Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The agriculture sector faces increasing pressure to manage the complex interdependence between food, energy, and water systems. This study addresses the methodological challenge of standardizing these resource demands by developing a modified Ecological Footprint (EF) framework integrated with a Water–Energy–Food (WEF) nexus model. Unlike traditional EF approaches, this framework introduces a novel water-to-land conversion, which utilizes a forest-based water supply approach to convert volumetric water consumption into global hectares (gha). Applied to sugarcane production in Thailand, the model quantifies spatial demands across physical cropland, bioproductive land for machinery, and chemical inputs. Scenario-based analyses reveal critical trade-offs: while chemical-intensive practices (Scenario 2) increase yields, they trigger a disproportionate carbon-land requirement of up to 8.4 gha per tonne of sugarcane solely for CO 2 assimilation. In contrast, optimized resource management and targeted supplemental irrigation (Scenario 3) achieve a yield-dilution effect, successfully reducing the carbon-land footprint to 2.0 gha per tonne and lowering the energy-land footprint to 0.59 gha per tonne. By providing a unified, land-equivalent metric, this integrated indicator moves beyond traditional volumetric accounting to demonstrate physical trade-offs and regional resource imbalances. This research offers a province-specific tool for policymakers and environmental managers to evaluate environmental trade-offs and coordinate natural capital management, ensuring long-term resource security in the agricultural sector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huailuek et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: