4.7 Article

Application of water footprint to olive growing systems in the Apulia region: a comparative assessment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 2407-2418

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.088

关键词

Olive oil sector; Freshwater consumption; Water footprint assessment; Blue water; Irrigation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agriculture is acknowledged worldwide as a great contributor to global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, in particular when there is no efficient management of the resources involved. Agriculture is also the largest freshwater consumer, accounting for almost 70% of the world's water withdrawals. Therefore, it is essential at the local, regional and global level to shift towards sustainable agriculture and food-production systems by using practices that are much less GHG emitting and, both fossil-fuel and water demanding but enable preserving yield, quality and safety of agro-foods. In this regard, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and other tools, such as Water, Carbon, Nitrogen and Ecological Footprints, are increasingly playing an important guiding role. In this context, this research was designed to compare Water Footprint (WF) of different olive agronomic cropping systems, which reduce water demand at the regional and global levels. Based upon results obtained, the high-density cropping system was found to be the most competitive due to the reduced WF(too compared with the other systems investigated. Hence, the authors recommend expanded implementation of agricultural practices designed to reduce the WF, to enhance environmental sustainability and to optimise management and ecological costs in the olive production sector. This research contributes to enhance the knowledge on the applicability and usefulness of foot-printing tools for assessing and enabling more environmentally sustainable agricultural systems for water usage. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据