A reply to panagos et al., 2016 (Environmental science & policy 59 (2016) 53–57

Robert Evans and John Boardman

Environmental Science & Policy, 2016, vol. 60, issue C, 63-68

Abstract: We respond to the article by Panagos et al. in Environmental Science & Policy 2016, 59, 53–57. We first outline the history of assessing water erosion of cultivated land in Britain, to place in context why a model approach has not been considered the best way to assess erosion in Britain. Since 1982 a field- based approach has been consistently chosen. We then consider three particular points of contention between ourselves and Panagos et al.—1) the importance of wash erosion, 2) the cost of carrying out a field-based assessment of erosion, and 3) that the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation should be the harmonized method to assess soil loss. Last, we respond to individual points made by Panagos et al. before drawing some conclusions. One conclusion is that a more harmonious way of assessing erosion was put forward in 2004 by Gobin et al. combining both field-based and model assessments, but unfortunately that route was not taken by researchers at the Joint Research Centre.

Keywords: Soil loss; Water erosion; RUSLE; Field-based assessment; Policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116300557
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:60:y:2016:i:c:p:63-68

DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.004

Access Statistics for this article

Environmental Science & Policy is currently edited by M. Beniston

More articles in Environmental Science & Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().