Search

A valuation scenario was designed using a contingent-valuation approach and presented to decision makers in business firms in Kenya’s Lake Naivasha basin to test how applicable a water fund might be as a potential financing mechanism for a payment for water-related ecosystem services scheme. The findings indicate that measuring a firm’s willingness to invest in ecosystem services could help determine whether a firm would invest and engage with other stakeholders to pool their investments in ecosystem services. Linking the institutional decision-making behaviour of a firm and its willingness to invest in a water fund is the novelty of this article.

Interventions in payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs can involve both collective and individual actions. This study explores the potential for the development of payment for water related ecosystem services (PWES) program in the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya. Using a choice experiment approach, the willingness to accept compensation is estimated for three water-related ecosystem services (WES) attributes: one collective attribute (reforestation) and two individual attributes (environment-friendly agricultural practices and restoration of riparian land). Moreover, the preferences of upstream farm households are analysed with regard to sub-basins where a PWES program has already been implemented and sub-basins where it has not been implemented so far. For sub-basins where PWES has already been implemented, environment-friendly agricultural practices is the only significant attribute for local farmers' choice to improve WES. Reforestation and environment friendly agricultural practices are significant attributes for sub-basins where PWES has not been implemented so far. Farm households are willing to accept compensation but there appears to be heterogeneity in preferences for WES attributes. We find differences in farm households' preferences and values for collective and individual actions. Therefore, contrary to the current norm in PES interventions with a uniform compensation scheme, we recommend conservation payments to vary among ecosystem service providers.

This study quantifies the external water footprint of the Netherlands by partner country and import product and assesses the impact of this footprint by contrasting the geographically-explicit water footprint with water scarcity in the different parts of the world. The total water footprint of the Netherlands is estimated to be about 2300 m3/year/cap, of which 67% relates to the consumption of agricultural goods, 31% to the consumption of industrial goods, and 2% to domestic water use. The Dutch water footprint related to the consumption of agricultural goods, is composed as follows: 46% related to livestock products; 17% oil crops and oil from oil crops; 12% coffee, tea, cocoa and tobacco; 8% cereals and beer; 6% cotton products; 5% fruits; and 6% other agricultural products. About 11% of the water footprint of the Netherlands is internal and 89% is external. Only 44% of virtual-water import relates to products consumed in the Netherlands, thus constituting the external water footprint. For agricultural products this is 40% and for industrial products this is 60%. The remaining 56% of the virtual-water import to the Netherlands is re-exported. The impact of the external water footprint of Dutch consumers is highest in countries that experience serious water scarcity. Based on indicators for water scarcity the following eight countries have been identified as most seriously affected: China; India; Spain; Turkey; Pakistan; Sudan; South Africa; and Mexico. This study shows that Dutch consumption implies the use of water resources throughout the world, with significant impacts in water-scarce regions.

As aquaculture becomes more important for feeding the growing world population, so too do the required natural resources needed to produce aquaculture feed. While there is potential to replace fish meal and fish oil with terrestrial feed ingredients, it is important to understand both the positive and negative implications of such a development. The use of feed with a large proportion of terrestrial feed may reduce the pressure on fisheries to provide feed for fish, but at the same time it may significantly increase the pressure on freshwater resources, due to water consumption and pollution in crop production for aquafeed. Here the green, blue and gray water footprint of cultured fish and crustaceans related to the production of commercial feed for the year 2008 has been determined for the major farmed species, representing 88% of total fed production. The green, blue and gray production-weighted average feed water footprints of fish and crustaceans fed commercial aquafeed are estimated at 1629m3/t, 179m3/t and 166m3/t, respectively. The estimated global total water footprint of commercial aquafeed was 31–35km3 in 2008. The top five contributors to the total water footprint of commercial feed are Nile tilapia, Grass carp, Whiteleg shrimp, Common carp and Atlantic salmon, which together have a water footprint of 18.2km3. An analysis of alternative diets revealed that the replacement of fish meal and fish oil with terrestrial feed ingredients may further increase pressure on freshwater resources. At the same time economic consumptive water productivity may be reduced, especially for carnivorous species. The results of the present study show that, for the aquaculture sector to grow sustainably, freshwater consumption and pollution due to aquafeed need to be taken into account.

A spatially-explicit agent-based modeling (ABM) approach is applied for depicting the processes leading to basin closure in the Naivasha basin by representing interdependencies between water availability and water use. Modeling the dynamics of water use and water availability yields patterns of their distribution over space and time. The approach allows for exploring the potential effectiveness of governance alternatives such as payment for environmental services (PES) schemes. This study shows that ABM is a promising approach for supporting water governance and can assist in increasing the understanding of the occurrence of basin closure.

For a hardcopy of this article, printed in the Netherlands, an estimated 100 l of water have been used. Most of the water is required in the forestry stage, due to evapotranspiration (green and blue water). In addition, the water footprint during the industrial stage, as accounted for in this study, consists of evaporation from water obtained from ground water and surface water (blue water). In this study estimates are made of water requirements for producing paper using different types of wood and in different parts of the world. The water footprint of printing and writing paper is estimated to be between 300 and 2600 m3/t (~2-13 l for an A4 sheet). These estimates account for paper recovery rates in different countries. This study indicates that by using recovered paper for the production of paper the global average water footprint of paper is only 60% of what it would be if no recovered paper would be used at all. Further savings may be achieved by increasing the recovery percentages worldwide. In addition, the global water footprint of paper can be reduced by choosing production sites and wood types that are more water-efficient. The results of this study suggest that the use of recovered paper may be particularly effective in reducing water footprints. This study is a first step towards a better understanding of the significance of the water footprint of paper and the effect of using recovered paper.