June 16th, 2026
Why Link Sustainable Farming, Water Quality and Recreation?
• The Agzero+ project aims to test innovative net-zero+ farming systems (i.e. agroforestry, target fertiliser application, etc.) that help reduce GHG emissions and pollution while also enhancing biodiversity and soil health.
• Agriculture is a major source of diffuse nutrient pollution (Elofsson et al., 2003).
• Poor water quality can reduce recreational use as perceptions of pollution can influence how people interact with rivers and coastal areas (Anciaes, 2022; Dolnicar & Hurlimann, 2010).
• Sustainable farming policies and agri-environment schemes are expanding rapidly, but their broader social and ecological effects remain poorly understood (Baldock & Kam, 2024).
• In this research activity, we aim to understand both ecological processes and social perceptions to identify trade-offs and co-benefits of sustainable land management using a systemic approach.
and advisors
Farmers, and advisors
Fuzzy Cognitive Map Approach
• Nodes = system components
• Links = perceived causal relationships
• Weights = strength of effects
• Relationships represented as positive/negative links
• Combines ecological and social knowledge
Stakeholder knowledge and perceptions: Integration of: 1) Farmers/advisors consultation
survey
Farming Practices Identified
Data from Rural Payments for the South West England.
Identified the most relevant (economic investment and quantity) Countryside Stewardship and Sustainable Farming schemes options.
Grouped list of 10 farming practices and land management.
Consultation to Farmers, Farm advisors and Researchers
Score from the average of qualifications (High negative to High positive)
(-0.85,-0.15, 0, 0.15, 0.85)
Government-supported sustainable farming practices have increased substantially, with £5m → £40m increase in agri-environment funding (2016–2023).
Farmers and Advisors Consultation
Participants
n = 16 valid responses
4 farmers
7 advisors
5 catchment specialists
• Most stakeholders perceived moderate–poor water quality.
• Strong consensus on benefits for runoff reduction.
• Some practices perceived as involving production tradeoffs.
• Habitat creation and buffering had strongest positive effects.
Results
Recreational Users Survey
Online survey with 557 frequent recreational users from 4 regions February 2026.
Type of users
Pollution Perceptions and Recreational Impacts
• Murky water and foam/scum are most frequently observed.
• Rivers and estuaries are perceived more negatively.
• Water condition has not changed, or it has slightly deteriorated for most respondents.
• Agricultural pollution is slightly more associated with rivers/lakes.
• Sewage pollution is perceived slightly more strongly in coastal/estuarine waters.
Perceived pollution
Perceived water condition
Perceived significant pollution source
Agriculture Water Pollution Perceptions and Recreational Impacts
Indicator of perceived impacts on recreation as changes since when started visiting the water area, from much less to much more in:
• Number of visits
• Time spent near the water
• Enjoyment
• Water seems clean enough to enter
• Poor perceived water condition significantly reduced recreational experience.
• Younger respondents reported stronger negative recreational impacts and were more likely to seek alternative sites.
• Users of rivers and other inland waters appeared especially sensitive to perceived declines in water quality.
Cancellation of trips due to water condition concerns.
Displacement/ Substitution of sites due to water condition concerns.
• Users undertaking activities directly in the water were nearly 3× more likely to cancel or substitute recreational trips due to poor water conditions.
• Perceiving agriculture as a significant pollution source more than doubled the likelihood of trip cancellation and site substitution.
• Lower-income respondents were significantly less likely to cancel or substitute visits, suggesting unequal capacity to avoid poor environmental conditions.
How Farming, Water Condition and Recreation Interact
• Improving water quality may generate both ecological and recreational co-benefits.
• Perceptions of pollution influence how people use rivers, estuaries and coastal areas.
• Recreation and wellbeing should be considered within catchment management and agrienvironment planning.
Next steps
• Integrate farming, water quality and recreation relationships with results from consultation/survey.
• Explore future scenarios of sustainable farming adoption and potential co-benefits for water quality and recreation.
Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Relevant references
• Anciaes, P. (2022). Revealed preference valuation of beach and river water quality in Wales. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2020.1864778
• Bateman, I. J., Brouwer, R., Davies, H. N., Day, B. H., Deflandre, A., Falco, S. d., Georgiou, S. G., Hadley, D., Hutchins, M., Jones, A. P., Kay, D., Leeks, G. J. L., Lewis, M., Lovett, A. A., Neal, C., Posen, P. E., Rigby, D., & Turner, R. K. (2006). Analysing the Agricultural Costs and Non‐market Benefits of Implementing the Water Framework Directive. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, 221-237.
• Baldock, D. and Kam, H. (2024) ‘Agri-Environmental Policies in England after Brexit’ Report, Institute for European Environmental Policy.
• Dolnicar, S., & Hurlimann, A. (2010). Australians’ Water Conservation Behaviours and Attitudes. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 14(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2010.11465373
• Elofsson, K., Folmer, H., & Gren, I. M. (2003). Management of eutrophicated coastal ecosystems: A synopsis of the literature with emphasis on theory and methodology. In (Vol. 47, pp. 1-11): Elsevier.