The Experts below are selected from a list of 186354 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The water Footprint of food aid
Sustainability, 2015Co-Authors: Nicole D. Jackson, Megan Konar, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Food aid is a critical component of the global food system, particularly when emergency situations arise. For the first time, we evaluate the water Footprint of food aid. To do this, we draw on food aid data from theWorld Food Programme and virtual water content estimates from WaterStat. We find that the total water Footprint of food aid was 10 km3 in 2005, which represents approximately 0.5% of the water Footprint of food trade and 2.0% of the water Footprint of land grabbing (i.e., water appropriation associated with large agricultural land deals). The United States is by far the largest food aid donor and contributes 82% of the water Footprint of food aid. The countries that receive the most water embodied in aid are Ethiopia, Sudan, North Korea, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Notably, we find that there is significant overlap between countries that receive food aid and those that have their land grabbed. Multivariate regression results indicate that donor water Footprints are driven by political and environmental variables, whereas recipient water Footprints are driven by land grabbing and food indicators.
-
Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water Footprint accounting: A case study for the Yellow River Basin
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2014Co-Authors: La Zhuo, Mesfin Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Water Footprint Assessment is a quickly growing field of research, but as yet little attention has been paid to the uncertainties involved. This study investigates the sensitivity of water Footprint estimates to changes in important input variables and quantifies the size of uncertainty in water Footprint estimates. The study focuses on the green and blue water Footprint of producing maize, soybean, rice and wheat in the Yellow River Basin in the period 1996-2005. A grid-based daily water balance model at a 5 by 5 arc minute resolution was applied to compute green and blue water Footprints of the four crops in the Yellow River Basin in the period considered. The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis focused on the effects on water Footprint estimates at basin level (in m3/ton) from four key input variables: precipitation (PR), reference evapotranspiration (ET0), crop coefficient (Kc) and crop calendar. The one-at-a-time method was carried out to analyse the sensitivity of the water Footprint of crops to changes in the input variables. Uncertainties in crop water Footprint estimates were quantified through Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the water Footprint of crops is most sensitive to ET0 and Kc, followed by crop calendar and PR. Blue water Footprints were more sensitive to input variability than green water Footprints. The smaller the annual blue water Footprint, the higher its sensitivity to changes in PR, ET0 and Kc. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop due to combined uncertainties in climatic inputs (PR and ET0) were about ± 20% (at 95% confidence interval). The effect of uncertainties in ET0 was dominant compared to that of precipitation. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop as a result of combined key input uncertainties were on average ± 26% (at 95% confidence level). The sensitivities and uncertainties differ across crop types, with highest sensitivities and uncertainties for soybean.
-
humanity s unsustainable environmental Footprint
Science, 2014Co-Authors: Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Thomas WiedmannAbstract:Within the context of Earth’s limited natural resources and assimilation capacity, the current environmental Footprint of humankind is not sustainable. Assessing land, water, energy, material, and other Footprints along supply chains is paramount in understanding the sustainability, efficiency, and equity of resource use from the perspective of producers, consumers, and government. We review current Footprints and relate those to maximum sustainable levels, highlighting the need for future work on combining Footprints, assessing trade-offs between them, improving computational techniques, estimating maximum sustainable Footprint levels, and benchmarking efficiency of resource use. Ultimately, major transformative changes in the global economy are necessary to reduce humanity’s environmental Footprint to sustainable levels
-
Humanity’s unsustainable environmental Footprint
Science (New York N.Y.), 2014Co-Authors: Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Thomas WiedmannAbstract:Within the context of Earth’s limited natural resources and assimilation capacity, the current environmental Footprint of humankind is not sustainable. Assessing land, water, energy, material, and other Footprints along supply chains is paramount in understanding the sustainability, efficiency, and equity of resource use from the perspective of producers, consumers, and government. We review current Footprints and relate those to maximum sustainable levels, highlighting the need for future work on combining Footprints, assessing trade-offs between them, improving computational techniques, estimating maximum sustainable Footprint levels, and benchmarking efficiency of resource use. Ultimately, major transformative changes in the global economy are necessary to reduce humanity’s environmental Footprint to sustainable levels
-
Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water Footprint accounting: a case study for the Yellow River Basin
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2014Co-Authors: La Zhuo, Mesfin M. Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Abstract. Water Footprint Assessment is a quickly growing field of research, but as yet little attention has been paid to the uncertainties involved. This study investigates the sensitivity of water Footprint estimates to changes in important input variables and quantifies the size of uncertainty in water Footprint estimates. The study focuses on the green (from rainfall) and blue (from irrigation) water Footprint of producing maize, soybean, rice, and wheat in the Yellow River Basin in the period 1996–2005. A grid-based daily water balance model at a 5 by 5 arcmin resolution was applied to compute green and blue water Footprints of the four crops in the Yellow River Basin in the period considered. The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis focused on the effects on water Footprint estimates at basin level (in m3 t−1) of four key input variables: precipitation (PR), reference evapotranspiration (ET0), crop coefficient (Kc), and crop calendar. The one-at-a-time method was carried out to analyse the sensitivity of the water Footprint of crops to fractional changes of individual input variables. Uncertainties in crop water Footprint estimates were quantified through Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the water Footprint of crops is most sensitive to ET0 and Kc, followed by crop calendar and PR. Blue water Footprints were more sensitive to input variability than green water Footprints. The smaller the annual blue water Footprint, the higher its sensitivity to changes in PR, ET0, and Kc. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop due to combined uncertainties in climatic inputs (PR and ET0) were about ±20% (at 95% confidence interval). The effect of uncertainties in ET0 was dominant compared to that of precipitation. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop as a result of combined key input uncertainties were on average ±26% (at 95% confidence level). The sensitivities and uncertainties differ across crop types, with highest sensitivities and uncertainties for soybean.
