Environmental impacts of BART: interpretive summary of the final report.

Transportation Department, Washington, D.C.

Coastal pollution : environmental impacts of federal activities can be better managed : report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives.

"June 1991"--Cover.

The environmental impacts of BART : Interpretive summary /

Mode of access: Internet.

The environmental impacts of technical change

The thesis is concerned with relationships between profit, technology and environmental change. Existing work has concentrated on only a few questions, treated at either micro or macro levels of analysis. And there has been something of an impasse since the neoclassical and neomarxist approaches are either in direct conflict (macro level), or hardly interact (micro level). The aim of the thesis was to bypass this impasse by starting to develop a meso level of analysis that focusses on issues largely ignored in the traditional approaches - on questions about distribution. The first questions looked at were descriptive - what were the patterns of distribution over time of the variability in types and rates of environmental change, and in particular, was there any evidence of periodization? Two case studies were used to examine these issues. The first looked at environmental change in the iron and steel industry since 1700, and the second studied pollution in five industries in the basic processing sector. It was established that environmental change has been markedly periodized, with an apparently fairly regular `cycle length' of about fifty years. The second questions considered were explanatory - whether and how this periodization could be accounted for by reference to variations in aspects of profitability and technical change. In the iron and steel industry, it was found that diffusion rates and the rate of nature of innovation were periodized on the same pattern as was environmental change. And the same sort of variation was also present in the realm of profits, as evidenced by cyclical changes in output growth. Simple theoretical accounts could be given for all the empirically demonstrable links, and it was suggested that the most useful models at this meso level of analysis are provided by structural change models of economic development.

Applying a public policy evaluation methodology for local socio-economic impacts: an exploration in realistic modelling

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

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.

Environmental Impacts of the Deep-Water Oil and Gas Industry : A Review to Guide Management Strategies

The authors would like to thank the leadership of the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative (DOSI), including Lisa Levin, Maria Baker, and Kristina Gjerde, for their support in developing this review. This work evolved from a meeting of the DOSI Oil and Gas working group supported by the J.M. Kaplan Fund, and associated with the Deep-Sea Biology Symposium in Aveiro, Portugal in September 2015. The members of the Oil and Gas working group that contributed to our discussions at that meeting or through the listserve are acknowledged for their contributions to this work. We would also like to thank the three reviewers and the editor who provided valuable comments and insight into the work presented here. DJ and AD were supported by funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the MERCES (Marine Ecosystem Restoration in Changing European Seas) project, grant agreement No 689518. AB was supported by CNPq grants 301412/2013-8 and 200504/2015-0. LH acknowledges funding provided by a Natural Environment Research Council grant (NE/L008181/1). This output reflects only the authors' views and the funders cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.