The Experts below are selected from a list of 22251 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Water Footprint
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, 2017Co-Authors: Maite M Aldaya, M. Ramón Llamas, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Please check back later for the full article. The Water Footprint concept broadens the scope of traditional national and corporate Water accounting as it has been previously known. It highlights the ways in which Water consuming and polluting activities relate to the structure of the global economy, opening a window of opportunity to increase transparency and improve Water management along whole-production and supply chains. This concept adds a new dimension to integrated Water resources management in a globalized world. The Water Footprint is a relatively recent indicator. Created in 2002, it aims to quantify the effect of consumption and trade on the use of Water resources. Specifically, the Water Footprint is an indicator of freshWater use that considers both direct and indirect Water use of a consumer or producer. For instance, the Water Footprint of a product refers to the volume of freshWater used to produce the product, tracing the origin of raw material and ingredients along their respective supply chains. This novel indirect component of Water use in supply chains is, in many cases, the greatest share of Water use, for example, in the food and beverage sector and the apparel industry. Water Footprint assessment shows the full Water balance, with Water consumption and pollution components specified geographically and temporally and with Water consumption specified by type of source (e.g., rainWater, groundWater, or surface Water). It introduces three components: 1. The blue Water Footprint refers to the consumption of blue Water resources (i.e., surface and groundWater including natural freshWater lakes, manmade reservoirs, rivers, and aquifers) along the supply chain of a product, versus the traditional and restricted Water withdrawal measure. 2. The green Water Footprint refers to consumption through transpiration or evaporation of green Water resources (i.e., soilWater originating from rainWater). Green Water maintains natural vegetation (e.g., forests, meadows, scrubland, tundra) and rain-fed agriculture, yet plays an important role in most irrigated agriculture as well. Importantly, this kind of Water is not quantified in most traditional agricultural Water use analyses. 3. The grey Water Footprint refers to pollution and is defined as the volume of freshWater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants given natural concentrations for naturally occurring substances and existing ambient Water-quality standards. The Water Footprint concept has been incorporated into public policies and international standards. In 2011, the Water Footprint Network adopted the Water Footprint Assessment Manual, which provides a standardized method and guidelines. In 2014, the International Organization for Standardization adopted a life cycle-based ISO 14046 standard for the Water Footprint; it offers guidelines to integrate Water Footprint analysis in life-cycle assessment for products. In practice, Water Footprint assessment generally results in increased awareness of critical elements in a supply chain, such as hotspots that deserve most attention, and what can be done to improve Water management in those hotspots. Water Footprint assessment, including the estimation of virtual Water trade, applied in different countries and contexts, is producing new data and bringing larger perspectives that, in many cases, lead to a better understanding of the drivers behind Water scarcity.
-
Water Footprint Assessment in Supply Chains
Sustainable Supply Chains, 2016Co-Authors: Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Companies become increasingly aware that they contribute directly and indirectly to Water scarcity and pollution and that this constitutes a risk they have to respond to. A growing number of companies is exploring their Water Footprint and searching for ways they can become better Water stewards. The chapter discusses and compares three methods to trace resource use and pollution over supply chains: environmental Footprint assessment, life cycle assessment and environmentally extended input–output analysis. Next, it discusses what new perspective the Water Footprint concept brings to the table, compared to the traditional way of looking at Water use. It then reviews some of the recent literature on direct and indirect Water Footprints of different sectors of the economy. Finally, it discusses future challenges, such as the issue of data gathering and reporting, the demand for Water stewardship and greater product transparency and the need to establish Water Footprint benchmarks.
