Economic evaluation of green water in cereal crop production: A production function approach

Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna; Sylla, Marta; Zoumides, Christos

doi:10.1016/j.wre.2019.100148

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is equal to the amount of produced output if we consume one unit of additional input. We need to multiply marginal productivity by the output market price to obtain the monetary value of non‐marketed input (Grammatikopoulou et al, 2019). The general form of production function is defined as follows:

Y = f ((),, X_{j}, β) + ɛ_{i},

where Y is the production amount of the agriculture commodity, X j is use of production input j , β is function parameters and ɛ i is coefficient of random error (Alropy et al, 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of Zayandehrood River water values for agriculture and the environment

Karami

Yazdani

Saleh

et al. 2020

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

River water management is challenging not only since they are open systems with changing physical structures, but also because the water values are mostly unknown over varied sectors. If policymakers grasp water values, water management will be more efficient. This research intends to examine the values of water in agriculture, which receives the most substantial portion of water resources, with the values of water in the environment in Isfahan located in the Zayandehrood River basin of Iran. The consequences of contingent valuation and production function methods revealed that per cubic metre value of water is 13 times higher in the environment than agriculture. The government should reconsider the higher value of the environment despite it is a non‐market value. The contingent valuation model additionally proved that women exhibited 21% more willingness to pay than men in order to protect the environment; however, they are paid less by 36%.

show abstract

Y = f ((),, X_{j}, β) + ɛ_{i},

where Y is the production amount of the agriculture commodity, X j is use of production input j , β is function parameters and ɛ i is coefficient of random error (Alropy et al, 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of Zayandehrood River water values for agriculture and the environment

Karami

Yazdani

Saleh

et al. 2020

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where the coefficient 𝛼 , is characteristic of the ecosystem service k and of the land cover l and is representative of the contribution of the land cover in the provision of the ecosystem service. The exponents 𝛾 , , are characteristic of the land use, climate variable or biophysical variable 𝑖 ∈ {𝐸, 𝑊, 𝑅, 𝑇, 𝑂} for the ecosystem service k and the land cover l. The Cobb-Douglas function corresponds to a weighted product of factors and allows limited substitutability between them (in contract to the linear function that allows complete substitutability) (Grammatikopoulou et al 2020;Zhang et al 2020).…”

Section: Model Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land sharing strategies for addressing the trade-off between carbon storage and crop production in France

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing land for trade-off between crop production (CP) and carbon storage (CS) is important for facing the increased need of food and of creating carbon sinks. We studied land-use-based strategies for softening such trade-off, with a particular attention to the role of intensification. We calibrated a statistical model linking land cover, land use, climatic and biophysical variables to CP and CS in France at the resolution of 10 km x 10 km.We developed four optimization scenarios: maximization at the French scale of CS (scenario 1), of CP (2), joint maximization of CS and CP without (3) and with (4) minimization of total energy input. Results of the monoobjective scenarios ((1) and ( 2)) enhanced one ecosystem services while decreasing the other; in scenario (3) both ecosystem services could be increased at the same time (+2.1% for CS and +9.6% for CP) with a land sharing approach (decrease and intensification of annual crops with an increase of forest); in scenario (4) the minimization of energy input caused a lower increase in both ecosystem services (only +1% for CS and +1.5% for CP), however the joint increase could be obtained with an expansion of heterogeneous agricultural land (land sharing approach). Comparing optimization scenarios with different number of objectives made it possible to discuss the role of each objectives. The result of scenario (4) was the most realistic and highlighted the importance of heterogeneous agricultural land (e.g., mixed-crop agriculture, agroforestry, associations between permanent and annual crops) and practices for enhancing soil carbon storage.

show abstract

“…Notably, the modelling effort captures the concept of consumers' environmental sensitivity with regard to blue WF efficiency as a supply chain profitability factor. In addition, the economic evaluation of the green WF to the overall production value of wine, as inspired by the study of Grammatikopoulou et al [9] for the case of cereals, is highly recommended considering that the majority of wine grapes across the Mediterranean are grown under rainfed conditions. To a greater extent, the economic water productivity could be combined with water scarcity indicators to account for the inter-annual variability of the green and blue WFs at a regional level to improve the management of grapes' production, supply, and wine trade in the winemaking sector [62].…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The winemaking efficiency in terms of freshwater use can be expressed through the water footprint (WF) concept, which refers to the total volume of freshwater consumed and polluted at national, corporate, or product levels [8]. Specifically, WF is a multidimensional indicator that consists of three components: (i) green water addresses the absorption of rainwater by plants (i.e., the proportion of precipitation that infiltrates into the unsaturated soil zone and is temporarily stored in soil and vegetation canopy [9]), (ii) blue water refers to the consumption of surface or groundwater during irrigation and processing activities, and (iii) grey water constitutes the freshwater quantity used for assimilating pollutants during farming and manufacturing given specific water quality standards [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Water Footprint Review of Italian Wine: Drivers, Barriers, and Practices for Sustainable Stewardship

Aivazidou

Tsolakis

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wine constitutes the dominant Italian agricultural product with respect to both production quantity and economic value. Italy is the top wine producer worldwide in terms of volume and the second one below France in terms of national income. As the Italian agricultural production accounts for 85% of the national freshwater appropriation, the country’s agricultural sector strains freshwater resources, especially in the central and southern regions, which constitute important winemaking areas in terms of quantity and quality. To this end, we first perform a review of the existing research efforts on wine water footprint assessment to investigate the water dynamics of wine production in Italy compared to the rest of the world. The results indicate a prevalence of studies on the water footprint of Italian wine, emphasising the need for deeper research on the sector’s water efficiency. Then, we aim at exploring the major drivers, barriers, and good practises for systematic water stewardship in the Italian winemaking industry, considering the product and territorial characteristics. This research is anticipated to contribute towards providing insights for practitioners in the Italian wine sector to develop water-friendly corporate schemes for enhancing the added value of their products.

show abstract

Economic evaluation of green water in cereal crop production: A production function approach

Cited by 17 publications

References 53 publications

A comparison of Zayandehrood River water values for agriculture and the environment

A comparison of Zayandehrood River water values for agriculture and the environment

Land sharing strategies for addressing the trade-off between carbon storage and crop production in France

A Water Footprint Review of Italian Wine: Drivers, Barriers, and Practices for Sustainable Stewardship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About