Do Estimates of Water Productivity Enhance Understanding  of Farm-Level Water Management?

Wichelns, Dennis

doi:10.3390/w6040778

Cited by 37 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…WP was computed as the ratio between actual yield and total water use (TWU), where TWU is the sum of the infiltrated rainfall, the gross irrigation, thus including the leaching fraction and the seasonal variation of the soil water storage. In agreement with previous studies [48,49], WP is analyzed together with other performance indicators. Indicators relative to the economic criteria [24,49] consist of economic land productivity (ELP, €·ha −1 ), economic water productivity (EWP, €·m −3 ), irrigation investment costs per unit of land (IIC, €·ha −1 ), operation and maintenance costs per unit of land (OMC, €·ha −1 ) and economic water productivity ratio (EWPR, non-dimensional).…”

Section: Application Of Multi-criteria Analysis For the Selection Of supporting

confidence: 51%

Comparing Sprinkler and Surface Irrigation for Wheat Using Multi-Criteria Analysis: Water Saving vs. Economic Returns

Darouich

Cameira

Gonçalves

et al. 2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Coping with water scarcity using supplemental irrigation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the semi-arid northeast Syria is a great challenge for sustainable water use in agriculture. Graded borders and set sprinkler systems were compared using multi-criteria analysis. Alternative solutions for surface irrigation and for sprinkler systems were developed with the SADREG and the PROASPER design models, respectively. For each alternative, two deficit irrigation strategies were considered, which were characterized using indicators relative to irrigation water use, yields and water productivity, including farm economic returns. Alternatives were ranked considering two contrasting priorities: economic returns and water saving. A first step in ranking led to a selection of graded borders with and without precise land levelling and of solid set and semi-permanent sprinkler systems. Precise-levelled borders were better for water saving, while non-precise ones ranked higher for economic returns. Semi-permanent set systems have been shown to be better in economic terms and similar to solid set systems when water saving is prioritized. Semi-permanent sprinkler systems rank first when comparing all type of systems together regardless of the considered deficit irrigation strategy. Likely, border irrigation is appropriate when wheat is in rotation with cotton if the latter is surface irrigated. When peace becomes effective, appropriate economic incentives and training for farmers are required to implement innovative approaches.

show abstract

Section: Application Of Multi-criteria Analysis For the Selection Of supporting

confidence: 51%

Comparing Sprinkler and Surface Irrigation for Wheat Using Multi-Criteria Analysis: Water Saving vs. Economic Returns

Darouich

Cameira

Gonçalves

et al. 2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also important to note that the ambition of farmers often is to improve yield, while the ambitions of the basin are to reduce water consumption. As such, the desired approach defined at the basin level may conflict with that at the farm level [89]. Furthermore, it has been argued that CWP does little to improve the understanding of farm-level management [89].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, the desired approach defined at the basin level may conflict with that at the farm level [89]. Furthermore, it has been argued that CWP does little to improve the understanding of farm-level management [89]. This highlights the need to not only identify land and water management practices associated with high and low CWP, but the component of CWP (i.e., yield or ETa) that is being most influenced by the practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Global Goals to Local Gains—A Framework for Crop Water Productivity

Blatchford

Karimi

Bastiaanssen

et al. 2018

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop water productivity (CWP) has become a recognised indicator in assessing the state of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 6.4—to substantially increase water use efficiency. This indicator, while useful at a global scale, is not comprehensive at a local scale. To fill this gap, this research proposes a CWP framework, that takes advantage of the spatio-temporal availability of remote sensing, that identifies CWP goals and sub-indicators specific to the needs of the targeted domain. Three sub-indicators are considered; (i) a global water productivity score (GWPS), (ii) a local water productivity score (LWPS) and (iii) a land and water use productivity score (YWPS). The GWPS places local CWP in the global context and focuses on maximised CWP. The LWPS differentiates yield zones, normalising for potential product, and focuses on minimising water consumption. The YWPS focuses simultaneously on improving land and water productivity equally. The CWP framework was applied to potato in the West Bank, Palestine. Three management practices were compared under each sub-indicator. The case study showed that fields with high and low performance were different under each sub-indicator. The performance associated with different management practices was also different under each sub-indicator. For example, a winter rotation had a higher performance under the YWPS, the fall rotation had a higher performance under the LWPS and under the GWPS there was little difference. The results showed, that depending on the basin goal, not only do the sub-indicators required change, but also the management practices or approach required to reach those basin goals. This highlights the importance of providing a CWP framework with multiple sub-indicators, suitable to basin needs, to ensure that meeting the SDG 6.4 goal does not jeopardise local objectives.

show abstract

“…In addition to describing only partial factor productivity, estimates of water productivity represent an average, rather than an incremental, measure of water's contribution to output (Wichelns 2014). Average measures are not helpful in determining optimal input use, either from the farm-level or societal perspective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Water productivity and food security: considering more carefully the farm-level perspective

Wichelns¹

2015

Food Sec.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing demands on water resources in many areas, many authors are calling for increases in water productivity in agriculture to ensure sufficient food production in the future. While compelling at first glance, the notion of increasing water productivity is not supported by an underlying economic rationale and is not necessarily consistent with the goals of individual farmers regarding net revenue or subsistence production. Water productivity, as defined in the literature, is a ratio describing the average amount of output or value associated with the amount of water applied or transpired in crop production. As such, the ratio is not a sufficient indicator of economic efficiency and cannot be relied on to determine desirable adjustments in regional water allocations or in farm-level irrigation strategies. I describe the shortcomings of water productivity as an indicator of optimal water use, with a focus on farm-level decisions regarding crop production and irrigation. I note also the importance of considering more carefully the full set of inputs that contribute to crop production, and the risk and uncertainty that influence farmlevel decisions. Water productivity does not address these inherent characteristics of agricultural production, which must be considered when evaluating policies and investments to enhance rural livelihoods and ensure food security.

show abstract

Do Estimates of Water Productivity Enhance Understanding of Farm-Level Water Management?

Cited by 37 publications

References 40 publications

Comparing Sprinkler and Surface Irrigation for Wheat Using Multi-Criteria Analysis: Water Saving vs. Economic Returns

Comparing Sprinkler and Surface Irrigation for Wheat Using Multi-Criteria Analysis: Water Saving vs. Economic Returns

From Global Goals to Local Gains—A Framework for Crop Water Productivity

Water productivity and food security: considering more carefully the farm-level perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About