-
The Water Footprint of food aid
Sustainability, 2015Co-Authors: Nicole D. Jackson, Megan Konar, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Food aid is a critical component of the global food system, particularly when emergency situations arise. For the first time, we evaluate the Water Footprint of food aid. To do this, we draw on food aid data from theWorld Food Programme and virtual Water content estimates from WaterStat. We find that the total Water Footprint of food aid was 10 km3 in 2005, which represents approximately 0.5% of the Water Footprint of food trade and 2.0% of the Water Footprint of land grabbing (i.e., Water appropriation associated with large agricultural land deals). The United States is by far the largest food aid donor and contributes 82% of the Water Footprint of food aid. The countries that receive the most Water embodied in aid are Ethiopia, Sudan, North Korea, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Notably, we find that there is significant overlap between countries that receive food aid and those that have their land grabbed. Multivariate regression results indicate that donor Water Footprints are driven by political and environmental variables, whereas recipient Water Footprints are driven by land grabbing and food indicators.
-
The Water Footprint of Tunisia from an economic perspective
Ecological Indicators, 2015Co-Authors: Hatem Chouchane, Martinus S. Krol, Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Mesfin MekonnenAbstract:This paper quantifies and analyses the Water Footprint of Tunisia at national and sub-national level, assessing green, blue and grey Water Footprints for the period 1996–2005. It also assesses economic Water and land productivities related to crop production for irrigated and rain-fed agriculture, and Water scarcity. The Water Footprint of crop production gave the largest contribution (87%) to the total national Water Footprint. At national level, tomatoes and potatoes were the main crops with relatively high economic Water productivity, while olives and barley were the main crops with relatively low productivity. In terms of economic land productivity, oranges had the highest productivity and barley the lowest. South Tunisia had the lowest economic Water and land productivities. Economic land productivity was found to explain more of the current production patterns than economic Water productivity, which may imply opportunities for Water saving. The total blue Water Footprint of crop production represented 31% of the total renewable blue Water resources, which means that Tunisia as a whole experienced significant Water scarcity. The blue Water Footprint on groundWater represented 62% of the total renewable groundWater resources, which means that the country faced severe Water scarcity related to groundWater.
-
the Water Footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products
Ecological Indicators, 2012Co-Authors: Ertug A Ercin, Maite M Aldaya, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:As all human Water use is ultimately linked to final consumption, it is interesting to know the specific Water consumption and pollution behind various consumer goods, particularly for goods that are Water-intensive, such as foodstuffs. The objective of this study is to quantify the Water Footprints of soy milk and soy burger and compare them with the Water Footprints of equivalent animal products (cow's milk and beef burger). The study focuses on the assessment of the Water Footprint of soy milk produced in a specific factory in Belgium and soy burger produced in another factory in the Netherlands. The ingredients used in the products are same as real products and taken from real case studies. We analysed organic and non-organic soybean farms in three different countries from where the soybeans are imported (Canada, China, and France). Organic production reduces soil evaporation and diminishes the grey Water Footprint, ultimately reducing the total Water Footprint. The Water Footprint of 1 l soy milk is 297 l, of which 99.7% refers to the supply chain. The Water Footprint of a 150 g soy burger is 158 l, of which 99.9% refers to the supply chain. Although most companies focus on just their own operational performance, this study shows that it is important to consider the complete supply chain. The major part of the total Water Footprint stems from ingredients that are based on agricultural products. In the case of soy milk, 62% of the total Water Footprint is due to the soybean content in the product; in the case of soy burger, this is 74%. Thus, a detailed assessment of soybean cultivation is essential to understand the claim that each product makes on freshWater resources. This study shows that shifting from non-organic to organic farming can reduce the grey Water Footprint related to soybean cultivation by 98%. Cow's milk and beef burger have much larger Water Footprints than their soy equivalents. The global average Water Footprint of a 150 g beef burger is 2350 l and the Water Footprint of 1 l of cow's milk is 1050 l.
