Water Consumption Assessment of Mangosteen:
A Bottom-Up Approach
NARONG PLEERUX
Faculty of Geoinformatics, Burapha University
Mueang, Chon Buri, 20131, THAILAND
NARISSARA AIMKUY
Regional Office of Agricultural Economics 6
Sri Racha, Chon Buri, 20230, THAILAND
ATTAWUT NARDKULPAT
Faculty of Geoinformatics, Burapha University
Mueang, Chon Buri, 20131, THAILAND
Abstract: A water consumption assessment using a bottom-up approach is applied in this research; the smallest
level of water consumption assessment shows the water consumption behavior at the farm level of 55
mangosteen farms in the Khlung District of Chanthaburi Province, Thailand, in the production year 2019. The
findings revealed that the average water footprint (WF) was 774.60 m3/ton, which was divided into a green
water footprint of 519.04 m3/ton and the blue water footprint of 255.56 m3/ton. Stage 5 was the mangosteen’s
growth stage that had the highest WF: this stage was the fruit’s maturation period, whose WF was equivalent to
41.16% of the yearly water consumption. The WF of mangosteen data for the production year 2019 is a crucial
baseline that will enable farmers to understand the actual water consumption in mangosteen production at the
farm level. It will be feasible to determine the trend of changing water use, particularly if the mangosteen WF
data is regularly gathered each year and it has led to appropriate water consumption planning per the needs of
the mangosteen. Furthermore, this research also raised farmers’ awareness concerning the water consumption
of mangosteen production.
Key-Words: mangosteen, bottom-up approach, farm level, water footprint, water consumption, climate change
Received: May 11, 2022. Revised: October 13, 2022. Accepted: November 11, 2022. Published: December 30, 2022.
1 Introduction
The global water demand is increasing as the result
of urban expansion, climate change, economic
development, and population increase, [1]-[3].
Increased demand but limited water supply, [4], is
likely to result in water scarcity in the future;
therefore, water shortage is a major threat to the
sustainable development of many countries, [5]-[7],
especially the inadequate supply of fresh water for
population consumption due to climate change, [8]-
[9]. Agriculture is a sector requiring large quantities
of fresh water, i.e., approximately 90% of the global
water consumption, [10]-[13]. It is anticipated that
the amount of water used for food production will
continue to increase in the future, [14], as a result of
increases in population and changes in food demand,
[15]-[16].
Stemming from the concern for global water
resources, the water footprint (WF) has been
proposed to evaluate the water consumption for the
production of goods, including crop cultivation,
[17]-[18]. The WF of a product is the total water
consumption throughout that product’s supply chain,
[10]. The WF for crop cultivation is divided into the
green WF, including rainwater consumption, the
blue water footprint (blue WF), including surface
and groundwater consumption, and the grey water
footprint (grey WF), including the freshwater
required to assimilate water pollution, [10], [19]-
[20]. The results from the WF assessment can
indicate the quantity of water used and where that
used water has come from, [21].
The WF concept has been applied to the water
consumption assessment for various crops such as
grains (rice, wheat, and corn), [22]-[25], [7], oil
crops (palm and corn) for ethanol production, [26]-
[28], vegetables, [29], fruits (apples and grapes),
[30]-[32], and other crops (sugar cane and cassava),
[33]. There have been no WF studies on fruits in
Thailand because fruit trees last many years and
have a long harvest period. Therefore, it takes
longer and it is more difficult to keep records for
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1267
Volume 18, 2022
grain and field crops. Hence, this study focuses on
the WF of the mangosteen production of the Tambol
Troknong Community Enterprise (TTCE), Khlung
District, Chanthaburi Province using a bottom-up
approach, [4], which encompasses the smallest
water consumption assessment at the farm level.
This assessment covers the water consumption of
the mangosteen production throughout 2019. The
results of the study revealed the quantities and
origins of the water consumption in mangosteen
production at the farm level, and this can be used to
manage and plan water consumption in mangosteen
production to achieve the highest level of
sustainability and the greatest benefit during the
current climate change and any future water
shortage trends.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Study Area
TTCE is located in the Troknong subdistrict, Khlung
District, Chanthaburi Province. It has a total area of
4,361 ha, with 55 TTCE members participating in
the research project. The Troknong subdistrict is an
excellent area for mangosteen production, and
approximately 70% of the mangosteen produced is
exported. Additionally, the Troknong subdistrict is
an agricultural area that has been selected as one of
Thailand’s green agricultural cities.
