Open image in new window Fig. 8 Percentage of total cultivated area drained in 2011 (in few cases due to lack of data, value of the index in the previous years has been reported).
Open image in new window Fig. 10 Land use policy index in 2011 (in few cases due to lack of data, value of the index in the previous years has been reported).
Open image in new window Fig. 7 Irrigation water requirement (mm/year) in 2011 (in few cases due to lack of data, value of the index in the previous years has been reported).
Open image in new window Fig. 6 Value added to GDP by agriculture in 2011, this index is not available for Somalia (in few cases due to lack of data, value of the index in the previous years has been reported).
Open image in new window Fig. 5 NRI (mm/year) in 2011, this index is not available for Cape Verde, Mauritius, Sao Tome and Principe, and Seychelles (in few cases due to lack of data, value of the index in the previous years has been reported).
Open image in new window Fig. 9 Difference between NRI and irrigation water requirement (mm/year) in 2011, this index is not available for Cape Verde, Mauritius, Sao Tome and Principe, and Seychelles (in few cases due to lack of data, value of the index in the previous years has been reported).
Once again, due to the lack of data support, the values of most of these parameters were assumed and their sensitivities were studied to assess the best and worst case scenarios.
Meta-analysis was carried out, excluding two RCTs published by Canullo et al. (2010) and Prosper et al. (2009) due to lack of data reporting mean values of MBL changes comparing PS- and PM-implant-abutment configurations and their standard deviations, respectively.
Yet, we see that in this particular process, particular modes of dealing with lack of data, uncertainties and value-differences were being employed.
This observation is most likely an artifact introduced by mean centering of SAC score and distance, but could potentially also be observed as a result of the lack of data points for distance values below 0.03 (as described earlier, the majority of data points (60%) lie outside this range, namely between distance values of 0.2 and 0.6).
The uncertainties associated with the lack of data for specific footprint values and with the assumption of constant footprints in general imply that the environmental footprint estimates discussed here should be considered as conservative.