Matthias Finkbeiner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Organizational Water Footprint: a methodological guidance
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019Co-Authors: Silvia Forin, Natalia Mikosch, Markus Berger, Matthias FinkbeinerAbstract:PurposeThis paper proposes a practical methodological approach to assess the Water Footprint at the organizational level, in line with the current development of life-cycle based approaches toward the organizational scale on the one hand and Footprint metrics on the other hand. This methodological development allows for organizational Water Footprint applications intended to inform management decisions and to alleviate Water-related environmental impacts throughout the supply chain.MethodsISO 14046, dedicated to Water Footprint with a major focus on products, and ISO/TS 14072 for organizational LCA (O-LCA) are compared. A set of indications to carry out an organizational Water Footprint is identified based on: the requirements common to Water Footprint and organizational LCA; complementary methodological elements specified in only one of the standards; solutions to issues identified as conflicting. Additional application guidance on data collection prioritization for organizational Water scarcity Footprint studies is delivered based on the review of existing organizational case studies and comparative product or commodity studies.Results and discussionO-LCA and Water Footprint provide complementary requirements for the scoping phase and the inventory and impact assessment phase respectively, according to the different methodological foci. We identify conflicting or contradictory requirements related to (i) comparisons, (ii) system boundary definition, and (iii) approaches to avoid allocation. We recommend (i) avoiding comparisons in organizational Water Footprint studies, (ii) defining two-dimensional system boundaries (“life-cycle dimension” and “organizational dimension”), and (iii) avoiding system expansion. Additionally, when carrying out a Water scarcity Footprint for organizations, we suggest prioritizing data collection for direct activities, freshWater extraction and discharge, purchased energy, metals, agricultural products and biofuels, and, if Water or energy consuming, the use phase.ConclusionsThe standards comparison allowed compiling a set of requirements for organizational Water Footprints. Combined with the targeted guidance to facilitate data collection for Water scarcity Footprint studies, this work can facilitate assessing the Water Footprint of organizations throughout their supply chains.
-
Organizational Water Footprint: a methodological guidance
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019Co-Authors: Silvia Forin, Natalia Mikosch, Markus Berger, Matthias FinkbeinerAbstract:Purpose This paper proposes a practical methodological approach to assess the Water Footprint at the organizational level, in line with the current development of life-cycle based approaches toward the organizational scale on the one hand and Footprint metrics on the other hand. This methodological development allows for organizational Water Footprint applications intended to inform management decisions and to alleviate Water-related environmental impacts throughout the supply chain.
Yaxue Yang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
trends and consumption structures of china s blue and grey Water Footprint
Water, 2018Co-Authors: Huixiao Wang, Yaxue YangAbstract:Water Footprint has become a common method to study the Water resources utilization in recent years. By using input–output analysis and dilution theory, the internal Water Footprint, blue Water Footprint and grey Water Footprint of China from 2002 to 2012 were estimated, and the consumption structure of Water Footprint and virtual Water trade were analyzed. The results show: (1) From 2002 to 2012, the average annual internal Water Footprint was 3.83 trillion m3 in China, of which the blue Water Footprint was 0.25 trillion m3, and the grey Water Footprint was 3.58 trillion m3 (with Grade III Water standard accounting); both the internal Water Footprint and grey Water Footprint experienced decreasing trends from 2002 to 2012, except for a dramatic increase in 2010; (2) Average annual virtual blue Water Footprint was the greatest in agriculture (39.2%), while tertiary industry (27.5%) and food and tobacco processing (23.7%) were the top two highest for average annual virtual grey Water Footprint; (3) Virtual blue Water Footprint in most sectors showed increasing trends due to the increase of final demand, while virtual grey Water Footprint in most sectors showed decreasing trends due to the decreases of total return Water coefficients and conversion coefficients of virtual grey Water Footprint; (4) For Water resources, China was self-reliant: the Water used for producing the products and services to meet domestic consumption was taken domestically; meanwhile, China exported virtual Water to other countries, which aggravated the Water stress in China.
