@article {65, title = {Emissions of gaseous nitrogen species from manure management: A new approach}, journal = {Environmental Pollution}, year = {2008}, pages = {488-497}, abstract = {A procedure for the assessment of emissions of nitrogen (N) species (ammonia, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, di-nitrogen) from the manure management system is developed, which treats N pools and flows including emissions strictly according to conservation of mass criteria. As all relevant flows in the husbandry of mammals are depicted, the methodology is considered a Tier 3 approach in IPCC terminology or a detailed methodology in UN ECE terminology. The importance of accounting for all N species is illustrated by comparing emission estimates obtained using this approach with those obtained from the application the present detailed/Tier 2 methodology.}, keywords = {EPNB}, author = {Daemmgen, U and Hutchings, N. J} } @article {Winiwarter2014a, title = {{A European perspective of innovations towards mitigation of nitrogen-related greenhouse gases}}, journal = {Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability}, volume = {9-10}, year = {2014}, pages = {37{\textendash}45}, publisher = {Elsevier B.V.}, abstract = {Technology design and effectiveness studies available in the scientific literature demonstrate future mitigation potentials of nitrogen-related greenhouse gases. Here we investigate {\textquoteright}innovations{\textquoteright} influencing such emissions. These innovations mainly address agriculture: reduced meat diets, urban gardening, genetically modified crops, and precision farming, but also more distant options such as vertical farming and cultured meat production, that is, indoor agriculture. While the latter approaches, which allow full management of effluents, seem very promising in terms of emission control, the cost estimates available would rule out any practical relevance. Technologies that currently seem more realistic offer much smaller mitigation potential. Information on energy need, greenhouse gas emissions, and land requirements feed into a semi-quantitative assessment, which delivers information in a format useful for existing European policy tools. {\textcopyright} 2014 Elsevier B.V.}, issn = {18773435}, doi = {10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.006}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.006}, author = {Winiwarter, Wilfried and Leip, Adrian and Tuomisto, Hanna L. and Haastrup, Palle} } @article {Ozbek2015, title = {{Estimating the gross nitrogen budget under soil nitrogen stock changes: A case study for Turkey}}, journal = {Agriculture, Ecosystems {\&} Environment}, volume = {205}, year = {2015}, month = {jul}, pages = {48{\textendash}56}, keywords = {agricultural production, budget, carbon, mypublications, nitrogen, soil}, issn = {01678809}, doi = {10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.008}, url = {http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167880915000924}, author = {{\"O}zbek, Fethi {\c S}aban and Leip, Adrian} } @article {Vanham2019a, title = {{Environmental footprint family to address local to planetary sustainability and deliver on the SDGs}}, journal = {Science of The Total Environment}, volume = {693}, number = {June}, year = {2019}, month = {jul}, pages = {133642}, publisher = {Elsevier B.V}, abstract = {The number of publications on environmental footprint indicators has been growing rapidly, but with limited efforts to integrate different footprints into a coherent framework. Such integration is important for comprehensive understanding of environmental issues, policy formulation and assessment of trade-offs between different environmental concerns. Here, we systematize published footprint studies and define a family of footprints that can be used for the assessment of environmental sustainability. We identify overlaps between different footprints and analyse how they relate to the nine planetary boundaries and visualize the crucial information they provide for local and planetary sustainability. In addition, we assess how the footprint family delivers on measuring progress towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), considering its ability to quantify environmental pressures along the supply chain and relating them to the water-energy-food-ecosystem (WEFE) nexus and ecosystem services. We argue that the footprint family is a flexible framework where particular members can be included or excluded according to the context or area of concern. Our paper is based upon a recent workshop bringing together global leading experts on existing environmental footprint indicators.}, keywords = {Environmental footprint, Environmental footprint assessment, Family, Footprint, Footprint family, Planetary boundaries}, issn = {00489697}, doi = {10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133642}, url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969719335673 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133642}, author = {Vanham, Davy and Leip, Adrian and Galli, Alessandro and Kastner, Thomas and Bruckner, Martin and Uwizeye, Aimable and van Dijk, Kimo and Ercin, Ertug and Dalin, Carole and Brand{\~a}o, Miguel and Bastianoni, Simone and Fang, Kai and Leach, Allison M. and Chapagain, Ashok and Van der Velde, Marijn and Sala, Serenella and Pant, Rana and Mancini, Lucia and Monforti-Ferrario, Fabio and Carmona-Garcia, Gema and Marques, Alexandra and Weiss, Franz and Hoekstra, Arjen Y.} }