The process of creating the boundary of the
mangosteen farms began with the downloading of a
satellite image from Google Earth in 2019 that
covered the Troknong subdistrict area and the
assigning of coordinates to that image.
The next step involved exploring the boundary of
the 55 mangosteen farms in the area, and the data
obtained from this area were used to draw the
boundary of the mangosteen farms using the
satellite image as a base map. Finally, attribute data
were created for the mangosteen farms, including
farmers’ names, addresses, areas, numbers of
mangosteen trees, quantities of production, and
water consumption data. The boundary of the study
area is shown in Fig. 1
2.2 Scope of Analysis
WF is divided into green WF and blue WF, [10]. In
this research, WF was calculated from the
mangosteen production, where the green WF was
the amount of rainfall used in the mangosteen
production. The rainfall data were obtained from the
rain gauge station, namely Wangsapparos SAO
Station, Khlung District, Chanthaburi Province,
from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019, [34]. The blue
WF was the amount of water from natural and
irrigated water sources used in mangosteen
production. The data were obtained from in-depth
interviews with 55 farmers in 2020. The WF
calculation in the 2019 production year covered all
the stages of mangosteen production from shoot
development (August–October 2018), inflorescence
development (November–December 2018), flowering
(January–February 2019), fruit development (March
2019), and fruit maturation (April–July 2019).
Fig. 1: Study area: 55 mangosteen farms in Tambol
Troknong Community Enterprise in Troknong
subdistrict, Klung District, Chanthaburi Province,
Thailand
The criteria for selecting the 55 farms specified
that all the participating farms had to have fruiting
trees. Additionally, during the study period, no
activity was to be carried out on the farms that
affected the land use, such as cutting mangosteen
trees or growing other crops other than mangosteen.
2.3 Water Footprint Calculation
The WF calculation for mangosteen production per
farm started with the evaluation of mangosteen
evapotranspiration (ET) using the crop coefficient
(Kc) multiplied by the reference crop
evapotranspiration (ET0), as shown in equation (1),
given that Kc was equal to 0.75 and ET0 was the
water consumption of the crop by the Penman–
Montieth method, [35].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1268
Volume 18, 2022
  (1)
where ETcrop was the evapotranspiration of the
mangosteen (mm/day), Kc was the coefficient of the
mangosteen (mm/day), and ET0 was the reference
crop evapotranspiration (mm/day).
Then, the mangosteen’s crop water use (WUcrop)
was calculated as in equation (2).
  

 (2)
where WUcrop was the water consumption of the
mangosteen, obtained by the sum of ETcrop
(mm/day) multiplied by 10 to convert mm to m3/ha,
and lgp was the length of the growing period of the
mangosteen (in 365 days), starting from the first day
(d = 1) until the 365th day (d = 365).
ETcrop was classified into rainwater and the
irrigation water requirement by calculating the
effective rainfall during the mangosteen growth
period and comparing the evapotranspiration with
the effective rainfall. If ET > effective rainfall, it
meant that the mangosteen required more water than
that from rainfall. By contrast, if ET < effective
rainfall, it indicated that the demand for irrigation
water was 0, i.e., irrigation water was not required
because there was sufficient rainfall, [27]. Later, the
green and blue WFs were calculated from the ratio
of WUcrop (m3/ha) to mangosteen production (ton/ha),
as shown in equations (3) and (4).
 
(3)
 
(4)
where WUgreen was the amount of rainwater (m3/ton)
and WUblue was the amount of water from natural
sources and the irrigation water used in the
mangosteen production (m3/ha).
Finally, the WF (m3/ton) was calculated as the
sum of the green WF and the blue WF, as shown in
equation (5).
   (5)
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Basic Information
Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) are large
tropical evergreen trees that grow well in tropical
climates. The optimum temperature for them is
between 25°C–30°C, with a relative humidity of
75%–85%. The soil should have a pH in the range
of 5.5–6.5. Mangosteen trees may reach fruit-
bearing in as few as seven years, and trees as old as
100 years still produce fruit, [36].
According to the survey in the 2019 production
year of all 55 mangosteen farms, a total combined
area of 92.74 ha was planted. Farm number 48 had
the smallest area (0.16 ha), while the largest farm
was farm number 13 (7.36 ha). There was a total of
11,023 mangosteen trees, representing an average
planting rate of 118.86 trees/ha. The average age of
the trees was 32 years. The youngest mangosteen
tree was on farm number 13 (10 years), and the
oldest one was on farm number 35 (35 years). The
total useful yield was 855,067 kg; however, if fallen
fruit (31,120 kg) were included, the average yield
was 9,555.85 kgs/ha. Mangosteen cultivation
averaged 76.79% in mixed orchards and 23.21% in
single plantations. Five types of soils were found on
the mangosteen farms: sandy loam (64.29%), loam
(21.43%), loamy clay (7.14%), sandy clay (5.36%),
and clay (1.78%).