-
Trends and Consumption Structures of China’s Blue and Grey Water Footprint
Water, 2018Co-Authors: Huixiao Wang, Yaxue YangAbstract:Water Footprint has become a common method to study the Water resources utilization in recent years. By using input–output analysis and dilution theory, the internal Water Footprint, blue Water Footprint and grey Water Footprint of China from 2002 to 2012 were estimated, and the consumption structure of Water Footprint and virtual Water trade were analyzed. The results show: (1) From 2002 to 2012, the average annual internal Water Footprint was 3.83 trillion m3 in China, of which the blue Water Footprint was 0.25 trillion m3, and the grey Water Footprint was 3.58 trillion m3 (with Grade III Water standard accounting); both the internal Water Footprint and grey Water Footprint experienced decreasing trends from 2002 to 2012, except for a dramatic increase in 2010; (2) Average annual virtual blue Water Footprint was the greatest in agriculture (39.2%), while tertiary industry (27.5%) and food and tobacco processing (23.7%) were the top two highest for average annual virtual grey Water Footprint; (3) Virtual blue Water Footprint in most sectors showed increasing trends due to the increase of final demand, while virtual grey Water Footprint in most sectors showed decreasing trends due to the decreases of total return Water coefficients and conversion coefficients of virtual grey Water Footprint; (4) For Water resources, China was self-reliant: the Water used for producing the products and services to meet domestic consumption was taken domestically; meanwhile, China exported virtual Water to other countries, which aggravated the Water stress in China.
Mesfin Mekonnen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Water Footprint of Tunisia from an economic perspective
Ecological Indicators, 2015Co-Authors: Hatem Chouchane, Martinus S. Krol, Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra, Mesfin MekonnenAbstract:This paper quantifies and analyses the Water Footprint of Tunisia at national and sub-national level, assessing green, blue and grey Water Footprints for the period 1996–2005. It also assesses economic Water and land productivities related to crop production for irrigated and rain-fed agriculture, and Water scarcity. The Water Footprint of crop production gave the largest contribution (87%) to the total national Water Footprint. At national level, tomatoes and potatoes were the main crops with relatively high economic Water productivity, while olives and barley were the main crops with relatively low productivity. In terms of economic land productivity, oranges had the highest productivity and barley the lowest. South Tunisia had the lowest economic Water and land productivities. Economic land productivity was found to explain more of the current production patterns than economic Water productivity, which may imply opportunities for Water saving. The total blue Water Footprint of crop production represented 31% of the total renewable blue Water resources, which means that Tunisia as a whole experienced significant Water scarcity. The blue Water Footprint on groundWater represented 62% of the total renewable groundWater resources, which means that the country faced severe Water scarcity related to groundWater.
-
the blue Water Footprint of electricity from hydropower
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2011Co-Authors: Mesfin Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Hydropower accounts for about 16 % of the world's electricity supply. It has been debated whether hy- droelectric generation is merely an in-stream Water user or whether it also consumes Water. In this paper we provide scientific support for the argument that hydroelectric genera- tion is in most cases a significant Water consumer. The study assesses the blue Water Footprint of hydroelectricity - the wa- ter evaporated from manmade reservoirs to produce electric energy - for 35 selected sites. The aggregated blue Water Footprint of the selected hydropower plants is 90 Gm 3 yr 1 , which is equivalent to 10 % of the blue Water Footprint of global crop production in the year 2000. The total blue wa- ter Footprint of hydroelectric generation in the world must be considerably larger if one considers the fact that this study covers only 8 % of the global installed hydroelectric capacity. Hydroelectric generation is thus a significant Water consumer. The average Water Footprint of the selected hy- dropower plants is 68 m 3 GJ 1 . Great differences in Water Footprint among hydropower plants exist, due to differences in climate in the places where the plants are situated, but more importantly as a result of large differences in the area flooded per unit of installed hydroelectric capacity. We rec- ommend that Water Footprint assessment is added as a com- ponent in evaluations of newly proposed hydropower plants as well as in the evaluation of existing hydroelectric dams, so that the consequences of the Water Footprint of hydroelec- tric generation on downstream environmental flows and other Water users can be evaluated.
