Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

, 18, 2325–2342, 2014

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/
doi:10.5194/hess-18-2325-2014
© Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Quantifying the human impact on water resources: a critical review

of the water footprint concept
J. Chenoweth1 , M. Hadjikakou1,2 , and C. Zoumides3,4
1 Centrefor Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK
2 Water Research Centre, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
NSW, 2052, Australia
3 Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Cyprus University of Technology, Lemesos, Cyprus
4 Energy, Environment and Water Research Center, The Cyprus Institute, P.O. Box 27456, Nicosia 1645, Cyprus

Correspondence to: J. Chenoweth ([email protected])

Received: 28 June 2013 – Published in Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 17 July 2013
Revised: 25 April 2014 – Accepted: 26 April 2014 – Published: 24 June 2014

Abstract. The water footprint is a consumption-based indi- 1 Introduction

cator of water use, referring to the total volume of freshwater
used directly and indirectly by a nation or a company, or in Modern human societies use vast amounts of water, with in-
the provision of a product or service. Despite widespread en- creasing competition for scarce water resources impacting
thusiasm for the development and use of water footprints, heavily on present and future human welfare and the state
some concerns have been raised about the concept and its of our natural environment. As part of the search for an ef-
usefulness. A variety of methodologies have been developed fective sustainability indicator for water resource use, the
for water footprinting which differ with respect to how they water footprint has grown rapidly in prominence since being
deal with different forms of water use. The result is water proposed a decade ago. Numerous papers have been pub-
footprint estimates which vary dramatically, often creating lished, conferences held, and an international Water Foot-
confusion. Despite these methodological qualms, the concept print Network (WFN) established. Furthermore, the water
has had notable success in raising awareness about water use footprint concept has received increasing press coverage, and
in agricultural and industrial supply chains, by providing a a growing number of countries1 , companies (Coca-Cola and
previously unavailable and (seemingly) simple numerical in- Nature Conservancy, 2010; Raisio, 2010; Rep, 2011; Pepsi
dicator of water use. Nevertheless, and even though a range Co, 2011; Nestlé, 2011; SABMiller et al., 2011; Cooper et
of uses have already been suggested for water footprinting, al., 2011) and organisations (WWF, 2012) have already be-
its policy value remains unclear. Unlike the carbon footprint gun or are currently moving towards quantifying aspects of
which provides a universal measure of human impact on the their operations related to water, using the water footprint
atmosphere’s limited absorptive capacity, the water footprint (Water Footprint Network, 2012). In turn, the International
in its conventional form solely quantifies a single production Standardization Organization (ISO, 2014) has considered de-
input without any accounting of the impacts of use, which veloping a new international standard for water footprinting
vary spatially and temporally. Following an extensive review in order to complement its existing Life Cycle Assessment
of the literature related to water footprints, this paper criti- (LCA) standard (Raimbault and Humbert, 2011).
cally examines the present uses of the concept, focusing on The origin of the water footprint stems from the concept of
its current strengths, shortcomings and promising research “virtual water” coined by Allan (1997, 2001). Also referred
avenues to advance it.
1 Spain (Aldaya et al., 2010b) and Germany (Flachmann et
al., 2012) have already began using estimates of water footprints in
policy documents, with the Netherlands (Witmer and Cleij, 2012)
currently considering this option.

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

2326 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

to as “embedded water” or “hidden water”, virtual water is all of which import 60–95 % of their total water footprint
the volume of water required to grow, produce and pack- (Yu et al., 2010; Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012b; Tamea
age agricultural commodities and consumer goods; the term et al., 2013) despite none of them being water scarce ac-
“virtual” was preferred as the final product usually contains cording to the standard indicator of water scarcity proposed
only a small fraction of water compared to the total volume by Falkenmark (Falkenmark, 1986; Seckler et al., 1998).
of water actually used for its production. Allan noticed that Water footprinting also confirms that meat and dairy pro-
rather than importing huge quantities of water to achieve ducts are usually associated with much greater water use
food self-sufficiency, a significant number of water scarce compared to plant products because of the large amounts
countries in the Middle East were importing grains instead. of feed crops, drinking water and service water required
Building upon the concept of virtual water, Hoekstra and by the animals (Hoekstra and Hung, 2002). A recent study
Hung (2002) sought to quantify these “virtual water” flows also shows the enormous variation in water use efficien-
related to international food trade and thus developed the cies between different animal production systems around
water footprint concept. the world (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). This is exem-
From a production perspective, the water footprint is nu- plified by the water footprint of beef (15,415 m3 ton−1 )
merically equal to the virtual water content of a given prod- (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012a), which clearly dwarfs the
uct or service (Zhang et al., 2012); what distinguishes the average water footprints of most plant products such as
water footprint from virtual water is that it is also applied at tomatoes (214 m3 ton−1 ), wheat (1827 m3 ton−1 ) and soya
a consumer level, thus creating a consumption-based indica- beans (2145 m3 ton−1 ) (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011b)
tor of water use (Velázquez et al., 2011)2 . A water footprint (see Fig. 1).
refers to the total volume of freshwater consumed directly Despite the growing enthusiasm for the development and
and indirectly by a nation or a company, or in the provi- use of water footprints, several researchers have raised signif-
sion of a product or service (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2006; icant concerns with respect to the concept and its usefulness,
Hoekstra et al., 2009b). In essence, the additional informa- both as a policy tool, as it does not provide sufficient informa-
tion provided compared to the traditional, direct water use tion on the opportunity cost of water, and as an indicator of
indicators is that it links human consumption to the space sustainability and environmental impact (Wichelns, 2011a,
and time of production, accounting for the water use at all the 2010b; Gawel and Bernsen, 2011b, a; Perry, 2014). Fur-
stages along the supply chain of a product. The water foot- thermore, the wide spectrum of methodological approaches
print concept provides a useful means for estimating flows currently employed in different sectors and spatiotemporal
of water through trade in foodstuffs, and has succeeded in scales can potentially result in large discrepancies between
raising public awareness of the already established but some- estimates, creating some understandable scepticism and hes-
what overlooked actuality that the overwhelming majority of itance when it comes to interpreting the meaning and rele-
global water use takes place in the agricultural sector (Food vance of different water footprint estimates.
and Agriculture Organization, 2007). Similarly to virtual This review firstly considers the importance of method-
water, water footprinting appears to have contributed to mov- ological differences such as the overall approach (bottom-
ing water issues higher up the political agenda (Wichelns, up or top-down) to water footprinting, stand-alone or em-
2010a). bedded in LCA, choice of spatiotemporal scale of analysis,
The water footprint provides a useful means for esti- along with their repercussions on the validity and credibility
mating flows of water through international trade in pro- of water footprint results. The review then critically evaluates
ducts and commodities. Trade in foodstuffs has received its usefulness for informing policymakers and consumers by
the most attention since it accounts for the bulk of water considering the arguments that have been put forward in re-
trade flows and relates to important national policy issues lation to the concept. The review concludes with an appraisal
such as food security. It has been calculated that the Nether- of the current strengths of recent studies and possible present
lands, for example, has an average water footprint of ap- and future options available to researchers, policy-makers,
proximately 37.5 Gm3 year−1 (or 2300 m3 year−1 capita−1 ), corporations and consumers.
of which 33.2 Gm3 year−1 (corresponding to 89 % of the
total) is imported into the country in the form of “virtual
water” (van Oel et al., 2009). This indicates that the Nether- 2 Water footprinting methodologies – still a work
lands is a net virtual water importer. This is also true for in progress
other EU countries such as the UK, Germany and Italy,
2.1 Bottom-up vs. top-down
2 According to the Water Footprint Network (2012), although the
“virtual water content of a product” is the same as the “water foot- The first conceptual issue and decision that needs to be made
print of a product”, the water footprint provides more information when calculating water footprints, has to do with the over-
with respect to the type of water, as well as where and when that all scope of the analysis. Both bottom-up and top-down ap-
water is being used. proaches are used to calculate a nation’s water footprint