3.2 Average WF in Each Growth Stage of the
Mangosteen
In the 2019 production year, the average water
consumption of the 55 mangosteen farms in the
TTCE in each growth stage was as follows. Stage 1
was shoot development, lasting from August to
October 2018. During this period the farmers pruned
the branches such that the mangosteen needed water
to nourish the branches. It was found that in August
2018, the rainfall was sufficient to meet the needs of
the mangosteen trees; thus, there was no need to
supply additional water. In September 2018, there
was a period of intermittent rainfall that was
insufficient to meet the needs of the mangosteen
trees. However, after that and until the end of
October 2018, there was sufficient rainfall to meet
the needs of the mangosteen. Therefore, in Stage 1,
the average WF was 241.20 m3/ton, divided into the
green WF of 235.47 m3/ton and the blue WF of 5.73
m3/ton. Stage 2 was the inflorescence development,
lasting from November to December 2018. During
this period, the mangosteen did not need water; this
corresponded to areas where there was no rainfall
during this period. Although the mangosteen did not
need water, the farmers still watered the mangosteen
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1269
Volume 18, 2022
trees because they were used to doing it. If it did not
rain, the farmers had to water the mangosteen
because they feared that the mangosteen would die.
This meant that the water was not utilized. Stage 3
was flowering, lasting from January to February
2019, when the mangosteen needed more water for
flowering and yielding. There was no rainfall during
this time in the area. The farmers, therefore, had to
supply a suitable amount of water for the
mangosteen trees. If over-watered, the mangosteen
trees could have shed the flowers. The young-fruit
development period was in February 2019, when the
mangosteen needed more water to nourish the
young fruit. As a result, in Stage 3, there was only a
blue WF with an average of 90.12 m3/ton, as shown
in Figs. 2a–2b.
(a) The average green WF (m3/ton)
(b) The average blue WF (m3/ton)
Fig. 2: The average green WF and the blue WF in
each growth stage in the 2019 production year
Stage 4 was the fruit development stage, starting
in March 2019, when the mangosteen needed the
most water to nurture the fruit. However, the rainfall
was insufficient to meet the needs of the
mangosteen, so the farmers needed to supply water
to the mangosteen. During this period, the average
green WF and the average blue WF were 26.57 and
48.08 m3/ton, respectively. At the end of the
production year, Stage 5 was the fruit maturation
stage, lasting from April to July 2019. The rainfall
was sufficient for the needs of the mangosteen only
for one month, May 2019. This month saw the most
rainfall in the year, equal to 369 mm, but the
mangosteen needed only 95 mm of water. The study
found that although this month was rainy, the
mangosteen trees in some farms were watered,
which was considered excessive. Subsequently,
there was a dry spell in June 2019, and there was
very little rain in July 2019, resulting in insufficient
rainfall to meet the needs of the mangosteen. As a
result, the farmers had to supply water to the
mangosteen during the last two months before the
end of the harvest season. In this last period, the
average WF was 318.87 m3/ton, divided into the
green WF and the blue WF of 257 and 61.87 m3/ton,
respectively, as shown in Figs. 2a–2b and Table 1.
3.3 Water Footprint Per Farm
About the WF calculation of each farm, it was found
that the farm with the highest WF was farm number
38, with a WF of 2,445.12 m3/ton. The reason that
this farm had a greater WF than the other farms was
that it had an area of 0.48 ha and a yield of only
0.75 tons, or 1.56 tons/ha, which was very little
compared to that of the other farms with similar
areas. For example, farm number 37 had an area of
0.5 ha but yielded 4.6 tons (9.20 tons/ha), and farm
number 52 had an area of 0.51 ha and yielded 2.52
tons (4.91 tons/ha). Farm number 38 showed a green
WF as high as 2,350.12 m3/ton, especially during
Stage 5 (fruit maturation) when the rainfall was
greater than during the other stages. Although the
total rainfall was very high, there were dry spells in
some months, and the farmers needed to supply
water to the mangosteen trees. Therefore, this farm
had a blue WF, or irrigation water, equal to 95
m3/ton. The farms with the second and third highest
WFs were farm number 12 (2,354.10 m3/ton) and
farm number 24 (2,042.75 m3/ton), respectively.
