Policy-relevant indicators for semi-arid nations: The water footprint of crop production and supply utilization of Cyprus

Zoumides, Christos; Bruggeman, Adriana; Hadjikakou, Michalis; Zachariadis, Theodoros

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.012

Cited by 61 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Watersheds differ with respect to their physical and institutional characteristics, meaning that decisions to achieve more efficient water use are best taken at the water-basin scale, as advocated by more traditional water resources management perspectives (Mitchell, 1990;Bach et al, 2011;Gooch and Stalnacke, 2010). It is along these lines that some of the recent developments in water footprints have occurred whereby monthly or daily climatic variables have been combined with annual land use and crop production to obtain location-and time-specific water footprints (Aldaya et al, 2010b;Zoumides et al, 2014).…”

Section: A Tool For Assisting Water Resources Management and Managingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012a), Assessment of the water footprint of humanity and monthly blue water scarcity analysis of major river basins, Hoekstra et al (2012) based on global modelling results Bottom-up approach Aldaya et al (2010b), Demonstrated substantial seasonal variation in the proportion of blue and green water use between wet, Zoumides et al (2012) average and dry years in Spain and Cyprus, using monthly and daily climate data, respectively. Inter-comparison of global and local modelling results Bottom-up approach Chapagain and Tickner (2012) Review of the methodologies developed by the WFN and the usefulness of the water footprint concept Bottom-up approach Vanham and Bidoglio (2013) Suggested an extended analytical framework that includes sustainability assessments by combining social and economic factors with water footprints Bottom-up approach Zoumides et al (2014) Quantified the inter-annual crop water footprint at national level using a supply-utilisation approach applied in Cyprus, and coupled the analysis with economic water productivities and a blue water scarcity index Top-down approach Lenzen and Foran (2001) Applied an input-output analysis of water usage in the Australian economy Top-down approach Munksgaard et al (2005) Demonstrated how to apply input-output analysis to measure direct and indirect environmental pressures, including water consumption, at the household level Top-down approach Velázquez (2006) Applied input-output analysis to direct and indirect water use across in the Andalusia region of Spain Bottom-up and top-down approach Feng et al (2011) Comparison of the bottom-up and top-down water footprinting approaches Bottom-up and top-down approach Wichelns (2010bWichelns ( , 2011b Proposed benchmarking values for fair water footprint shares and for formulating water footprint reduction targets Hoekstra (2013) Sensitivity analysis Zhuo et al (2014) Sensitivity analysis and quantification of uncertainty in water footprint results from global model at the river basin lev...…”

Section: Water "Colours"mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying the human impact on water resources: a critical review of the water footprint concept

Chenoweth

Hadjikakou

Zoumides

2014

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The water footprint is a consumption-based indicator of water use, referring to the total volume of freshwater used directly and indirectly by a nation or a company, or in the provision of a product or service. Despite widespread enthusiasm for the development and use of water footprints, some concerns have been raised about the concept and its usefulness. A variety of methodologies have been developed for water footprinting which differ with respect to how they deal with different forms of water use. The result is water footprint estimates which vary dramatically, often creating confusion. Despite these methodological qualms, the concept has had notable success in raising awareness about water use in agricultural and industrial supply chains, by providing a previously unavailable and (seemingly) simple numerical indicator of water use. Nevertheless, and even though a range of uses have already been suggested for water footprinting, its policy value remains unclear. Unlike the carbon footprint which provides a universal measure of human impact on the atmosphere's limited absorptive capacity, the water footprint in its conventional form solely quantifies a single production input without any accounting of the impacts of use, which vary spatially and temporally. Following an extensive review of the literature related to water footprints, this paper critically examines the present uses of the concept, focusing on its current strengths, shortcomings and promising research avenues to advance it.

show abstract

Section: A Tool For Assisting Water Resources Management and Managingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Water "Colours"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the human impact on water resources: a critical review of the water footprint concept

Chenoweth

Hadjikakou

Zoumides

2014

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…National, regional and global water and food security can be improved when water-intensive commodities are traded from places where they are economically viable to places they are not. Food import offers an alternative to reduce pressure on domestic water resources and enables more productive water use as expressed by the WF of food [9]. Other research has taken a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to evaluate the water footprint of products, processes and organisations as initiated by [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in the Water Footprint of Arable Crop Production across European Regions

Gobin

Kersebaum

Eitzinger

et al. 2017

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop growth and yield are affected by water use during the season: the green water footprint (WF) accounts for rain water, the blue WF for irrigation and the grey WF for diluting agri-chemicals. We calibrated crop yield for FAO's water balance model "Aquacrop" at field level. We collected weather, soil and crop inputs for 45 locations for the period 1992-2012. Calibrated model runs were conducted for wheat, barley, grain maize, oilseed rape, potato and sugar beet. The WF of cereals could be up to 20 times larger than the WF of tuber and root crops; the largest share was attributed to the green WF. The green and blue WF compared favourably with global benchmark values (R 2 = 0.64-0.80; d = 0.91-0.95). The variability in the WF of arable crops across different regions in Europe is mainly due to variability in crop yield (cv = 45%) and to a lesser extent to variability in crop water use (cv = 21%). The WF variability between countries (cv = 14%) is lower than the variability between seasons (cv = 22%) and between crops (cv = 46%). Though modelled yields increased up to 50% under sprinkler irrigation, the water footprint still increased between 1% and 25%. Confronted with drainage and runoff, the grey WF tended to overestimate the contribution of nitrogen to the surface and groundwater. The results showed that the water footprint provides a measurable indicator that may support European water governance.

show abstract

“…Crop WF studies focused mainly on the quantification of green and blue water use (Zhuo et al, 2014;Zoumides et al, 2014). Green water is the infiltrated rainfall held in the unsaturated soil zone (Rockström et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the changing area sown to winter wheat on crop water footprint in the North China Plain

Wang

Fischer

et al. 2015

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe serious water scarcity and groundwater over-exploitation problems of the North China Plain (NCP) have aroused worldwide concerns. Achieving a reduction in agricultural water use is critical, because agriculture is the largest water consumer in the NCP. New solutions to these problems may lie in changes in the area sown to winter wheat across the NCP. In this study, the water footprint (WF) was applied as an aggregative indicator to evaluate the impact of the changing area sown to winter wheat. A Chinese version of the AEZ model, the China-AEZ model, was used for the evaluation. The results showed: (1) Green water plays a more significant role in winter wheat production in the southern part of the NCP than in the north; about a half of the water requirements for winter wheat are met by green water in the southern part of the NCP, compared to only a third in the north. (2) As a result of the north-south shift in the area sown to winter wheat during the period 1998-2011, the WF, the green water footprint (WF green ) and the surface water footprint (WF s blue ) for winter wheat increased, respectively, by 459 × 10 6 m 3 yr −1

show abstract

Policy-relevant indicators for semi-arid nations: The water footprint of crop production and supply utilization of Cyprus

Cited by 61 publications

References 32 publications

Quantifying the human impact on water resources: a critical review of the water footprint concept

Quantifying the human impact on water resources: a critical review of the water footprint concept

Variability in the Water Footprint of Arable Crop Production across European Regions

Impact of the changing area sown to winter wheat on crop water footprint in the North China Plain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About