6
C. M. Flores-Cayuela et al.
mitigate and adapt to climate change and the occurrence of extreme weather events
are among the three main risks both in terms of probability and impact. Thus, all actors
involved in water use (water policy makers, water supply companies, managers, nongovernmental organizations and consumers) are looking for more sustainable ways
to manage it [18]. As irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water resources, it is
crucial that farmers adopt strategies aimed at sustainable use of irrigation water. In
this context, the water use indicator called water footprint (WF) emerges as a tool for
evaluating these strategies. Hoekstra [29] introduced the concept of WF by defining
it as the volume of water used, directly or indirectly, to produce a unit of output
(product or service). Since then the concept of WF has been in constant evolution.
Several authors have included WF in life cycle analysis [4, 6, 7, 10, 33, 45]. It is
in 2014 when the standard ISO 14046:2014—Environmental Management—Water
Footprint—Principles, requirements and guidelines [32]—was published in response
to the need for unifying the multiple definitions and methodologies of Water Footprint
assessment.
ISO 14046:2014 defines the water footprint as a metric or metrics that quantify
potential environmental impacts related to water. This methodology is based on the
life cycle analysis (LCA) approach. It collects and evaluates inputs, outputs and
potential environmental impacts related to water “from cradle to grave”.
According to ISO 14046, Water Footprint assessment has 4 steps: (i) objective and
scope definition, (ii) water footprint inventory analysis, (iii) water footprint impact
assessment and (iv) finally, result interpretation. Activities related to the first and
second phases are of great significance. Clearly, defining the spatial-temporal scale
affects the accuracy of the WF inventory results and their interpretation [25, 42].
In the Water Footprint inventory phase of irrigated crops, water inputs and outputs
are collected and quantified. So it is a useful process to evaluate the relationship
between water use and crop yields, so water footprinting is a measure of water use
efficiency in crops [21, 22]. When the objective is to formulate strategies to improve
water use efficiency, it is desirable that the characterization of the water use of the
crop under study be based on local information on water availability and use (on-site
studies) [25, 34]. However, this type of data is usually not readily available, and
average data provided by specialized literature or public databases is generally used.
Access to quality data about water use is a factor that conditions the assessments of
water use impacts. In most agricultural and industrial processes, real data on water
use are scarce due to the small number of farmers and companies that collect or
report information about their water use. Getting this information in a meaningful
and verifiable format would be a step forward in developing suitable methods for
estimating the effects of water consumption [34].
The current development of ICTs and their implementation at the farm level allows
the design of accurate procedures to inventory water use at this scale. Such an inventory is a key tool for analyzing the traceability of water use in a transparent manner at
the farm level. Communicating verifiable inventories on water use to market would
provide “transparent water use-farmers” with differentiation from farmers who do
not provide information on where they take their water, how they use it and how
they return it to the environment. This difference is likely to result in higher prices
C. M. Flores-Cayuela et al.
mitigate and adapt to climate change and the occurrence of extreme weather events
are among the three main risks both in terms of probability and impact. Thus, all actors
involved in water use (water policy makers, water supply companies, managers, nongovernmental organizations and consumers) are looking for more sustainable ways
to manage it [18]. As irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water resources, it is
crucial that farmers adopt strategies aimed at sustainable use of irrigation water. In
this context, the water use indicator called water footprint (WF) emerges as a tool for
evaluating these strategies. Hoekstra [29] introduced the concept of WF by defining
it as the volume of water used, directly or indirectly, to produce a unit of output
(product or service). Since then the concept of WF has been in constant evolution.
Several authors have included WF in life cycle analysis [4, 6, 7, 10, 33, 45]. It is
in 2014 when the standard ISO 14046:2014—Environmental Management—Water
Footprint—Principles, requirements and guidelines [32]—was published in response
to the need for unifying the multiple definitions and methodologies of Water Footprint
assessment.
ISO 14046:2014 defines the water footprint as a metric or metrics that quantify
potential environmental impacts related to water. This methodology is based on the
life cycle analysis (LCA) approach. It collects and evaluates inputs, outputs and
potential environmental impacts related to water “from cradle to grave”.
According to ISO 14046, Water Footprint assessment has 4 steps: (i) objective and
scope definition, (ii) water footprint inventory analysis, (iii) water footprint impact
assessment and (iv) finally, result interpretation. Activities related to the first and
second phases are of great significance. Clearly, defining the spatial-temporal scale
affects the accuracy of the WF inventory results and their interpretation [25, 42].
In the Water Footprint inventory phase of irrigated crops, water inputs and outputs
are collected and quantified. So it is a useful process to evaluate the relationship
between water use and crop yields, so water footprinting is a measure of water use
efficiency in crops [21, 22]. When the objective is to formulate strategies to improve
water use efficiency, it is desirable that the characterization of the water use of the
crop under study be based on local information on water availability and use (on-site
studies) [25, 34]. However, this type of data is usually not readily available, and
average data provided by specialized literature or public databases is generally used.
Access to quality data about water use is a factor that conditions the assessments of
water use impacts. In most agricultural and industrial processes, real data on water
use are scarce due to the small number of farmers and companies that collect or
report information about their water use. Getting this information in a meaningful
and verifiable format would be a step forward in developing suitable methods for
estimating the effects of water consumption [34].
The current development of ICTs and their implementation at the farm level allows
the design of accurate procedures to inventory water use at this scale. Such an inventory is a key tool for analyzing the traceability of water use in a transparent manner at
the farm level. Communicating verifiable inventories on water use to market would
provide “transparent water use-farmers” with differentiation from farmers who do
not provide information on where they take their water, how they use it and how
they return it to the environment. This difference is likely to result in higher prices