Abstract
Treated wastewater is constantly produced and relatively unaffected by climatic conditions, while Constructed Wetlands (CWs) are recognized as green technology and a cost-effective alternative to improve treated wastewater quality standards. This paper analyses how farmers consider (1) treated wastewater to face water scarcity risk and (2) CW as mechanisms to face agricultural water pollution in a climate change adaptation context. A survey about climate change perception and adaptation measures was answered by 177 farmers from two irrigation communities near El Hondo coastal wetland and the Santa Pola saltmarshes, both perceived as natural-constructed systems in Alicante, southern Spain. Results highlighted how, even with poor-quality standards, treated wastewater is considered a non-riskier measure and more reliable option when addressing climate change impacts. Overall, physical water harvesting (such as CWs) is the favorite choice when investing in water technologies, being perceived as the best option for users of treated wastewater and those concerned about water quality standards. Consequently, CWs were recognized as mechanisms to increase water supply and reduce water pollution. Policy-makers and water managers can use these learnings from farmers’ experience to identify the main barriers and benefits of using treated wastewater and CWs to address water scarcity and water pollution risks.
Highlights
Correlation and bivariate analysis (Spearman’s rho and Pearson chi-square), distribution (Student’s t-value), and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were calculated to determine if farmers’ beliefs and concerns regarding (1) climate change awareness and adaptation capacity and (2) preference to use treated wastewater differ across sociodemographic variables such as age, level of education, farm experience, type of crop, or farm size, membership in an agricultural association, and subsidies
Decree 1620/2007, of 7 December, which establishes the legal regime for the reuse of treated water, and the recently approved Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 May 2020, on minimum requirements for water reuse. Both irrigation communities criticized the role of the Jucar River Basin Authority due to the non-compliance of the polluter pays principle by urban water users since farmers must assume the cost of additional water treatments needed to ensure the water quality standards of treated wastewater for agricultural use
SDG6 achievement is directly conditioned by the resilience of the agricultural sector to climate change, one of the most important concerns for socioeconomic development in semi-arid regions, such as southern Spain
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The reuse of treated wastewater is already taking place, directly or indirectly, in many semi-arid areas of the world in response to emerging water scarcity challenges (e.g., Africa, Central America, Southern Asia, Southern Europe) [18] This non-conventional water resource is becoming an increasingly important source for irrigation since agriculture is the sector most affected by water scarcity. Many studies have examined the role that factors such as water source, intended use, risk perception, trust, disgust, or economic incentives can have in hindering or facilitating acceptance of wastewater reuse. (non-) acceptance [45] or on the socio-environmental aspects of promoting CWs [46], that is, how both strategies are perceived by end-users and stakeholders, such as citizens or farmers, including the acceptance/rejection rate when facing water pollution and water scarcity risks in semi-arid regions. We are interested in exploring the social side of farmers regarding the use of treated wastewater and CWs, by asking (1) if agricultural treated wastewater and CWs are considered preferred mechanisms to face climate change by focusing on farmers’ awareness, perceived impacts, and adaptation capacity, and (2) which driving factors from farmers’ sociodemographic characteristics determine the acceptance or rejection of both measures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