These two farms yielded less compared with the
cultivated area, resulting in higher WFs compared
with the other farms. By contrast, the farm with the
lowest WF, 262.58 m3/ton, was farm number 3. This
farm had an area of 0.8 ha and yielded up to 15.25
tons, or 19.06 tons/ha; this was considered to be the
farm with the highest yield per area, as shown in
Table 1. According to the data collection and the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1270
Volume 18, 2022
interview with the farmer who owned mangosteen
farm number 3, it was found that the farmers were
knowledgeable and applied various technologies to
take good care of the mangosteen trees, both
watering them and using fertilizers. Furthermore,
this farm had an abundant water source and had also
won the first prize in the Chanthaburi province
mangosteen competition. This was a very good
indication that this farm could effectively manage
the mangosteen plantation.
Table 1 shows the WF for each of the
mangosteen’s growth stages. It was found that Stage
2 (inflorescence development), which lasted from
November to December 2018, was the stage during
which the mangosteen did not need water due to
flowering. If watered, the mangosteen may have
shed flowers, which corresponded to the period
when there was no rainfall in the area. However,
although the mangosteen did not need water during
this time, it was found that the mangosteen trees
were watered on 46 farms (83.64%) when
considering the blue WF. There were only nine
farms, or 16.36%, on which the mangosteen was not
watered. This indicated that the majority of the
farmers continued to supply water according to their
previously practiced patterns and due to their
concerns that if they were not watered, the
mangosteen could die, without considering any real
need and the fact that the mangosteen did not need
water. Additionally, the farmers did not take
advantage of the weather forecast from the
Meteorological Department. If the farmers had used
rainfall forecasting data for planning the
mangosteen watering, they would have saved water,
which would have also helped to reduce production
costs. Stage 1 was the shoot development period,
lasting from August to October 2018. During this
period, there was rainfall in the area, and there was a
sufficient supply to meet the needs of the
mangosteen. However, 10 farms supplied water to
the mangosteen (blue WF), such as farms number
10, 11, and 12, which exceeded the needs of the
mangosteen and possibly affected the growth and
yield of mangosteen.
Stage 3 was the flowering stage, lasting from
January to February 2019. The mangosteen needed
water to nourish the flowers and young fruit during
this period. However, there was no rain in the area,
so all the farms had to supply water to the
mangosteen (blue WF), especially farm number 37,
with a blue WF of 344.35 m3/ton. Although this
farm had an area of only 0.50 ha, the water
consumption was high compared with the other
farms in the same stage, indicating a lack of
planning for watering the mangosteen. Stage 5 was
the fruit maturation period, lasting from April to
July 2019 for four months, the longest stage.
According to the rain data in the area, it was found
that May had had the most rainfall, and it was
sufficient to meet the needs of the mangosteen. In
other months, the farmers had to supply water to the
mangosteen until the full harvest in July (Table 1).
4 Conclusion
This research is a WF estimate of the mangosteen
production at the farm level covering all growth
stages of the 2019 production, from August 2018 to
July 2019. Stage 5 (fruit maturation) had the highest
WF of 41.16%, followed by Stage 1 (shoot
development) at 31.14%, Stage 3 (flowering) at
11.63%, Stage 4 (fruit development) at 9.64%, and
lastly, Stage 2 (inflorescence development) at
6.42%. Considering the details of the WF at each
stage, it was found that there were some stages
during which the farmers supplied water to the
mangosteen, not complying with the needs of the
mangosteen. For example, water was not required
during Stage 2 (inflorescence development) despite
the lack of rainfall in the area. However, it was
found that the farmers on 46 farms, or 83.64%,
watered the mangosteen nonetheless. This indicated
that the vast majority of farmers continued to supply
water according to their previously practiced
patterns. The interviews with the farmers indicated
that they were concerned that if they did not water,
the mangosteen would die and not yield fruit. It is
important to provide knowledge on water
management and planning according to the
principles and the needs of mangosteen at each
growth stage. It may take time for farmers to adjust
their behaviors away from watering according to
their habits and toward the water to meet the needs
of the mangosteen. Additionally, farmers should be
encouraged to use the weather forecast application
of the Meteorological Department to help them plan
to water according to the climate and to not exceed
the needs of the mangosteen. As a result, they could
save electricity from water pumping and reduce the
production costs, as well as the water consumption,
in mangosteen production.
