Document Type : Research Article-en
Authors
1
Ph.D. Student, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
2
Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
Modern irrigation systems are considered as a way to both respond to the effects of climate changes and improve the water security. Applying such systems, save the water used in farming activities and consequently made some environmental challenges in terms of increasing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Although some recent studies analyzed the relationship between water and energy in the agricultural irrigation systems, considering the objectives on productivity, adaptation, and mitigation in a cropping pattern optimization problem is necessary. Climate-Smart agriculture as a strong programming concept, addresses these three objectives and has created the potential for a "triple-win" solution. This study is an effort to fill the study gap on triple-win solution in modern irrigation by developing an integrated economic-hydrological-environmental model called WECSAM at the basin level using a hydrological model called WEAP. For this purpose, a multi-objective optimization model has been developed with the concepts of water footprint, energy footprint, and the greenhouse gas emissions in the context of CSA. We applied the model to the northern region of Bakhtegan basin called Doroodzan irrigation network located in Iran. The result of the WECSAM model indicated that by simultaneously optimizing the conflicting objectives of maximizing profit and minimizing water footprint, energy footprint, and CO2 emissions, as compared to the single-objective model of maximizing economic profit, the water footprint decreases by 8.2%, Energy footprint decreases by 21.2%, CO2 emissions decreases by 6.9% and profit decreases by 7.4%. The share of each system in irrigating the water-smart, energy-smart, and climate-smart cropping pattern is as follow: 54% for drip system, 26% for semi-permanent sprinkler system, 11% for surface systems, 8% for center-pivot, and <1% for classic permanent sprinkler system.
Keywords
Main Subjects
Send comment about this article