2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.191
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of agricultural expansion on water footprint in the Amazon under climate change scenarios

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
3

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
6
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the percentage of farms above the poverty line and food self-sufficient was computed for both the baseline and the future situation. Hence, the scenario analysis was not based on a continuous temporal change, but on a comparison of separately modelled baseline and future situations, which is common practice (Miguel Ayala et al, 2016;Rajib et al, 2016). The model was built with the R programming language.…”
Section: Simulation Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the percentage of farms above the poverty line and food self-sufficient was computed for both the baseline and the future situation. Hence, the scenario analysis was not based on a continuous temporal change, but on a comparison of separately modelled baseline and future situations, which is common practice (Miguel Ayala et al, 2016;Rajib et al, 2016). The model was built with the R programming language.…”
Section: Simulation Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This α percentage depends on the climate, soil, agricultural practices, slope and runoff [ 16 , 34 ]. In this work, the variables considered to calculate this percentage were the slope of each cell and the amount of irrigation water applied in each cell every month [ 8 , 29 , 38 ]. The volume of water applied, instead of runoff, is used since it is irrigated agriculture.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Blue water scarcity was "severe" when WS B > 2, "significant" when 1.5 < WS B < 2, "moderate" when 1 < WS B < 1.5, and "low" when WS B < 1 [23]. Green water scarcity was "unsustainable" when WS G > 1, a "threat" when 0.5 < WS G <1, "within sustainable limits" when 0.25 < WS G < 0.5, and sustainable when WS G < 0.25 [24]. Results were then interpreted following the deforestation (BAU, GOV) and climate change (RCP 4.5 and 8.5 W m −2 ) scenarios described above, and onto which we added population growth and agricultural production scenarios (Table 1).…”
Section: Interpretation and Response Formulation Through Scenariosmentioning
confidence: 99%