Assessment of Water Resources Status Using the Water Footprint Concept: The Case of Tekirdağ Province

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 186 - 193, 15.03.2025

Hüseyin Tevfik Gültaş , Yeşim Ahi , Belgin Çakmak

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1624100

Öz

One of the fundamental steps in the protection and sustainability of water resources is monitoring and evaluation. By assessing the resources in terms of both quality and quantity, a clear depiction of the current situation can be established, which will form a solid inventory for the necessary actions. From the perspective of our country, the main issues concerning our water resources include the reduction in water quantity during periods of need due to excessive and uncontrolled use, the uncontrolled increase in pollution due to negligence linked to sectoral developments, and globally, the expected intense impact of climate change on the Mediterranean Basin, where we are located. The concept of the water footprint is one of the accepted methods for diagnosing the current state of water resources in terms of management planning and sustainability. The water footprint concept can effectively reveal how agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses impact water resources. In the present study, the agricultural water footprint of Tekirdağ, one of the most economically powerful provinces in the Thrace Region in terms of agriculture and industry, has been calculated and evaluated. Agriculture water footprint was found to be 1.33 billion cubic meters (BCM) in total, 0.61 BCM in crop production and 0.72 BCM in animal production. The green, blue and grey water footprint values for crop production were calculated as 0.11, 0.48 and 0.02 BCM, respectively. The results underscore the significant water demand of agricultural activities in Tekirdağ, highlighting the need for sustainable water management strategies to address resource utilization in crop and animal production.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Water management, Agricultural water footprint, Water resources, Sustainability, Agriculture

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because there was no study on animals or humans.

Kaynakça

• Ababaei B, Etedali H.R. 2017. Water footprint assessment of main cereals in Iran. Agric Water Manag, 179: 401-411.
• Ahi Y, Çakmak B. 2023. Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Su Yönetimi: Ankara İli Su Ayak İzi Yaklaşımı. In: Öktem MK, Çiftçi L, editors. Sürdürülebilirlik, Kent ve Doğa. Gazi Yayınevi Ankara, Türkiye, 1st ed., pp: 97-127.
• Anonymous. 2023a. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change Tekirdağ Province 2016 Environmental Status Report (in Turkish).
• Anonymous. 2023b. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Tekirdağ Provincial Directorate 2022 Report (in Turkish).
• 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.
• Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY. 2004. Water footprints of nations. Value of Water Research Report Series; No. 16. Unesco-IHE Institute for Water Education.
• 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. Evaluation of agricultural water footprint in Konya closed basin irrigation schemes. Harran J Agric Food Sci, 27(2): 239-252.
• DSI. 2022; General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, Provincial Directorate 2022 Report (in Turkish).
• Egea G, Castro-Valdecantos P, Gómez-Durán E, Munuera T, Domínguez-Niño JM, Nortes PA. 2024. Impact of Irrigation Management Decisions on the Water Footprint of Processing Tomatoes in Southern Spain. Agronomy (Basel), 14(8): 1863.
• Ercin AE, Hoekstra AY. 2012. Carbon and water footprints: Concepts, Methodologies and Policy Responses. UNESCO.
• Erdem E. 2021. Agricultural Water Footprint Analysis in Seyhan, Ceyhan and Asian Basins. MSc Thesis, Batman University, Postgraduate Education Institute, Batman, Türkiye, pp: 67.
• Gedik C, Gürdil, GA, Demirel B. 2023. Evaluation of Plant Residues: Samsun Province. BSJ Agri, 6(6): 694-699.
• 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 (hardback).
• 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.
• 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.
• Lovarelli D, Bacenetti J, Fiala M. 2016. Water Footprint of crop productions: A review. Sci Total Environ, 548: 236-251.
• 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. Assessment of water footprint of production: A case study for Diyarbakır province. Gazi Uni Fac Engin Archit J, 35(2): 845-858.
• 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.
• TSI. 2024. Turkish Statistical Institute database for Tekirdağ Province data’s. URL: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=tr (accessed date: November 02, 2024)
• TSMS. 2022. Turkish State Meteorological Service, Tekirdağ Provincial Meteorological Data Records.
• UN-Water 2024. Water and Climate Change. URL: https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-climate-change (accessed date: November 02, 2024)
• WMO. 2021. World Meteorological Organization 2021 State of Climate Services
• WMO. 2023. State of global water resources report 2023. WMO-No.1362, New York, USA, pp: 80.
• Vanham D, Bidoglio G. 2014. The water footprint of agricultural products in European river basins. Environ Res Lett, 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.