The study on the WF of the 2019 mangosteen
production in the TTCE was the first study of its
kind, and it has raised awareness for farmers in
terms of water consumption in mangosteen
production. It has also raised awareness of using an
appropriate amount of water as a production resource.
Another benefit has been that it has promoted green
agriculture and worthwhile water consumption, with
a minimum impact on the environment.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1271
Volume 18, 2022
Table 1. WF in each growth stage of TTCE in the 2019 production
Farm
no.
Yield
(kg)
green WF (m3/ton)
blue WF (m3/ton)
Total WF
(m3/ton)
Stage1
Stage2
Stage3
Stage4
Stage5
Total
Stage1
Stage2
Stage3
Stage4
Stage5
Total
1
28,000
167.54
0
0
18.91
182.86
369.31
0
11.79
88.39
70.71
0
170.89
540.20
2
15,250
139.82
0
0
15.78
152.61
308.21
0
16.79
32.17
20.98
41.97
111.91
420.12
3
15,250
87.39
0
0
9.86
95.38
192.63
0
10.49
20.11
13.11
26.24
69.95
262.58
4
7,167
241.73
0
0
27.28
263.84
532.85
0
60.72
60.72
30.36
30.37
182.17
715.02
5
25,520
96.10
0
0
10.84
104.87
211.81
0
31.35
39.18
19.60
39.18
129.31
341.12
6
11,900
89.59
0
0
10.12
97.78
197.49
0
16.26
73.17
45.50
0
134.93
332.42
7
18,020
221.87
0
0
25.04
242.15
489.06
33.30
33.30
33.30
16.64
183.13
299.67
788.73
8
32,500
256.29
0
0
28.92
279.72
564.93
0
0
30.77
15.38
15.39
61.54
626.47
9
2,200
484.62
0
0
54.69
528.92
1,068.23
0
227.27
136.37
0
0
363.64
1,431.87
10
6,600
323.08
0
0
36.46
352.62
712.16
136.36
17.05
136.36
102.27
102.27
494.31
1,206.47
11
21,300
106.37
0
0
12.00
116.09
234.46
11.17
31.93
25.54
12.77
0
81.41
315.87
12
8,100
822.65
0
0
92.84
897.87
1,813.36
37.04
148.15
148.15
74.07
133.33
540.74
2,354.10
13
87,000
140.93
0
0
15.90
153.82
310.65
0
0
36.78
18.39
0
55.17
365.82
14
32,500
114.82
0
0
12.96
125.31
253.09
0
0
30.52
0
30.53
61.05
314.14
15
5,555
95.96
0
0
10.83
104.74
211.53
0
86.41
86.41
43.20
100.81
316.83
528.36
16
3,140
169.77
0
0
19.16
185.29
374.22
5.95
14.86
23.78
14.86
0
59.45
433.67
17
60,006
115.49
0
0
13.03
126.05
254.57
0
4.33
15.17
10.83
32.50
62.83
317.40
18
5,500
484.62
0
0
54.69
528.92
1,068.23
0
106.36
141.82
70.91
70.91
390.00
1,458.23
19
10,460
122.31
0
0
13.80
133.50
269.61
0
11.47
34.42
22.95
0
68.84
338.45
20
7,300
146.05
0
0
16.48
159.40
321.93
0
31.23
39.04
26.03
0
96.30
418.23
21
13,060
163.27
0
0
18.43
178.20
359.90
0
49.00
49.00
36.76
0
134.76
494.66
22
7,040
151.44
0
0
17.09
165.29
333.82
0
90.91
90.91
68.18
0
250.00
583.82
23
4,500
651.54
0
0
73.53
711.11
1,436.18
0
0
266.67
133.33
133.33
533.33
1,969.51
24
1,700
705.55
0
0
79.62
770.05
1,555.22
0
125.18
230.59
131.76
0
487.53
2,042.75
25
10,240
130.15
0
0
14.69
142.04
286.88
0
39.06
39.06
19.54
39.06
136.72
423.60
26
55,600
95.88
0
0
10.82
104.64
211.34
0
35.97
53.96
26.98
53.95
170.86
382.20
27
14,080
94.65
0
0
10.68
103.31
208.64
59.09
49.24
78.79
59.09
118.18
364.39
573.03
28
20,680
103.11
0
0
11.64
112.54
227.29
0
10.52
23.68
13.15
13.15
60.50
287.79
29
6,100
218.47
0
0
24.66
238.45
481.58
0
65.57
65.57
32.80
122.95
286.89
768.47
30
23,000
127.47
0
0
14.39
139.13
280.99
0
45.91
91.83
45.91
0
183.65
464.64
31
26,000
133.27
0
0
15.04
145.45
293.76
0
72.00
96.00
48.00
0
216.00
509.76
32
2,350
226.84
0
0
25.60
247.58
500.02
0
0
271.28
143.62
191.49
606.39
1,106.41
33
4,280
99.64
0
0
11.24
108.75
219.63
0
0
119.16
63.08
84.12
266.36
485.99
34
5,030
185.47
0
0
20.93
202.42
408.82
12.52
50.10
50.10
25.05
0
137.77
546.59
35
10,200
104.52
0
0
11.80
114.08
