Evaluation of Water Footprint of Crop Production Variability in Lake Urmia Basin using LMDI Method

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

The effective indices such as water footprint should be considered in optimal allocation of water resources. In this study, the water footprint index with considering the direct and indirect water consumptions in three components of blue, green and grey water resources was applied to evaluate the total amount of water consumption in crop production of Lake Urmia basin. The LMDI (Logarithmic mean divisia index) approach was applied to determine the impact of the different factors on the variability of water footprint. The LMDI index showed the weighted sum of relative changes in the effective parameters. According to the results, although a reduction trend in the calculated water footprint components during the studied years (2003-2010) was observed, there were some irregular trends and changes in the amount of each component of water footprint at the same period. Irrigation systems and agricultural activities in the region were identified as increasing parameters while crop yield was a decreasing parameter in the water footprint changes. The maximum amount of total water footprint was related to 2004, in which the blue, green and grey water footprint values were 23419, 8832 and 2437 m3 ton-1, respectively. Also, the minimum amount of total water footprint was related to 2006, in which the blue, green and grey water footprint values were 19056, 7562 and 2076 m3 ton-1, respectively.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

AghaKouchak A, Norouzi H, Madani K, Mirchi A, Azarderakhsh M, Nazemi N, Nasrollahi N, Mehran M, Farahmand A and Hasanzadeh E, 2015. Aral Sea syndrome desiccates Lake Urmia: call for action. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41(1): 307-311.
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D and Smith M, 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements.  FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, FAO, ISBN 92-5-104219-5.
Anonymous, 2010a. CROPWAT 8.0 model’, FAO, Rome, www.fao.org/nr/water/infores databases_cropwat.html.
Anonymous, 2010b. AQUACROP 3.1’, FAO, Rome, www.fao.org/nr/water/aquacrop.html.
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije HHG, and Gautam R, 2006. The water footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecological Economics 60 (1): 186–203.
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, 2011. The blue, green and grey water footprint of rice from production and consumption perspectives. Ecological Economics 70: 749–758.
Feng K, Ling Siu Y, Guan D and Hubacek K, 2012.  Assessing regional virtual water flows and water footprints in the Yellow River Basin, China: A consumption based approach. Applied Geography 32: 691-701.
Gerbens-Leenes PW, Mekonnen MM and Hoekstra AY, 2013. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resources and Industry 1(2): 25–36.
Hoekstra AY, 2007. Human Appropriation of Natural Capital: Comparing Ecological Footprint and Water Footprint Analysis. Value of the Water Research Report Series No. 23 UNESCO-IHE, Delft, and the Netherlands.
Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, 2007. The water footprints of Morocco and the Netherlands: Global water use as a result of domestic consumption of agricultural commodities. Ecological Economics 64: 143–151.
Hoekstra AY, Hung PQ, 2002. Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11, UNESCOIHE, Delft, The Netherlands.
Hoekstra AY, Hung PQ, 2005. Globalization of water resources: International virtual water flows in relation to crop trade. Global Environmental Change 15(1): 45-56.
Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM and Mekonnen MM, 2011. The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard, Earthscan, London, UK.
Herath I, Green S, Horne D, Singh R, and Clothier B, 2014. Quantifying and reducing the water footprint of rain-fed potato production, part I: measuring the net use of blue and green water. Cleaner Production 81: 111-119.
Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY, 2014. Water footprint benchmarks for crop production: A first global assessment. Ecological Indicators 46: 214-223.
Rodriguez CI, de Galarreta VR, and Kruse EE, 2015. Analysis of water footprint of potato production in the pampean region of Argentina. Cleaner Production 90: 91–96.
Rost S, Gerten D, Bondeau A, Lucht W, Rohwer J, Schaphoff S, 2008. Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global water system. Water Resources Research 44(9): 1-17.
Van Oel PR, Mekonnen MM and Hoekstra AY, 2009.  The external water footprint of the Netherlands: Geographically-explicit quantification and impact assessment. Ecological Economics 69: 82–92.
Wang YB, Wu PT, Engel BA, and Sun SK, 2015. Comparison of volumetric and stress-weighted water footprint ofgrain products in China. Ecological Indicators 48: 324–333.
Yu Y, Hubacek K, Feng K and Guan D, 2010. Assessing regional and global water footprints for the UK. Ecological Economics 69: 1140–1147.
Xu Y, Huang K, Yu Y, and Wang X, 2015. Changes in water footprint of crop production in Beijing from 1978 to 2012: a logarithmic mean Divisia index decomposition analysis. Cleaner Production 87: 180-187.
Zhang GP, Hoekstra AY and Tickner D, 2012. Proceedings of the Session ‘Solving the Water Crisis: Common Action toward a Sustainable Water Footprint’. Planet under Pressure Conference, London, 26 March.
Water and Soil Science
Volume 26, 3-2
December 2016
Pages 199-210

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics