Water footprint of agricultural products produced in the central highlands and traded in Lima
Abstract
The objective was to determine a model to obtain the water footprint of main agricultural products from the Peru’s central highlands which are sold in the Lima markets, so a conceptual model that determines the crops water requirement was developed also with the respective yields both have established the virtual water content of each agricultural product expressed in l/kg; with this result and the sold product amount, the virtual water (AV) was determined transferred to the Lima market, corresponding to fourteen agricultural products. Values which indicate that virtual water volumes between the products vary by the commercialized amounts according to the production which depends on factors such as weather, consumer demand and the technology used in production were obtained. Thus, consumption of a potato kg in Lima involves the transfer of 300,71 liters of “virtual water” from the Junin region where the product is produced. The product which transfer as much virtual water is the potato with 78 069 926,37 m3, followed by green peas with 16 889 273,96 m3, and the product which transfer as little virtual water is the onion with 10 336,59 m3, whereas the total volume of transferred virtual water is 165 595 592,28 m3.
References
1. Grajales QA, Jaramillo RA, Cruz CG. Los nuevos conceptos sobre agua virtual y huella hídrica aplicados al desarrollo sostenible, implicaciones de la agricultura en el consumo hídrico. Revista Universidad de Caldas. 2010; 16(1): 7-26.
2. Centro de las nuevas tecnologías del agua. Material didáctico sobre la huella hídrica. Andalucía: Fundación CENTA; 2012.
3. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM. The water footprint assement manual. Washington, DC: Water Footprint Network; 2011. Disponible en: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual_2.pdf
4. Llamas R. Los colores del agua, el agua virtual y los conflictos hídricos. Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. 2005; 99(2): 369-390.
5. Eco Portal.Net [Internet]. Buenos Aires: Pengue WA; 27 de noviembre de 2006 [Citado el 17 de noviembre de 2014]. “Agua virtual”, agronegocios sojero y cuestiones económico ambientales futuras [1 pantalla]. Disponible en: http://www.ecoportal.net/Temas_Especiales/Agua/Agua_virtual_agronegocio_sojero_y_cuestiones_economico_ambientales_futuras
6. Garay CO. Manual de uso consuntivo del agua para los principales cultivos de los Andes centrales peruanos. Huancayo: INIA; 2010.
7. Rodríguez R, Garrido A, Llamas MR, Varela-Ortega C. La huella hidrológica en la agricultura española. Madrid: Fundación Marcelino Botín; 2008.
8. Velásquez E. El metabolismo hídrico y los flujos de agua virtual. Una aplicación al sector hortofrutícola de Andalucía. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica. 2008; 8: 29-47.
9. Zhuo L, Mekonnen M, Hoekstra Y. Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water footprint accounting: a case study for the Yellow River basin. Journal Interactive of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2014; 18(6): 2219-2234.
10. Aldaya M, Allan A, Hoekstra Y. Strategic importance of green water in international crop trade. Journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics. 2010; 69(4): 887-894.
11. Mekonnen M, Hoekstra Y. Water footprint benchmarks for crop production: A first global assessment. Journal of the Ecological Indicators. 2014; 46: 214-223.