its ecological setting, and the demographic characteristics of the physical environment in which it operates. Four environmental management approaches are defined as a function of endogenous and exogenous environmental risks: reactive, proactive, strategic, and crisis preventive. The framework was applied in a survey of 141 company representatives in Hungary. A relationship was sought between the a priori defined environmental management approaches based on technology and location and the companies' environmental management characteristics defined by senior managers. Variables that differentiated among the four environmental management approaches were identified and ranked. The study concludes that there is a relatively well-defined relationship between the environmental risks of companies and the nature of their environmental management approaches, Implementing a strategic environmental management approach may not be the best option for all companies - although there is a growing pressure to do so.