230.40
0
37.65
37.65
18.82
43.92
138.04
368.44
36
25,300
230.46
0
0
26.00
251.53
507.99
0
27.67
55.33
27.67
77.47
188.14
696.13
37
4,600
181.07
0
0
20.44
197.63
399.14
0
344.35
344.35
172.17
172.17
1,033.04
1,432.18
38
750
1,066.16
0
0
120.32
1,163.64
2,350.12
15.00
0
15.00
15.00
50.00
95.00
2,445.12
39
8,060
198.42
0
0
22.39
216.56
437.37
0
49.13
98.26
49.13
98.27
294.79
732.16
40
6,500
196.83
0
0
22.21
214.83
433.87
0
29.54
29.54
14.77
18.46
92.31
526.18
41
26,600
100.21
0
0
11.31
109.36
220.88
4.51
24.06
24.06
12.03
0
64.66
285.54
42
10,500
126.92
0
0
14.33
138.53
279.78
0
11.43
22.86
11.43
15.99
61.71
341.49
43
8,064
264.42
0
0
29.84
288.60
582.86
0
38.10
76.19
38.10
114.28
266.67
849.53
44
22,100
248.45
0
0
28.04
271.16
547.65
0
71.68
71.67
35.84
83.62
262.81
810.46
45
44,200
180.91
0
0
20.42
197.45
398.78
0
52.13
52.13
26.06
60.81
191.13
589.91
46
46,288
207.30
0
0
23.39
226.25
456.94
0
0
11.95
8.96
6.72
27.63
484.57
47
22,300
109.96
0
0
12.41
120.02
242.39
0
8.25
41.26
20.63
61.88
132.02
374.41
48
1,575
169.23
0
0
19.10
184.70
373.03
0
29.63
63.49
31.75
31.75
156.62
529.65
49
11,050
150.76
0
0
17.01
164.54
332.31
0
21.72
43.44
21.72
21.72
108.60
440.91
50
5,564
383.24
0
0
43.25
418.27
844.76
0
220.85
441.70
220.85
165.63
1,049.03
1,893.79
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1272
Volume 18, 2022
Table 1. WF in each growth stage of TTCE in the 2019 production (con.)
Farm
no.
Yield
(kg)
green WF (m3/ton)
blue WF (m3/ton)
Total WF
(m3/ton)
Stage1
Stage2
Stage3
Stage4
Stage5
Total
Stage1
Stage2
Stage3
Stage4
Stage5
Total
51
10,128.00
421.07
0
0
47.52
459.57
928.16
0
121.33
121.33
0
90.99
333.65
1,261.81
52
2,515.00
339.14
0
0
38.27
370.14
747.55
0
19.09
50.89
25.45
0
95.43
842.98
53
7,160.00
260.58
0
0
29.41
284.41
574.40
0
87.34
187.15
93.57
93.58
461.64
1,036.04
54
12,800.00
231.35
0
0
26.11
252.50
509.96
0
50.00
50.00
25.00
93.75
218.75
728.71
55
3,005.00
266.10
0
0
30.03
290.42
586.55
0
0
359.40
299.50
539.10
1,198.00
1,784.55
Sum
886,187.00
12,950.85
0
0
1,461.55
14,134.89
28,547.29
314.94
2,737.17
4,956.42
2,644.26
3,402.97
14,055.76
42,603.05
Average
16,112.49
235.47
0
0
26.57
257.00
519.04
5.73
49.77
90.12
48.08
61.87
255.56
774.60
Remark: Stage 1 shoot development (August–October 2018), Stage 2 inflorescence development (November–December 2018), Stage 3 flowering (January–February 2019), Stage 4 fruit development (March 2019), and
Stage 5 fruit maturation (April–July 2019)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1273
Volume 18, 2022
This study's limitation is the retrospective farmer
interviews on the water consumption of
mangosteen, as a result, the data collected might be
inaccurate. Consequently, to collect more precise
data on the water consumption of mangosteen, the
farmers should record the actual water used to
cultivate mangosteen in a record form. This will
increase the accuracy and reality of the results of the
water usage calculation. In addition, durian, a crop
that requires a lot of water, is another significant
crop in the TTCE. Studying the WF of durian is also
worthwhile. TTCE will be able to control water
usage appropriately and will have total crop water
consumption data. Finally, this study focuses on the
water consumption of mangosteen in the production
year 2019. Therefore, the annual WF of mangosteen
production should be gathered to analyze and plan
for the water consumption of mangosteen in the
future to cope with climate change.
Acknowledgment:
This research was funded by the Thailand Research
Fund (TRF). We would like to thank the farmers
who are members of Tambol Troknong Community
Enterprise (TTCE) for taking the time to participate
in this research project and for their information.
Finally, we would like to thank Prof. Dr. Aree
Wiboonpongse for their valuable comments and for
making this research successful.
References:
[1] Cosgrove WJ, Loucks DP, Water management:
current and future challenge and research
directions, Water Resources Research, Vol.51,
No.6, 2015, pp. 4823–4839.
[2] Mehran A, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N,
Stewardson MJ, Peel, MC, Phillips TJ, Ravalico
JK, Compounding impacts of human-induced
water stress and climate change on water
availability, Scientific Reports, Vol.7, No.1, 2017,
pp.1–9.
[3] Srinivasan V, Seto KC, Emerson R, Gorelick SM,
The impact of urbanization on water vulnerability:
a coupled human-environment system approach
for Chennai, India, Global Environmental Change,
Vol.23, No.1, 2013, pp. 229–239.
[4] Yang H, Pfister S, Bhaduri A, Accounting for a
scarce resource: virtual water and water footprint
in the global water system, Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, Vol.5, No.6, 2013,
pp. 599–606.
[5] Liu J, Zehnder AJB, Yang H, Historical trends in
China’s virtual water trade, Water International,
Vol.32, No.1, 2007, pp.78–90.
[6] Liu J, Yang H, Spatially explicit assessment of
global consumptive water uses in cropland: Green
and blue water, Journal of Hydrology, Vol.384,
2010, pp. 187–197.
[7] Wang X, Li X, Fischer G, Sun L, Tana M, Xin L,
Liang Z, Impact of the changing area sown to
winter wheat on crop water footprint in the North
China Plain, Ecological Indicators, Vol.57, 2015,
pp. 100–109.
[8] Mishra AK, Singh VP, A review of drought
concepts, Journal of Hydrology, Vol.391, No.1-2,
2010, pp. 202–216.
[9] Veettil AV, Mishra AK, Water security assessment
using blue and green water footprint Concepts,
Journal of Hydrology, Vol.542, 2016, pp. 589–
602.
[10] Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM,
Mekonnen MM, The water footprint assessment
manual: setting the global standard, London,
Earthscan, 2011.
[11] Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, The water footprint
of humanity, Proceeding of the National Academy
of Science of the United States of America,
Vol.109, 2012, pp. 3232–3237.
[12] Llamas MR, Martínez-Santos P, Intensive
groundwater use: silent revolution and potential
source of social conflicts, Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, Vol.131,
No.5, 2005, pp. 337–341.
[13] Willaarts BA, Lechónc Y, Mayora B, Rúac C,
Garridob A, Cross-sectoral implications of the
implementation of irrigation water use efficiency
policies in Spain: A nexus footprint approach,
Ecological Indicators, Vol.109, 2020, pp. 1-11.
[14] Kang S, Hao X, Du T, Tong L, Su X, Lu H, Li X,
Huo Z, Li S, Ding R, Improving agricultural water
productivity to ensure food security in China under
changing environment: from research to practice,
Agricultural Water Management, Vol.179, 2017,
pp. 5–17.
[15] Rosegrant MW, Ringler C, Impact on food
security and rural development of transferring
water out of agriculture, Water Policy, Vol.1,
2000, pp. 567–586.
[16] Veldkamp TIE, Wada Y, Aerts J, Doll P, Gosling
SN, Liu J, Masaki Y, Oki T, Ostberg, S, Pokhrel
Y, Satoh Y, Kim H, Ward PJ, Water scarcity
hotspots travel downstream due to human
interventions in the 20th and 21st century, Nature
Communication, Vol.8, 2017, pp. 1–12.
[17] Hoekstra AY, Virtual water trade, Retrieved on
February 20, 2020 from: https://www.water
footprint.org/media/downloads/Report12.pdf
[18] Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Water footprints of
nations: water use by people as a function of their
consumption pattern, Water Resource Manage,
Vol.21, 2007, pp. 35–48.
[19] Rodrigues DB, Gupta HV, Mendiondo EM, A
blue/green water based accounting framework for
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1274
Volume 18, 2022
assessment of water security, Water Resources
Research, Vol.50, 2014, pp. 7187–7205.
[20] Schneider C, Three shades of water increasing
water security with blue, green, and gray water,
CSA News, Vol.58, No.10, 2013, pp. 4–9.
[21] Wang W, Zhuo L, Lia M, Liua Y, Wu P, The
effect of development in water-saving irrigation
techniques on spatialtemporal variations in crop
waterfootprint and benchmarking, Journal of
Hydrology, Vol.577, 2019, pp. 1–13.
[22] Arunrat N, Pumijumnong N, Sereenonchai S,
Chareonwong U, Wang C, Assessment of climate
change impact on rice yield and water footprint of
large-scale and individual farming in Thailand,
Science of The Total Environment, Vol.726, 2020,
pp. 1-16.
[23] Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, The blue, green and
grey water footprint of rice from production and
consumption perspectives. Ecological Economics,
Vol.70, No.4, 2011, pp. 749-758.
[24] Shrestha S, Chapagain R, Babel MS, Quantifying
the impact of climate change on crop yield and
water footprint of rice in the Nam Oon Irrigation
Project, Thailand, Science of The Total
Environment, Vol. 599–600, 2017, pp. 689–699.
[25] van der Laan M, Jarmain C, Bastidas-Obando E,
Annandale JG, Fessehazion M, Haarhoff D, Are
water footprints accurate enough to be useful? A
case study for maize (Zea mays L.), Agricultural
Water Management, Vol.213, 2019, pp. 512–520.
[26] Cheroennet N, Suwanmanee N, Net energy gain
and water footprint of corn ethanol production in
Thailand, Energy Procedia, Vol.118, 2017, pp. 15-
20.
[27] Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH, Pongpat P,
Kaenchan P, Permpool N, Lecksiwilai N,
Mungkung R, Environmental sustainability of oil
palm cultivation in different regions of Thailand:
Greenhouse gases and water use impact, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol.167, 2017, pp. 1009–
1019.
[28] Suttayakul P, H-Kittikun H, Suksaroj C,
Mungkalasiri J, Wisansuwannakorn R,
Musikavong C, Water footprints of products of oil
palm plantations and palm oil mills in Thailand,
Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 542, 2016,
pp. 521–529.
[29] Chapagain AK, Orr S, An improved water
footprint methodology linking global consumption
to local water resources: a case of Spanish
tomatoes, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol.90, No.2, 2009, pp. 1219–1228.
[30] Herath I, Green S, Singh R, Horne, D, der Zijpp S,
Clothier B, Water footprinting of agricultural
products: a hydrological assessment for the water
footprint of New Zealand's wines, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol.41, 2013, pp. 232-243.
[31] Zhuo L, Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY, Wada Y,
Inter-and intra-annual variation of water footprint
of crops and blue water scarcity in the Yellow
River basin (1961–2009), Advances in Water
Resources, Vol.87, 2016, pp. 29–41.
[32] Zoumides C, Bruggeman A, Hadjikakou M,
Zachariadis T, Policy-relevant indicators for semi-
arid nations: The water footprint of crop
production and supply utilization of Cyprus,
Ecological Indicators, Vol.43, 2014, pp. 205–214.
[33] Kongboon R, Sampattagul S, The water footprint
of sugarcane and cassava in northern Thailand,
Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.40,
2012, pp. 451-460.
[34] Thai Meteorological Department, Monthly rainfall
data in 2019, Retrieved on March 15, 2020 from:
http://hydromet.tmd.go.th/
[35] Royal Irrigation Department. Work manual No.
7/16: Crop water use calculation, Retrieved on
December 15, 2019 from: http://water.rid.go.th
/hwm/wmg/water/handbook.php.
[36] Agricultural Research Development Agency
(Public Organization). (2009). The batonical
characteristics of mangosteen, Retrieved on
November 10, 2019 from: https://www.arda.or.
th/kasetinfo/south/mangosteen/controller/index.ph
p
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.119
Narong Pleerux, Narissara Aimkuy,
Attawut Nardkulpat
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1275
Volume 18, 2022