-
The Water Footprint of electricity from hydropower
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2011Co-Authors: Mesfin Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:Abstract. Hydropower accounts for about 16% of the world's electricity supply. It has been debated whether hydroelectric generation is merely an in-stream Water user or whether it also consumes Water. In this paper we provide scientific support for the argument that hydroelectric generation is in most cases a significant Water consumer. The study assesses the blue Water Footprint of hydroelectricity – the Water evaporated from manmade reservoirs to produce electric energy – for 35 selected sites. The aggregated blue Water Footprint of the selected hydropower plants is 90 Gm3 yr−1, which is equivalent to 10% of the blue Water Footprint of global crop production in the year 2000. The total blue Water Footprint of hydroelectric generation in the world must be considerably larger if one considers the fact that this study covers only 8% of the global installed hydroelectric capacity. Hydroelectric generation is thus a significant Water consumer. The average Water Footprint of the selected hydropower plants is 68 m3 GJ−1. Great differences in Water Footprint among hydropower plants exist, due to differences in climate in the places where the plants are situated, but more importantly as a result of large differences in the area flooded per unit of installed hydroelectric capacity. We recommend that Water Footprint assessment is added as a component in evaluations of newly proposed hydropower plants as well as in the evaluation of existing hydroelectric dams, so that the consequences of the Water Footprint of hydroelectric generation on downstream environmental flows and other Water users can be evaluated.
-
the green blue and grey Water Footprint of crops and derived crop products
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2011Co-Authors: Mesfin Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:This study quantifies the green, blue and grey Water Footprint of global crop production in a spatially-explicit way for the period 1996–2005. The assessment improves upon earlier research by taking a high-resolution approach, estimating the Water Footprint of 126 crops at a 5 by 5 arc minute grid. We have used a grid-based dynamic Water balance model to calculate crop Water use over time, with a time step of one day. The model takes into account the daily soil Water balance and climatic conditions for each grid cell. In addition, the Water pollution associated with the use of nitrogen fertilizer in crop production is estimated for each grid cell. The crop evapotranspiration of additional 20 minor crops is calculated with the CROPWAT model. In addition, we have calculated the Water Footprint of more than two hundred derived crop products, including various flours, beverages, fibres and biofuels. We have used the Water Footprint assessment framework as in the guideline of the Water Footprint Network. Considering the Water Footprints of primary crops, we see that the global average Water Footprint per ton of crop increases from sugar crops (roughly 200 m3 ton−1), vegetables (300 m3 ton−1), roots and tubers (400 m3 ton−1), fruits (1000 m3 ton−1), cereals (1600 m3 ton−1), oil crops (2400 m3 ton−1) to pulses (4000 m3 ton−1). The Water Footprint varies, however, across different crops per crop category and per production region as well. Besides, if one considers the Water Footprint per kcal, the picture changes as well. When considered per ton of product, commodities with relatively large Water Footprints are: coffee, tea, cocoa, tobacco, spices, nuts, rubber and fibres. The analysis of Water Footprints of different biofuels shows that bio-ethanol has a lower Water Footprint (in m3 GJ−1) than biodiesel, which supports earlier analyses. The crop used matters significantly as well: the global average Water Footprint of bio-ethanol based on sugar beet amounts to 51 m3 GJ−1, while this is 121 m3 GJ−1 for maize. The global Water Footprint related to crop production in the period 1996–2005 was 7404 billion cubic meters per year (78 % green, 12 % blue, 10 % grey). A large total Water Footprint was calculated for wheat (1087 Gm3 yr−1), rice (992 Gm3 yr−1) and maize (770 Gm3 yr−1). Wheat and rice have the largest blue Water Footprints, together accounting for 45 % of the global blue Water Footprint. At country level, the total Water Footprint was largest for India (1047 Gm3 yr−1), China (967 Gm3 yr−1) and the USA (826 Gm3 yr−1). A relatively large total blue Water Footprint as a result of crop production is observed in the Indus river basin (117 Gm3 yr−1) and the Ganges river basin (108 Gm3 yr−1). The two basins together account for 25 % of the blue Water Footprint related to global crop production. Globally, rain-fed agriculture has a Water Footprint of 5173 Gm3 yr−1 (91 % green, 9 % grey); irrigated agriculture has a Water Footprint of 2230 Gm3 yr−1 (48 % green, 40 % blue, 12 % grey).
