Water Footprint Assessment of Agricultural Production in Bilecik Province

Year 2024, Volume: 7 Issue: 5, 515 - 523, 15.09.2024

Hüseyin T. Gültaş

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1523858

Abstract

The freshwater sources are under serious pressure both in terms of quality characteristics due to pollution and in terms of quantity due to the increase in parameters such as temperature and evaporation under the influence of global warming. To ensure sustainable use of these resources, it is necessary to employ high-efficiency pressurized irrigation systems and cultivate plant species that are resilient to various stress factors and highly productive. In determining the water usage characteristics of plants, rapid atmospheric effects brought by climate change, plant water and temperature stress, soil moisture should be monitored, and water production indicators should be determined. In the water-intensive agricultural sector, monitoring the water footprint has become one of the important indicators in terms of ensuring water-food-energy sustainability, efficient use and fair sharing of water resources. This study aims to determine the water footprint of agricultural production in Bilecik province and its districts located in the transitional zone. Accordingly, values of crop and livestock production throughout the province and using a volume-based approach, the water footprint of crop production is estimated at 0.6 billion cubic meters (BCM), while the water footprint of livestock production is 0.5 BCM, resulting in a total agricultural water footprint of 1.1 BCM. In crop production, green water footprint constitutes 33%, blue water footprint 59%, and grey water footprint 8% of the total water footprint. The data obtained will form the basis for developing strategies in sustainable water and food management, aligned with climate change scenarios, to achieve sectoral supply-demand balance.

Keywords

Agriculture, Water usage, Effectiveness, Sustainability, Water management

Thanks

The author thanks to Dr. Buğra Erdem, the Director of Crop Production at the Bilecik Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry, for providing the data.

References

• Ababaei B, Etedali HR. 2017. Water footprint assessment of main cereals in Iran. Agric Water Manage, 179: 401-411.
• Ahi Y, Çakmak B. 2023. Sürdürülebilir kentsel su yönetimi: ankara ili su ayak izi yaklaşımı. In: Öktem MK, Çiftçi L, editors. Sürdürülebilirlik, Kent ve Doğa. Gazi Yayınevi Ankara, Türkiye, 1st ed., pp: 97-127.
• Anonymous. 2017. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change Bilecik Province 2016 Environmental Status Report. https://csb.gov.tr/en (accessed date: March 11, 2024).
• Anonymous. 2023. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Bilecik Provincial Directorate 2022 Report. https://csb.gov.tr/en (accessed date: March 11, 2024).
• Batan M. 2021. Planning the use of water in Şanlıurfa province, which struggles with drought: Water footprint analysis. J Engin Architect of Gazi University, 36(4): 2135–2149.
• Cai J, Xie R, Wang S, Deng Y, Sun D. 2022. Patterns and driving forces of the agricultural water footprint of Chinese cities. Sci Total Environ, 843: 156725.
• Casolani N, Pattara C, Liberatore L. 2016. Water and Carbon footprint perspective in Italian durum wheat production. Land Use Pol, 58: 394–402.
• Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY. 2004. Water footprints of nations. Value of Water Research Report Series; No. 16. Unesco-IHE Institute for Water Education, pp: 63.
• Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije H.H.G., 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, Ecol Econ, 60(1): 186-203.
• Çakmak B, Torun E. 2023. Konya kapalı havzası sulama şebekelerinde tarımsal su ayak izinin değerlendirilmesi. Harran Tarım Gıda Bil Der, 27(2): 239-252.
• DSI, 2022. General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, Bilecik Provincial Directorate 2022 Report, Ankara Türkiye, pp: 53.
• Ekinci B. 2015. Sample country practices for efficient use of water resources and applicability of these studies in our country. MSc Thesis, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 93.
• Ercin AE, Hoekstra AY. 2012. Carbon and water footprints: Concepts, Methodologies and Policy Responses. UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en (accessed date: March 11, 2024).
• Erdem E. 2021. Agricultural water footprint analysis in Seyhan, Ceyhan and Asian Basins. MSc Thesis, Batman University, Postgraduate Education Institute, Batman, Türkiye, pp: 67.
• Hoekstra AY. 2003. Virtual water: An introduction. Virtual Water Trade, 13: 108.
• Hoekstra AY. 2009. Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis. Ecol Econ, 68(7): 1963–1974.
• Hoekstra AY, Hung PQ. 2003. Virtual water trade. International expert meeting on virtual water trade. 12, pp: 1-244.
• Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM. 2012. The water footprint of humanity. PNAS, 109(9): 3232–3237.
• Hoekstra AY, Chapagain A, Martinez-Aldaya M, Mekonnen M. 2011. The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard. Earthscan publications, ISBN 978-1-84971-279-8, London, UK, pp: 248.
• Hoekstra AY, Booij MJ, Hunink JC, Meijer KS. 2012. Blue water footprint of agriculture, industry, households and water management in the Netherlands: An exploration of using the Netherlands
• Hydrological Instrument, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 58, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands, pp: 145.
• Hossain I, Imteaz M.A., Khastagir A. 2021. Water footprint: applying the water footprint assessment method to Australian agriculture. J Sci Food Agric, 101(10): 4090-4098.
• IPCC 2023. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp: 35-115.
• Lovarelli D, Bacenetti J, Fiala M. 2016. Water Footprint of crop productions: A review. Sci Total Environ, 548: 236-251.
• MGM 2023. Meteoroloji İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Bilecik İl meteoroloji verileri kayıtları. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/tahmin/il-ve-ilceler.aspx?il=Bilecik (accessed date: March 11, 2024).
• Mekonnen M, Hoekstra AY. 2011. National water footprint accounts: The green, blue and grey water National water footprint accounts: The green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption. Volume 1: Main Report. URL: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/wffdocs (accessed date: May 17, 2024)
• Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. 2012. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosyst, 15(3): 401– 415.
• Muratoğlu A. 2020. Üretimin su ayak izinin incelenmesi: Diyarbakır ili için bir vaka çalışması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2): 845-858.
• Notarnicola B, Sala S, Anton A, McLaren SJ, Saouter E, Sonesson U. 2017. The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. J Clean Prod, 140: 399–409.
• Novoa V, Ahumada-Rudolph R, Rojas O, Sáez K, De La Barrera F, Arumí J.L. 2019. Understanding agricultural water footprint variability to improve water management in Chile. Sci Total Environ, 670: 188-199.
• SYGM 2023. T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Su Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü Bülteni, https://www.suverimliligi.gov.tr/ulkemizde-havza-bazli-su-ayakizi-calismalari-devam-ediyor/ (accessed date: March 11, 2024).
• Vanham D, Bidoglio G. 2014. The water footprint of agricultural products in European river basins. Environ Res Letters, 9(6): 064007.
• Yang H, Long A, Zhang P, Deng X, Li J, Deng M. 2020. Evaluating agricultural water-use efficiency based on water footprint of crop values: a case study in Xinjiang of China. J Arid Land, 12: 580-593.
• Yousefi M, Khoramivafa M, Damghani AM. 2017. Water footprint and carbon footprint of the energy consumption in sunflower agroecosystems. ESPR, 24: 19827–19834.