Zdravko Kravanja - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Significance of environmental Footprints for evaluating sustainability and security of development
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:This contribution presents the selected categories of environmental Footprints related to the planetary boundaries and threats to human security. The analysis covers the Footprint family of indicators that usually consists of ecological, carbon or more precisely greenhouse gas and water Footprints and also sometimes the energy Footprint. The other assessed Footprints that are important for ecosystem health in regard to water, health, food, and land and species security are nitrogen, phosphorus, biodiversity and land Footprints, which have already transgressed the planetary boundaries and are therefore outside the safe operating space. The importance of the various Footprints is discussed and the simultaneous analysis of Footprints is emphasised as a major direction of research and practice. The comprehensive set of environmental impacts, e.g. set of presented Footprints in this contribution, should be considered and should incorporate the burdening and unburdening concept from the life cycle perspective. Some applications of the presented environmental Footprints are offered, and conclusions and remarks provided for future observation.Graphical Abstract
-
Overview of environmental Footprints
Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability, 2015Co-Authors: Lidija Čuček, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:With climate change and other negative environmental impacts, there is an increased interest in measuring and reducing environmental burdens. However, the question is how to measure and reduce environmental burdens. Recently, the researchers, organizations, policy-makers, and others are putting forth efforts to develop concepts and metrics measuring environmental sustainability. Among those concepts and metrics, environmental Footprints are gaining increasing popularity and play an ever-increasing role in sustainability evaluation and research. Footprints have become ubiquitous for researchers, policy-makers, and the general public. Over the past years, carbon Footprint has been used as an environmental protection indicator almost exclusively. Evaluations have moved to include a variety of other Footprints; however, there is no generally accepted Footprint or Footprint family that represents the overall impact on the environment. This chapter gives an overview of environmental Footprints as indicators defined to date (June 2014) that can be used to measure sustainability for environmental decision-making.
-
dealing with high dimensionality of criteria in multiobjective optimization of biomass energy supply network
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:This contribution presents a novel dimensionality reduction method—a Representative Objectives Method (ROM)—applied to environmental Footprints, by which the number of environmental Footprints within the multiobjective optimization (MOO) is reduced to a minimum number of representative ones. The number of Footprints is reduced according to similarities among those Footprints showing similar behavior. The proposed method consists of three steps: (i) generation of solution points for analyzing similarities among Footprints, (ii) identification of similarities among Footprints, and the selection of representative Footprints (those Footprints that show similar behavior are grouped into subsets, each subset’s representative Footprint is then selected), and (iii) the performing of MOO for maximizing profit with respect to the representative Footprints. In this way, the dimensionality of the criteria within the MOO can be significantly reduced. Rather than obtaining the remaining Footprints through correlations ...
-
a review of Footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:Abstract This study presents an overview of Footprints as defined indicators that can be used to measure sustainability. An overview of the definitions and units of measurement associated with environmental, social, and economic Footprints is important because the definitions of Footprints vary and are often expressed unclearly. Composite Footprints combining two or more individual Footprints are also assessed. These combinations produce multi-objective optimisation problems. Several tools for Footprint(s)' evaluation are presented, including some of the numerous carbon Footprint calculators, available calculators for other Footprints, some ecological Footprints-based, graph-based, and mathematical programming tools. A comprehensive overview is offered of Footprint-based sustainability assessment.