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/

 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2327

consuming economies (Australia, China, Japan, US, Brazil,

Tomatoes Germany, Russia and South Africa), the estimated total water
footprints between bottom-up and top-down methodologies
vary substantially, despite the fact that both methods were
Wheat compared using the same input data set. More recently,
Chen and Chen (2013) acknowledge the fact that their top-
Soya beans
down study obtained significantly smaller global and na-
tional water footprints compared to the bottom-up studies of
Hoekstra and Chapagain (2006) and Mekonnen and Hoekstra
Beef (2011a). Furthermore, the Chen and Chen (2013) study un-
surprisingly estimates higher water footprints for processed
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 food, industrial products and services (65 % of total) com-
Water footprint (m3 / ton) pared to agricultural products (35 % of total), owing to its
1
input–output (top-down) approach. A summary of key con-
Figure 1. The water footprint of selected agricultural products. Data
2
source: Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012a). Note that these are ave- tributions in the literature to the development of the bottom-
3 rage global values which show considerable variability from place up, top-down and other water footprint methodologies is
Figure 1: The water footprint of selected agricultural products. Data source: Mekonnen and
to place depending on climate and agricultural efficiency (Hoekstra given in Table 1.
4 Hoekstra (2012a). Note that these are average global values which show considerable
and Chapagain, 2008).
5 variability from place to place depending on climate and agricultural efficiency (Hoekstra and
2.2 Water “colours”
6 Chapagain, 2008).
7 (van Oel et al., 2009). The top-down approach for assessing a Due to the differing environmental impacts and opportunity
8
9 water footprint is to take the total water use in a country and costs of the various forms of water use, the total water foot-
10 then add any “virtual water” imports and subtract exports. It print at a national or product level is broken down into sub-
11 is based upon environmental input–output analysis (Leontief, categories of blue, green and grey water. Blue water refers to
1970; Munksgaard et al., 2005) and uses data on sectoral the consumptive volume of surface and groundwater3 used
water use (within countries), inter-sectoral monetary transac- during the production process. The blue water footprint dif-
tions (from national accounts) and trade between countries or fers from the more traditionally used water withdrawal vol-
regions. Several recent studies appear to favour this approach ume in the sense that it factors in possible return flows, which
(Zhang and Anadon, 2014; Cazcarro et al., 2014; Wang et al., refer to the volume of water returned to the water body fol-
2013). The bottom-up approach was the first to be applied in lowing irrigation. A comprehensive definition of the blue
water footprinting, and is still considered as the more con- water footprint is that it includes all irrigation water and any
ventional of the two. It sums the water used to make the direct water use in industry or in households, minus return
full range of final consumer goods and services consumed flows (Chapagain and Tickner, 2012). Green water resources
in a country, adding up the water use at each stage of the have been formally defined as the infiltrated rainfall in the
supply chain for each product. Where primary products are unsaturated soil layer (Falkenmark et al., 2009). The green
processed into more than one product, the water footprint is water footprint therefore refers to the precipitation consumed
attributed according to product and value fractions of the de- by a crop through evapotranspiration of moisture stored in
41
rived products so as to ensure that there is no double counting the soil (also known as effective or productive precipitation)
of water footprints (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004; Feng et (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011b), thus constituting the rain-
al., 2011). fed component of the water footprint. The grey component
The two approaches have their respective merits and weak- of a water footprint is defined as the volume of freshwater
nesses. The bottom-up approach is more widely used due to required in receiving water bodies for the assimilation of any
its relative simplicity (providing more intuitive commodity pollutant resulting from production so that acceptable water
information) and its increased level of stability (van Oel et quality standards are met (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011b).
al., 2009) (mainly because of a better availability of the nec- Thus, the grey water footprint is an estimated measure of the
essary data). Being process based, the bottom-up approach potential water quality impairment caused by the production
better captures the direct water use of specific agricultural of a certain good or service. By including all three compo-
products, while the top-down approach, that relies on highly nents, the water footprint aspires to encompass all kinds of
aggregated sectoral water use figures, captures entire sup- direct and indirect consumptive (blue and green) water use
ply chains and as such can better produce detailed water and pollution assimilation (through grey water estimates).
footprints of industrial products (Feng et al., 2011). The Blue and green water footprints are calculated by mul-
two approaches give significantly different results due to the tiplying the modelled volume of blue and green water use
different computational methods as well as the definitions
adopted regarding the sectoral origins of output products. 3 This includes the use of any kind of groundwater irrespective
Feng et al. (2011) for example show that for eight key water- of its recharge rate.

