Project IdeasMy interests are in systems analysis and how it can help in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). To manage our resources properly and make the right decisions it is important to study the system as a whole and learn to identify the main drivers and factors that matter for systems dynamics. It is further important to engage the stakeholders, those who are really part of the system you study, to understand what is really important for them, and which decisions are realistic and can be implemented. Below are several examples of projects that we would be interested to support. If you have any ideas of this sort, please contact me at voinov at itc dot nl.
Comparing intensive and natural agricultural productionAll things considered, what is better: to grow livestock in confined areas where they grow and fatten faster or to encourage free-roaming, grass-fed cattle production?
Similarly: how do we grow our crops? In greenhouses or land intensively treated with fertilizers and pesticides? or organically, using natural pest control, compost and manure? There are many factors we may want to take into account. First, how much land we can afford to use. How much land we have available? how productive it is? how is it used? Second, you may wish to consider the inputs: what fertilizers are required and what is their cost? how much energy are we using? While intensive agriculture may seem indeed a better choice, things may change if we realize that no intensive agriculture is possible without high energy inputs, including those that come from fossil fuels. And third, let's look at the outputs: what kind of pollution is generated and how do we deal with it? Is intensive farming really more 'ecologically friendly'? I don't know. Let's find out.
The goods and bads from biofuelsThere has been substantial controversy about biofuels. At some point they were considered as a viable solution for the looming energy crisis, and there was much excitement about corn ethanol. Under Bush administration in USA, huge subsidies were handed out to corn producers and vast areas of agricultural production were converted to growing corn.
In other countries, instead of corn, it were other crops, such as palm oil for example.
Then studies appeared that showed that in fact if we take into account all the energy that is required to produce corn ethanol the added value is very small. According to some estimates, corn ethanol produces barely 30% more energy than used, and if all the social and environmental impacts are taken into account, the result looks almost negative. In poorer countries biofuel production resulted in soaring food prices. A recent Ecological Society of America (ESA) report looks at implications of biofuels for land use and biodiversity .
Similar research in Netherlands on identifying the indirect effects of bio-energy production focuses on such factors as land use (changes in land cover or land management), GHG emissions, water use, jobs (change in labour market, impact on health of workers), and profits.
The Independent calls palm oil 'a threat to the rainforest'. The Guardian indicates that there is less interest in blending biofuels into gasoline. A recent article in Times puts it quite bluntly: "Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels". A picture that they post shows that most of the area in Europe will have to be covered by biofuel crops if we are to meet the existing targets. So do we really need biofuels? What are the real costs of their production in Europe? Is it sustainable? What are the spatial variations that we should be aware of? Is it more profitable to produce biofuels in, say, Poland than in Italy? What is the overall potential for biofuel production in various European countries? These are some of the questions that you are invited to explore. For example, in Europe, rapeseed oil is used to produce biodiesel. Poland, Germany, France and UK are among the top rapeseed producers. Is this a sustainable agricultural practice?
Can we get more out of our roads?There are many roads and all of them have easements - that is, stripes of land on both sides, which are part of the road and are usually paved or covered by grass. Here is the idea: can we plant brushes at least on some part of the these stripes?
Normally trees are not allowed any closer than 15m to the pavement. This makes sense: you won't want to hit a tree if you move off the pavement. But if there were brushes - small tress or bushes - that would actually be even a safety benefit, since they could absorb the impact and help you stop the car faster without much damage to it.
In 2009-10 a MSc project has been conducted at ITC by Brandon Wysowski, who looked at the vegetation in the vicinity of the roads in the Netherlands. Some maps were produced and good contacts were established with the road authorities. Now we would want to extend that research to conduct a feasibility study and show what this approach can deliver, what are the costs and benefits, taking into account such factors as safety, carbon sequestration, fuel production, esthetics, social acceptance, etc. What we need is a kind of EIA that would take into account all the components and weigh the possible implications. To make this project more concrete, one aspect that a student could work on is mapping and quantification of biomass along roadsides taking into account trees, shrubs, as well as grass. Furthermore, we could analyze the potential energy output of these biomass sources and their contribution to safety, biodiversity carbon storage etc. Then we can also consider transport costs and conversion costs (in terms of energy) to assess the efficiency of converting different types of biomass into energy.
