Stakeholder Perspectives on Fertilizer Policy in Germany: Findings from a Modified Delphi Study.

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Jannik Aaron Dresemann
{"title":"Stakeholder Perspectives on Fertilizer Policy in Germany: Findings from a Modified Delphi Study.","authors":"Jannik Aaron Dresemann","doi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02266-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The European Farm to Fork strategy mandates transformative measures to reduce agriculture's environmental impacts, yet its translation into actionable policies remains ambiguous. In Germany, current fertilizer policies rely on rigid, action-oriented guidelines that stakeholders increasingly criticize for failing to address complex environmental challenges. This study captures policy demands for improved nutrient management by engaging primary stakeholders-from agriculture, environmental protection, and academia-through a modified policy Delphi process. Iterative online working groups and a plenary scenario workshop, structured around a systematic framework on environmental policy instrument selection, elicited open-ended, demand-driven responses. Findings reveal a strong consensus for shifting from prescriptive fertilization practices to target-oriented, scientifically grounded approaches. Stakeholders advocate adopting farm-gate nutrient balancing to reduce nitrogen losses and manage phosphorus surpluses while emphasizing the need for robust monitoring systems enhanced by digital technologies. This participatory approach integrates diverse expert perspectives into policy recommendation, enhancing the legitimacy and adaptability of future fertilizer policies while reducing political dissent. Although these stakeholder-driven recommendations offer promising directions for reconciling agricultural productivity with environmental sustainability, further empirical research-including pilot projects and simulation studies-is needed to validate feasibility and refine the methodological framework. The insights from this study contribute to the bottom-up development of fertilizer policy instruments that support the broader objectives of the Farm to Fork strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02266-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The European Farm to Fork strategy mandates transformative measures to reduce agriculture's environmental impacts, yet its translation into actionable policies remains ambiguous. In Germany, current fertilizer policies rely on rigid, action-oriented guidelines that stakeholders increasingly criticize for failing to address complex environmental challenges. This study captures policy demands for improved nutrient management by engaging primary stakeholders-from agriculture, environmental protection, and academia-through a modified policy Delphi process. Iterative online working groups and a plenary scenario workshop, structured around a systematic framework on environmental policy instrument selection, elicited open-ended, demand-driven responses. Findings reveal a strong consensus for shifting from prescriptive fertilization practices to target-oriented, scientifically grounded approaches. Stakeholders advocate adopting farm-gate nutrient balancing to reduce nitrogen losses and manage phosphorus surpluses while emphasizing the need for robust monitoring systems enhanced by digital technologies. This participatory approach integrates diverse expert perspectives into policy recommendation, enhancing the legitimacy and adaptability of future fertilizer policies while reducing political dissent. Although these stakeholder-driven recommendations offer promising directions for reconciling agricultural productivity with environmental sustainability, further empirical research-including pilot projects and simulation studies-is needed to validate feasibility and refine the methodological framework. The insights from this study contribute to the bottom-up development of fertilizer policy instruments that support the broader objectives of the Farm to Fork strategy.

利益相关者对德国肥料政策的看法:修正德尔菲研究的结果。
欧洲“从农场到餐桌”战略要求采取变革性措施减少农业对环境的影响,但其转化为可执行的政策仍不明确。在德国,目前的肥料政策依赖于严格的、以行动为导向的指导方针,利益相关者越来越多地批评这些指导方针未能解决复杂的环境挑战。本研究通过改进的政策德尔菲过程,让农业、环境保护和学术界的主要利益相关者参与进来,从而捕捉到改善营养管理的政策需求。围绕环境政策工具选择的系统框架,反复进行的在线工作组和全体情景研讨会引发了开放式、需求驱动的回应。研究结果表明,人们对从规定性施肥实践转向以目标为导向、以科学为基础的方法有着强烈的共识。利益攸关方主张采用农场营养平衡来减少氮损失和管理磷过剩,同时强调需要由数字技术增强的强大监测系统。这种参与性方法将不同的专家观点整合到政策建议中,提高了未来肥料政策的合法性和适应性,同时减少了政治异议。尽管这些利益相关者驱动的建议为协调农业生产力与环境可持续性提供了有希望的方向,但需要进一步的实证研究——包括试点项目和模拟研究——来验证可行性并完善方法框架。本研究的见解有助于自下而上地制定肥料政策工具,以支持“从农场到餐桌”战略的更广泛目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Management
Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more. As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信