4.7 Article

Comparing local and global water scarcity information in determining the water scarcity footprint of potato cultivation in Great Britain

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 87, Issue -, Pages 666-674

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.075

Keywords

Blue water; Impact assessment; Potato; Water footprint; Water risk; Water scarcity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Great Britain (GB), more water is abstracted from surface and groundwater resources for the irrigation of potatoes than for any other crop. This abstraction occurs in the driest catchments and at the driest times of year, and therefore has the potential to exacerbate pressures on water supplies and aquatic ecology. The water scarcity footprint is a metric that describes the impact of an activity on the water scarcity in a locality. In this paper, we use the concept to estimate the volume of blue water consumed in potato production in an average year for the potato growing regions of GB. This has been contextualised by weighting the water consumption according to a global map of water scarcity (Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010) and a local assessment of water resource availability (Environment Agency, 2002). Average blue water consumption for the cultivation of potatoes in Great Britain is 61 Mm(3) per year, equivalent to 11 m(3)/t. The global map of water scarcity was shown to be insufficient for identifying hotspots, however the combination of water consumption estimates and local water resource availability assessments allowed the identification of catchments where potato production may be contributing to water scarcity. The East of England was identified as a hotspot of water related risk for potato production due to the large area of production, high irrigation need and the fact that many of the catchments are already over abstracted or over licenced. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available