Lidija Cucek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Significance of environmental Footprints for evaluating sustainability and security of development
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:This contribution presents the selected categories of environmental Footprints related to the planetary boundaries and threats to human security. The analysis covers the Footprint family of indicators that usually consists of ecological, carbon or more precisely greenhouse gas and water Footprints and also sometimes the energy Footprint. The other assessed Footprints that are important for ecosystem health in regard to water, health, food, and land and species security are nitrogen, phosphorus, biodiversity and land Footprints, which have already transgressed the planetary boundaries and are therefore outside the safe operating space. The importance of the various Footprints is discussed and the simultaneous analysis of Footprints is emphasised as a major direction of research and practice. The comprehensive set of environmental impacts, e.g. set of presented Footprints in this contribution, should be considered and should incorporate the burdening and unburdening concept from the life cycle perspective. Some applications of the presented environmental Footprints are offered, and conclusions and remarks provided for future observation.Graphical Abstract
-
dealing with high dimensionality of criteria in multiobjective optimization of biomass energy supply network
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:This contribution presents a novel dimensionality reduction method—a Representative Objectives Method (ROM)—applied to environmental Footprints, by which the number of environmental Footprints within the multiobjective optimization (MOO) is reduced to a minimum number of representative ones. The number of Footprints is reduced according to similarities among those Footprints showing similar behavior. The proposed method consists of three steps: (i) generation of solution points for analyzing similarities among Footprints, (ii) identification of similarities among Footprints, and the selection of representative Footprints (those Footprints that show similar behavior are grouped into subsets, each subset’s representative Footprint is then selected), and (iii) the performing of MOO for maximizing profit with respect to the representative Footprints. In this way, the dimensionality of the criteria within the MOO can be significantly reduced. Rather than obtaining the remaining Footprints through correlations ...
-
a review of Footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:Abstract This study presents an overview of Footprints as defined indicators that can be used to measure sustainability. An overview of the definitions and units of measurement associated with environmental, social, and economic Footprints is important because the definitions of Footprints vary and are often expressed unclearly. Composite Footprints combining two or more individual Footprints are also assessed. These combinations produce multi-objective optimisation problems. Several tools for Footprint(s)' evaluation are presented, including some of the numerous carbon Footprint calculators, available calculators for other Footprints, some ecological Footprints-based, graph-based, and mathematical programming tools. A comprehensive overview is offered of Footprint-based sustainability assessment.
La Zhuo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water Footprint accounting: A case study for the Yellow River Basin
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2014Co-Authors: La Zhuo, Mesfin Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Water Footprint Assessment is a quickly growing field of research, but as yet little attention has been paid to the uncertainties involved. This study investigates the sensitivity of water Footprint estimates to changes in important input variables and quantifies the size of uncertainty in water Footprint estimates. The study focuses on the green and blue water Footprint of producing maize, soybean, rice and wheat in the Yellow River Basin in the period 1996-2005. A grid-based daily water balance model at a 5 by 5 arc minute resolution was applied to compute green and blue water Footprints of the four crops in the Yellow River Basin in the period considered. The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis focused on the effects on water Footprint estimates at basin level (in m3/ton) from four key input variables: precipitation (PR), reference evapotranspiration (ET0), crop coefficient (Kc) and crop calendar. The one-at-a-time method was carried out to analyse the sensitivity of the water Footprint of crops to changes in the input variables. Uncertainties in crop water Footprint estimates were quantified through Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the water Footprint of crops is most sensitive to ET0 and Kc, followed by crop calendar and PR. Blue water Footprints were more sensitive to input variability than green water Footprints. The smaller the annual blue water Footprint, the higher its sensitivity to changes in PR, ET0 and Kc. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop due to combined uncertainties in climatic inputs (PR and ET0) were about ± 20% (at 95% confidence interval). The effect of uncertainties in ET0 was dominant compared to that of precipitation. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop as a result of combined key input uncertainties were on average ± 26% (at 95% confidence level). The sensitivities and uncertainties differ across crop types, with highest sensitivities and uncertainties for soybean.
