2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The water footprint of sugarcane and cassava in northern Thailand

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The average data that found in this study is 178.32 m 3 /ton. Another average data that of global and Northern Thailand were 210 and 202 m 3 /ton [7,12] respectively. Figures 5-6 show about the blue water footprint are generally scarcer and lower than green water footprint in eastern Thailand.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The average data that found in this study is 178.32 m 3 /ton. Another average data that of global and Northern Thailand were 210 and 202 m 3 /ton [7,12] respectively. Figures 5-6 show about the blue water footprint are generally scarcer and lower than green water footprint in eastern Thailand.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The global average of water footprint of sugarcane [5] is 210 m 3 /ton. And, water footprint of sugarcane for northern Thailand [12] is 202 m 3 /ton. The water footprint eastern Thailand for sugarcane is lower than the global average.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The global average WF of sugarcane was reported to be 209 m 3 /t, but wide variations in the WF of sugar and bioethanol production are reported from different countries [22]. In a study in Thailand, a sugarcane WF of 226 m [23]. Variations in WF are basically due to crop type, agricultural practices, climate conditions, and industrial water utilization efficiency [16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In studying sugarcane and cassava WF in northern Thailand, Kongboon & Sampattagul (2012) found differences in the amounts of freshwater use determined by several factors, which included climate, crop characteristics and agricultural production system, all of which vary depending on the region. Bocchiola et al (2013) analysed WF in the Po valley, which is one of the most productive agricultural areas within Europe maize fields.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%