-
the external Water Footprint of the netherlands geographically explicit quantification and impact assessment
Ecological Economics, 2009Co-Authors: Mesfin Mekonnen, Arjen Ysbert HoekstraAbstract:This study quantifies the external Water Footprint of the Netherlands by partner country and import product and assesses the impact of this Footprint by contrasting the geographically-explicit Water Footprint with Water scarcity in the different parts of the world. The total Water Footprint of the Netherlands is estimated to be about 2300 m3/year/cap, of which 67% relates to the consumption of agricultural goods, 31% to the consumption of industrial goods, and 2% to domestic Water use. The Dutch Water Footprint related to the consumption of agricultural goods, is composed as follows: 46% related to livestock products; 17% oil crops and oil from oil crops; 12% coffee, tea, cocoa and tobacco; 8% cereals and beer; 6% cotton products; 5% fruits; and 6% other agricultural products. About 11% of the Water Footprint of the Netherlands is internal and 89% is external. Only 44% of virtual-Water import relates to products consumed in the Netherlands, thus constituting the external Water Footprint. For agricultural products this is 40% and for industrial products this is 60%. The remaining 56% of the virtual-Water import to the Netherlands is re-exported. The impact of the external Water Footprint of Dutch consumers is highest in countries that experience serious Water scarcity. Based on indicators for Water scarcity the following eight countries have been identified as most seriously affected: China; India; Spain; Turkey; Pakistan; Sudan; South Africa; and Mexico. This study shows that Dutch consumption implies the use of Water resources throughout the world, with significant impacts in Water-scarce regions.
Silvia Forin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Organizational Water Footprint: a methodological guidance
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019Co-Authors: Silvia Forin, Natalia Mikosch, Markus Berger, Matthias FinkbeinerAbstract:PurposeThis paper proposes a practical methodological approach to assess the Water Footprint at the organizational level, in line with the current development of life-cycle based approaches toward the organizational scale on the one hand and Footprint metrics on the other hand. This methodological development allows for organizational Water Footprint applications intended to inform management decisions and to alleviate Water-related environmental impacts throughout the supply chain.MethodsISO 14046, dedicated to Water Footprint with a major focus on products, and ISO/TS 14072 for organizational LCA (O-LCA) are compared. A set of indications to carry out an organizational Water Footprint is identified based on: the requirements common to Water Footprint and organizational LCA; complementary methodological elements specified in only one of the standards; solutions to issues identified as conflicting. Additional application guidance on data collection prioritization for organizational Water scarcity Footprint studies is delivered based on the review of existing organizational case studies and comparative product or commodity studies.Results and discussionO-LCA and Water Footprint provide complementary requirements for the scoping phase and the inventory and impact assessment phase respectively, according to the different methodological foci. We identify conflicting or contradictory requirements related to (i) comparisons, (ii) system boundary definition, and (iii) approaches to avoid allocation. We recommend (i) avoiding comparisons in organizational Water Footprint studies, (ii) defining two-dimensional system boundaries (“life-cycle dimension” and “organizational dimension”), and (iii) avoiding system expansion. Additionally, when carrying out a Water scarcity Footprint for organizations, we suggest prioritizing data collection for direct activities, freshWater extraction and discharge, purchased energy, metals, agricultural products and biofuels, and, if Water or energy consuming, the use phase.ConclusionsThe standards comparison allowed compiling a set of requirements for organizational Water Footprints. Combined with the targeted guidance to facilitate data collection for Water scarcity Footprint studies, this work can facilitate assessing the Water Footprint of organizations throughout their supply chains.
-
Organizational Water Footprint: a methodological guidance
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019Co-Authors: Silvia Forin, Natalia Mikosch, Markus Berger, Matthias FinkbeinerAbstract:Purpose This paper proposes a practical methodological approach to assess the Water Footprint at the organizational level, in line with the current development of life-cycle based approaches toward the organizational scale on the one hand and Footprint metrics on the other hand. This methodological development allows for organizational Water Footprint applications intended to inform management decisions and to alleviate Water-related environmental impacts throughout the supply chain.