-
Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water Footprint accounting: a case study for the Yellow River Basin
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2014Co-Authors: La Zhuo, Mesfin M. Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Abstract. Water Footprint Assessment is a quickly growing field of research, but as yet little attention has been paid to the uncertainties involved. This study investigates the sensitivity of water Footprint estimates to changes in important input variables and quantifies the size of uncertainty in water Footprint estimates. The study focuses on the green (from rainfall) and blue (from irrigation) water Footprint of producing maize, soybean, rice, and wheat in the Yellow River Basin in the period 1996–2005. A grid-based daily water balance model at a 5 by 5 arcmin resolution was applied to compute green and blue water Footprints of the four crops in the Yellow River Basin in the period considered. The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis focused on the effects on water Footprint estimates at basin level (in m3 t−1) of four key input variables: precipitation (PR), reference evapotranspiration (ET0), crop coefficient (Kc), and crop calendar. The one-at-a-time method was carried out to analyse the sensitivity of the water Footprint of crops to fractional changes of individual input variables. Uncertainties in crop water Footprint estimates were quantified through Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the water Footprint of crops is most sensitive to ET0 and Kc, followed by crop calendar and PR. Blue water Footprints were more sensitive to input variability than green water Footprints. The smaller the annual blue water Footprint, the higher its sensitivity to changes in PR, ET0, and Kc. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop due to combined uncertainties in climatic inputs (PR and ET0) were about ±20% (at 95% confidence interval). The effect of uncertainties in ET0 was dominant compared to that of precipitation. The uncertainties in the total water Footprint of a crop as a result of combined key input uncertainties were on average ±26% (at 95% confidence level). The sensitivities and uncertainties differ across crop types, with highest sensitivities and uncertainties for soybean.
Jiří Jaromír Klemeš - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Significance of environmental Footprints for evaluating sustainability and security of development
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:This contribution presents the selected categories of environmental Footprints related to the planetary boundaries and threats to human security. The analysis covers the Footprint family of indicators that usually consists of ecological, carbon or more precisely greenhouse gas and water Footprints and also sometimes the energy Footprint. The other assessed Footprints that are important for ecosystem health in regard to water, health, food, and land and species security are nitrogen, phosphorus, biodiversity and land Footprints, which have already transgressed the planetary boundaries and are therefore outside the safe operating space. The importance of the various Footprints is discussed and the simultaneous analysis of Footprints is emphasised as a major direction of research and practice. The comprehensive set of environmental impacts, e.g. set of presented Footprints in this contribution, should be considered and should incorporate the burdening and unburdening concept from the life cycle perspective. Some applications of the presented environmental Footprints are offered, and conclusions and remarks provided for future observation.Graphical Abstract
-
Overview of environmental Footprints
Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability, 2015Co-Authors: Lidija Čuček, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:With climate change and other negative environmental impacts, there is an increased interest in measuring and reducing environmental burdens. However, the question is how to measure and reduce environmental burdens. Recently, the researchers, organizations, policy-makers, and others are putting forth efforts to develop concepts and metrics measuring environmental sustainability. Among those concepts and metrics, environmental Footprints are gaining increasing popularity and play an ever-increasing role in sustainability evaluation and research. Footprints have become ubiquitous for researchers, policy-makers, and the general public. Over the past years, carbon Footprint has been used as an environmental protection indicator almost exclusively. Evaluations have moved to include a variety of other Footprints; however, there is no generally accepted Footprint or Footprint family that represents the overall impact on the environment. This chapter gives an overview of environmental Footprints as indicators defined to date (June 2014) that can be used to measure sustainability for environmental decision-making.
-
dealing with high dimensionality of criteria in multiobjective optimization of biomass energy supply network
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:This contribution presents a novel dimensionality reduction method—a Representative Objectives Method (ROM)—applied to environmental Footprints, by which the number of environmental Footprints within the multiobjective optimization (MOO) is reduced to a minimum number of representative ones. The number of Footprints is reduced according to similarities among those Footprints showing similar behavior. The proposed method consists of three steps: (i) generation of solution points for analyzing similarities among Footprints, (ii) identification of similarities among Footprints, and the selection of representative Footprints (those Footprints that show similar behavior are grouped into subsets, each subset’s representative Footprint is then selected), and (iii) the performing of MOO for maximizing profit with respect to the representative Footprints. In this way, the dimensionality of the criteria within the MOO can be significantly reduced. Rather than obtaining the remaining Footprints through correlations ...
-
a review of Footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012Co-Authors: Lidija Cucek, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Zdravko KravanjaAbstract:Abstract This study presents an overview of Footprints as defined indicators that can be used to measure sustainability. An overview of the definitions and units of measurement associated with environmental, social, and economic Footprints is important because the definitions of Footprints vary and are often expressed unclearly. Composite Footprints combining two or more individual Footprints are also assessed. These combinations produce multi-objective optimisation problems. Several tools for Footprint(s)' evaluation are presented, including some of the numerous carbon Footprint calculators, available calculators for other Footprints, some ecological Footprints-based, graph-based, and mathematical programming tools. A comprehensive overview is offered of Footprint-based sustainability assessment.
