The Experts below are selected from a list of 3951 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Paul Pavelic - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Physical Water Scarcity metrics for monitoring progress towards sdg target 6 4 an evaluation of indicator 6 4 2 level of Water stress
Science of The Total Environment, 2018Co-Authors: D Vanham, Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Yoshihide Wada, F Bouraoui, Mesfin Mekonnen, W Van De Bund, Okke Batelaan, Paul PavelicAbstract:Target 6.4 of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deals with the reduction of Water Scarcity. To monitor progress towards this target, two indicators are used: Indicator 6.4.1 measuring Water use efficiency and 6.4.2 measuring the level of Water stress (WS). This paper aims to identify whether the currently proposed indicator 6.4.2 considers the different elements that need to be accounted for in a WS indicator. WS indicators compare Water use with Water availability. We identify seven essential elements: 1) both gross and net Water abstraction (or withdrawal) provide important information to understand WS; 2) WS indicators need to incorporate environmental flow requirements (EFR); 3) temporal and 4) spatial disaggregation is required in a WS assessment; 5) both renewable surface Water and groundWater resources, including their interaction, need to be accounted for as renewable Water availability; 6) alternative available Water resources need to be accounted for as well, like fossil groundWater and desalinated Water; 7) WS indicators need to account for Water storage in reservoirs, Water recycling and managed aquifer recharge. Indicator 6.4.2 considers many of these elements, but there is need for improvement. It is recommended that WS is measured based on net abstraction as well, in addition to currently only measuring WS based on gross abstraction. It does incorporate EFR. Temporal and spatial disaggregation is indeed defined as a goal in more advanced monitoring levels, in which it is also called for a differentiation between surface and groundWater resources. However, regarding element 6 and 7 there are some shortcomings for which we provide recommendations. In addition, indicator 6.4.2 is only one indicator, which monitors blue WS, but does not give information on green or green-blue Water Scarcity or on Water quality. Within the SDG indicator framework, some of these topics are covered with other indicators.
Valentina Russo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
when geography matters a location adjusted blue Water footprint of commercial beef in south africa
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017Co-Authors: Genevieve Harding, Caitlin Courtney, Valentina RussoAbstract:Abstract Should South Africa be concerned about the Water use associated with its meat consumption? South Africa is Water stressed: it is considered a nation approaching Physical Water Scarcity and predictions foresee that by 2040 it will be facing high levels of Water stress; meat consumption is on the rise; and there is a perception that the Water footprint of meat is large. The aim of this work was to quantitatively assess a range of stressed-adjusted blue/consumptive Water footprints (WF) for commercial beef in South Africa. Local environment was accounted for via local Water stress indices (WSI). A comprehensive top-down approach to represent the South African commercial beef value chain was implemented. A model of a generic herd was developed, by using elements of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach as a guide to define the system. The main processes considered within the livestock value chain include: feed cultivation, primary production, feedlots and abattoirs. Water is used in growing feed, drinking and service Water, and process Water in the abattoir. A population balance was completed assuming steady state conditions; this was used to determine a basis population (1000 cows at the time of mating), which in turn has been used to determine the WF of beef. Beef cattle populations of reference were taken from Agricultural Censuses and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The geographical resolution of the study is at the level of Water management areas (WMAs); local impacts via the Water Stress Index (WSI) were performed at WMAs resolution; a sensitivity analysis was performed in order to investigate possible scenarios. The base-case, unadjusted blue Water footprint for commercial beef in South Africa is 437 L/kg carcass weight (CW). Adjusting for local environments, the best case (in locations with low WSI and low feed WFs) had a WF eq. of 105 L eq. /kgCW. The worst case WF eq. was 2820 L eq. /kgCW. The best-feasible case was based on the WMA in which the largest production or population for each of the major processes in the value chain was located. The resulting WF eq. was 276 L eq. /kgCW, with a 2% probability of occurring. The feed contribution is significant ranging from 43% to 94%; the contribution from drinking and service Water is non-negligible. Accounting for the local environment can change the result, and this study highlighted the central interior of South Africa to be an environmental hotspot. Since those areas are already Water stressed, the sensitivity analysis results indicated the best-feasible scenario to pursue in order to reduce the WF of commercial beef. Knowledge of Water use, Water stress and Water efficiency need to be considered in feed optimisation for intensive animal finishing. Relocation of the livestock-related activities must be considered especially for future drought-preparedness planning as well as future expansion of the livestock sector should be focused on less stress WMAs.
Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Physical Water Scarcity metrics for monitoring progress towards sdg target 6 4 an evaluation of indicator 6 4 2 level of Water stress
Science of The Total Environment, 2018Co-Authors: D Vanham, Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Yoshihide Wada, F Bouraoui, Mesfin Mekonnen, W Van De Bund, Okke Batelaan, Paul PavelicAbstract:Target 6.4 of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deals with the reduction of Water Scarcity. To monitor progress towards this target, two indicators are used: Indicator 6.4.1 measuring Water use efficiency and 6.4.2 measuring the level of Water stress (WS). This paper aims to identify whether the currently proposed indicator 6.4.2 considers the different elements that need to be accounted for in a WS indicator. WS indicators compare Water use with Water availability. We identify seven essential elements: 1) both gross and net Water abstraction (or withdrawal) provide important information to understand WS; 2) WS indicators need to incorporate environmental flow requirements (EFR); 3) temporal and 4) spatial disaggregation is required in a WS assessment; 5) both renewable surface Water and groundWater resources, including their interaction, need to be accounted for as renewable Water availability; 6) alternative available Water resources need to be accounted for as well, like fossil groundWater and desalinated Water; 7) WS indicators need to account for Water storage in reservoirs, Water recycling and managed aquifer recharge. Indicator 6.4.2 considers many of these elements, but there is need for improvement. It is recommended that WS is measured based on net abstraction as well, in addition to currently only measuring WS based on gross abstraction. It does incorporate EFR. Temporal and spatial disaggregation is indeed defined as a goal in more advanced monitoring levels, in which it is also called for a differentiation between surface and groundWater resources. However, regarding element 6 and 7 there are some shortcomings for which we provide recommendations. In addition, indicator 6.4.2 is only one indicator, which monitors blue WS, but does not give information on green or green-blue Water Scarcity or on Water quality. Within the SDG indicator framework, some of these topics are covered with other indicators.
Yoshihide Wada - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Physical Water Scarcity metrics for monitoring progress towards sdg target 6 4 an evaluation of indicator 6 4 2 level of Water stress
Science of The Total Environment, 2018Co-Authors: D Vanham, Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Yoshihide Wada, F Bouraoui, Mesfin Mekonnen, W Van De Bund, Okke Batelaan, Paul PavelicAbstract:Target 6.4 of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deals with the reduction of Water Scarcity. To monitor progress towards this target, two indicators are used: Indicator 6.4.1 measuring Water use efficiency and 6.4.2 measuring the level of Water stress (WS). This paper aims to identify whether the currently proposed indicator 6.4.2 considers the different elements that need to be accounted for in a WS indicator. WS indicators compare Water use with Water availability. We identify seven essential elements: 1) both gross and net Water abstraction (or withdrawal) provide important information to understand WS; 2) WS indicators need to incorporate environmental flow requirements (EFR); 3) temporal and 4) spatial disaggregation is required in a WS assessment; 5) both renewable surface Water and groundWater resources, including their interaction, need to be accounted for as renewable Water availability; 6) alternative available Water resources need to be accounted for as well, like fossil groundWater and desalinated Water; 7) WS indicators need to account for Water storage in reservoirs, Water recycling and managed aquifer recharge. Indicator 6.4.2 considers many of these elements, but there is need for improvement. It is recommended that WS is measured based on net abstraction as well, in addition to currently only measuring WS based on gross abstraction. It does incorporate EFR. Temporal and spatial disaggregation is indeed defined as a goal in more advanced monitoring levels, in which it is also called for a differentiation between surface and groundWater resources. However, regarding element 6 and 7 there are some shortcomings for which we provide recommendations. In addition, indicator 6.4.2 is only one indicator, which monitors blue WS, but does not give information on green or green-blue Water Scarcity or on Water quality. Within the SDG indicator framework, some of these topics are covered with other indicators.
D Vanham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Physical Water Scarcity metrics for monitoring progress towards sdg target 6 4 an evaluation of indicator 6 4 2 level of Water stress
Science of The Total Environment, 2018Co-Authors: D Vanham, Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Yoshihide Wada, F Bouraoui, Mesfin Mekonnen, W Van De Bund, Okke Batelaan, Paul PavelicAbstract:Target 6.4 of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deals with the reduction of Water Scarcity. To monitor progress towards this target, two indicators are used: Indicator 6.4.1 measuring Water use efficiency and 6.4.2 measuring the level of Water stress (WS). This paper aims to identify whether the currently proposed indicator 6.4.2 considers the different elements that need to be accounted for in a WS indicator. WS indicators compare Water use with Water availability. We identify seven essential elements: 1) both gross and net Water abstraction (or withdrawal) provide important information to understand WS; 2) WS indicators need to incorporate environmental flow requirements (EFR); 3) temporal and 4) spatial disaggregation is required in a WS assessment; 5) both renewable surface Water and groundWater resources, including their interaction, need to be accounted for as renewable Water availability; 6) alternative available Water resources need to be accounted for as well, like fossil groundWater and desalinated Water; 7) WS indicators need to account for Water storage in reservoirs, Water recycling and managed aquifer recharge. Indicator 6.4.2 considers many of these elements, but there is need for improvement. It is recommended that WS is measured based on net abstraction as well, in addition to currently only measuring WS based on gross abstraction. It does incorporate EFR. Temporal and spatial disaggregation is indeed defined as a goal in more advanced monitoring levels, in which it is also called for a differentiation between surface and groundWater resources. However, regarding element 6 and 7 there are some shortcomings for which we provide recommendations. In addition, indicator 6.4.2 is only one indicator, which monitors blue WS, but does not give information on green or green-blue Water Scarcity or on Water quality. Within the SDG indicator framework, some of these topics are covered with other indicators.