IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc14/170557.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Water use implications of bioenergy cropping systems in Eastern England

Author

Listed:
  • Glithero, N. J.
  • Wilson, P.
  • Ramsden, S. J.

Abstract

Food and fuel security in the face of population growth and climate change represent key societal challenges. Extending an arable farm-level bio-economic optimisation model ‘MEETA’ to include dedicated energy crops (DECs) and water metrics, we quantify water use implications and trade-offs between greenhouse gas emissions, net energy and farm profitability. Drawing upon the limited available water use data for arable and energy crops applicable for East Anglia in the UK, six different farm scenarios were investigated. Profit maximisation produces a conventional crop mix, while maximising net energy and minimising greenhouse gas emissions result in crop mixes which impose financial penalties and lower water use in comparison to conventional cropping; average financial impacts of the associated reduced water use under these respective scenarios range from £0.12 to £0.28 per m3 of water. Confidence in these results and work on water use and management more generally would be improved through better data on inter-annual crop-water needs, temporal water availability relationships and water response functions. Water availability for UK crop production is largely perceived to be a non-limiting resource; however climate change predictions demonstrate that availability of water for UK crop production is of increasing concern for both farmers and society as a whole.

Suggested Citation

  • Glithero, N. J. & Wilson, P. & Ramsden, S. J., 2014. "Water use implications of bioenergy cropping systems in Eastern England," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170557, Agricultural Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc14:170557
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.170557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/170557/files/Stephen%20_Ramsden_AES%202014%20Glithero%20Final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.170557?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glithero, N.J. & Ramsden, S.J. & Wilson, P., 2012. "Farm systems assessment of bioenergy feedstock production: Integrating bio-economic models and life cycle analysis approaches," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 53-64.
    2. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. & Hoekstra, A.Y. & van der Meer, Th., 2009. "The water footprint of energy from biomass: A quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in energy supply," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1052-1060, February.
    3. Foxon, T.J. & Pearson, P.J.G., 2007. "Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1539-1550, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giorgia Giovannetti & Elisa Ticci, 2013. "Biofuel Development and Large-Scale Land Deals in Sub-Saharan Africa," Working Papers - Economics wp2013_27.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    2. Butler, Lucy & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2008. "Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to support wind power development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1854-1867.
    3. Foxon, Timothy J., 2013. "Transition pathways for a UK low carbon electricity future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 10-24.
    4. Geels, Frank W. & Kern, Florian & Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Mylan, Josephine & Neukirch, Mario & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 896-913.
    5. White, David J. & Hubacek, Klaus & Feng, Kuishuang & Sun, Laixiang & Meng, Bo, 2018. "The Water-Energy-Food Nexus in East Asia: A tele-connected value chain analysis using inter-regional input-output analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 550-567.
    6. Holmatov, B. & Hoekstra, A.Y. & Krol, M.S., 2019. "Land, water and carbon footprints of circular bioenergy production systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 224-235.
    7. Tan, Raymond R. & Aviso, Kathleen B. & Barilea, Ivan U. & Culaba, Alvin B. & Cruz, Jose B., 2012. "A fuzzy multi-regional input–output optimization model for biomass production and trade under resource and footprint constraints," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 154-160.
    8. Zhang, XiaoHong & Pan, HengYu & Cao, Jun & Li, JinRong, 2015. "Energy consumption of China’s crop production system and the related emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 111-125.
    9. Xie, Xiaomin & Jiang, Xiaoyun & Zhang, Tingting & Huang, Zhen, 2019. "Regional water footprints assessment for hydroelectricity generation in China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 316-325.
    10. Zhang, Ping & Zhuo, La & Li, Meng & Liu, Yilin & Wu, Pute, 2023. "Assessment of advanced bioethanol potential under water and land resource constraints in China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 359-371.
    11. María Jesús Beltrán & Esther Velázquez, 2011. "Del metabolismo social al metabolismo hídrico," Documentos de Trabajo de la Asociación de Economía Ecológica en España 01_2011, Asociación de Economía Ecológica en España.
    12. Edward S. Spang & Bret D. Stevens, 2018. "Estimating the Blue Water Footprint of In-Field Crop Losses: A Case Study of U.S. Potato Cultivation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Okadera, Tomohiro & Geng, Yong & Fujita, Tsuyoshi & Dong, Huijuan & Liu, Zhu & Yoshida, Noboru & Kanazawa, Takaaki, 2015. "Evaluating the water footprint of the energy supply of Liaoning Province, China: A regional input–output analysis approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 148-157.
    14. Witzel, Carl-Philipp & Finger, Robert, 2016. "Economic evaluation of Miscanthus production – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 681-696.
    15. Jing Zhu & Shenghong Kang & Wenwu Zhao & Qiujie Li & Xinyuan Xie & Xiangping Hu, 2020. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Food–Energy–Water Nexus: Progress and Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Townsend, Toby J. & Ramsden, Stephen J. & Wilson, Paul, 2015. "Towards Sustainable Intensification of Cropping Systems: Analysing Reduced Tillage Practices within a Bio-Economic Modelling Framework," 89th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2015, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 204298, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Negro, Simona O. & Alkemade, Floortje & Hekkert, Marko P., 2012. "Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 3836-3846.
    18. Dominique Finon, 2008. "L'inadéquation du mode de subvention du photovoltaïque à sa maturité technologique," Working Papers hal-00866415, HAL.
    19. William Stafford & Adrian Lotter & Alan Brent & Graham von Maltitz, 2017. "Biofuels technology: A look forward," WIDER Working Paper Series 087, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Nackley, Lloyd L. & Vogt, Kristiina A. & Kim, Soo-Hyung, 2014. "Arundo donax water use and photosynthetic responses to drought and elevated CO2," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 13-22.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; International Relations/Trade; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aesc14:170557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aesukea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.