Scooters in NetherlandsNetherlands is certainly a biking paradise. However these days there are more and more scooters on the roads. What kind of environmental impact can this have. There are two issues here:
In many cases scooters are compared to cars, and it is argued that because of lower gasoline consumptions, scooters are much more benefitial for the environment. However this comparison certainly does not hold if we look at scooters versus bicycles. Moreover, most of the scooters are powered by a 2-stroke engine, which are notorious for producing a lot of air pollution. According to the California Air Resources Board: "We are seeing increasing numbers of scooters being sold as an inexpensive alternative to cars, as well as for recreational use. On a mile per mile basis, they actually create more smog than passenger cars." "It's true. The cleanest scooter is still dirtier than a car," says John Swanton, air pollution specialist with the California Air Resources Board." While scooters and motorcycles use less gasoline, they create more smog due to their lack of emissions controls. The article further states: "Some motorcycles emit as much hydrocarbon in 10 miles as a car driven 850 miles, according to Environmental Protection Agency studies." "The cleanest motorcycle engine is far dirtier than the dirtiest car," says Warren Milner, Honda Canada's senior motorcycle manager. In fact, two-wheelers appear to be so dirty that it is hardly possible to convince a local dealer to run a Drive Clean test on them because the emissions could seriously damage the testing machines. Similar assessment is provided here , and also here . What is most disturbing is that in Netherlands scooters are allowed to share the lanes with bicycles. This means that all the pollution is spewed directly into the lungs of the cyclists. And there is certainly the safety issue, when you have vehicles with very different velocities sharing the same space. What we would like to see is a spatial assessment of the major scooter pathways in a certain area, say, Enschede and an estimate of the overall amounts of pollution that is produced. This we would like to compare to the sales trends and make some projections. Finally it would be interesting to see what can be the health and safety implications of various scenarios. And finally, whar are the best socially accepted solutions?
Virtual land and goodsThe notion of virtual water has become quite well accepted and widely publicized. The idea is that water is needed to produce almost everything, and so when you move stuff around - you also move water. If you grow 1 kg of beef in Argentina and then export it to the Netherlands, it is as if you have also moved 16,000 litres of water, because this is how much is needed to produce that kilo of beef.
But similar accounting is needed to make proper estimates of CO2 emissions. If production of certain goods in, say, China requires a certain amount of energy and that energy is produced by burning coal and emiting CO2, we obviously assume that those CO2 emissions are occuring in China. In fact if those goods are shipped to the USA and consumed there, it would be more appropriate to add the CO2 emissions to the USA balance sheets. After all, that is where the consumption occurred. It would be interesting to recalculate the CO2 accounts taking into consideration not just the local emissions, but also the consumption patterns of the produced goods. Shouldn't the emissions be tied to the consumption rather than production? It becomes even more interesting now, when large tracts of land are being sold to foreign countries. See a New York Times article about that. Guardian also has an article about that. And there is a FAO report that you can download from here . What we see is that now land becomes virtually moved across borders. The goods produced on that land are the property of the new owner, while all the "bads" - the various externalities, such as pollution, degradation of natural resources, etc. - stay with the local country where the land is. On the up side, ownership can give a sense of responsibility to the new owner. Maybe this exchange can actually be beneficial and bring new technologies and improved management practices to these lands. Can these changes be tracked with remote sensing?
What's wrong with this Lake?In fact there is much things going wrong with Lake Naivasha. Consider this very recent clip to get an idea of some of the troubles there. And this one puts it in more perspective. Two comments to the movie tell us a lot about the controversy:
wanzueni (1 day ago):
Feisal254 (22 hours ago):
A reseach project has been funded by WOTRO and has been started as a collabrative effort between several departments of ITC. NRS is looking into the ecological problems related to the Lake and its fringe wetlands. The long list of ecological issues includes some of the following ones:
Click here to read an outline about the Lake ecosystem and the project, prepared by Francis Muthoni, the PhD student working on the projct.
EIA for the construction of an open connection between the Waddensea and the Westerplas on the island of Schiermonnikoog, The Netherlands
Approximately 40 years ago the Westerplas, a wetland area at the South-West corner of the island, was closed off from the Waddensea in order to create a freshwater basin to provide drinking water for the local population of the island of Schiermonnikoog and the tourists. The dike, which was constructed for this purpose, is part of the primary coastal defense of the Netherlands and subsequently falls under the coastal defense legislation (Deltawet). In 1988 Schiermonnikoog was declared a national park because of its rich biodiversity and large numbers of migratory birds. The national park encompasses the entire island with the exception of the village and the agricultural area. Over the years the ecological condition of the Westerplas has declined due to eutrophication and subsequent accelerated vegetation succession (encroachment of reed and woody vegetation). In order to restore the ecological value of the Westerplas, it has been suggested to create an open connection with the Waddensea. This is an unprecedental solution, since for the first time in Dutch practice it will be giving land 'back' to the sea. This intervention however has consequences for the safety of the island in relation to flooding by the sea, drinking water supply, hydrology of the surrounding dune area, the adjacent agricultural area and recreational functions. In order to facilitate a balanced decision making process, an EIA should be executed, taking the interests of the various stakeholders into consideration. Click here to explore a high resolution (2Mb) Google image of the area.
|
There is yet another benefit: if we plant some fast growing small trees, such as willow, we could sequester carbon, and we could then harvest them every 4-6 years for wood chips. The wood chip can be a source of energy.
Home