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/
Table 1. Key contributions to the development of the water footprint concept.
Methodology type Publication Key contribution
Bottom-up approach Hoekstra and Hung (2002) Quantified “virtual water” flows in international crop trade; introduced the term “water footprint”,
linking it to the concept of “virtual water”
Bottom-up approach Chapagain and Hoekstra (2003) Quantified “virtual water” flows in international livestock trade
Bottom-up approach Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004) First large-scale application of the water footprint concept, providing a basic estimate of the water footprint of each country.
Introduced the concept of product fractions and value fractions
Bottom-up approach Chapagain et al. (2006) Proposed consideration of “dilution volumes” in water footprints, the fore-runner to including grey water in water footprints
Bottom-up approach Hoekstra and Chapagain (2008) Replaced the concept of “dilution volumes” with the concept of the grey water footprint
Bottom-up approach Hoekstra et al.(2009b, 2011) Comprehensive manuals of the water footprint approach developed by the WFN
Bottom-up approach Feng et al. (2011) Detailed comparison of the bottom-up versus top-down water footprinting methodologies
Bottom-up approach Verma et al. (2009) Discusses the importance of non-water factors in determining trade across and between countries
Bottom-up approach Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011b), Grid-based global crop water footprint assessment, distinguishing between green, blue and grey water footprints per crop.
Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012a), Assessment of the water footprint of humanity and monthly blue water scarcity analysis of major river basins,
Hoekstra et al. (2012) based on global modelling results
Bottom-up approach Aldaya et al. (2010b), Demonstrated substantial seasonal variation in the proportion of blue and green water use between wet,
Zoumides et al. (2012) average and dry years in Spain and Cyprus, using monthly and daily climate data, respectively.
Inter-comparison of global and local modelling results
Bottom-up approach Chapagain and Tickner (2012) Review of the methodologies developed by the WFN and the usefulness of the water footprint concept
Bottom-up approach Vanham and Bidoglio (2013) Suggested an extended analytical framework that includes sustainability assessments by combining social
and economic factors with water footprints
Bottom-up approach Zoumides et al. (2014) Quantified the inter-annual crop water footprint at national level using a supply-utilisation approach applied in Cyprus,
and coupled the analysis with economic water productivities and a blue water scarcity index
Top-down approach Lenzen and Foran (2001) Applied an input–output analysis of water usage in the Australian economy
Top-down approach Munksgaard et al. (2005) Demonstrated how to apply input–output analysis to measure direct and indirect environmental pressures,
including water consumption, at the household level
Top-down approach Velázquez (2006) Applied input–output analysis to direct and indirect water use across in the Andalusia region of Spain
Bottom-up and top-down approach Feng et al. (2011) Comparison of the bottom-up and top-down water footprinting approaches
Bottom-up and top-down approach Wichelns (2010b, 2011b), Critical evaluations of the water footprint concept

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

Witmer and Cleij (2012),
Perry (2014)
Stress-weighted consumptive water use Pfister and Hellweg (2009), Proposed a stress-weighted consumptive blue water use index.
Ridoutt et al. (2012a) The stress-weighted index is applied to the case study of Australian beef production
Net water balance approach SABMiller and WWF-UK (2009) Introduced the concept of the net green water footprint
Net water balance approach Herath et al. (2011), Proposed and demonstrated a net water balance water footprint, as applied to hydro-electricity and kiwi fruit production.
Deurer et al. (2011)
Full LCA approach Pfister et al. (2009), Various methodologies proposed for incorporating water into the existing LCA framework
Bayart et al. (2010),
Boulay et al. (2011a),
Milà i Canals et al. (2009),
Berger and Finkbeiner (2010)
Full LCA approach Berger and Finkbeiner (2012), Comprehensive review of the methodological alternatives for incorporating water footprints into LCA
Kounina et al. (2013)
Benchmarking Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2013), Proposed benchmarking values for fair water footprint shares and for formulating water footprint reduction targets
Hoekstra (2013)
Sensitivity analysis Zhuo et al. (2014) Sensitivity analysis and quantification of uncertainty in water footprint results from global model at the river basin
level through Monte Carlo simulations
2328
 1
J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2329
2

(m3 output unit−1 ) by the quantity of production (total out- Grey

put). In this way, any rainfall used in situ by the crop (green 15%

Blue
water) is distinguished within the water footprint of a prod- 11%

uct, as well as the volume of irrigation (blue) water assumed

to be applied to each crop. The grey water footprint is an Green
74%
estimate of the amount of water needed to assimilate nutri-
ents in agricultural runoff, generally calculated by assuming TOTAL NATIONAL WATER FOOTPRINT
that 10 % of all nitrogen fertiliser applied to a crop is lost via
leaching, and taking the average nitrogen application rate by Domestic Water Footprint
crop in the country being assessed; the assumed fraction of Agricultural + Industrial + Domestic - Exports
Blue Blue
nitrogen leachate is then divided by the maximum acceptable Blue Grey 9% 13%
11% 9% Grey
concentration of nitrogen in the receiving water body. The
consideration of grey water is relatively new in water foot- Green
80%
Grey
91%
Grey
87%
Blue
13%
19%

+
Green
68%

printing and was not included in earlier water footprinting

studies, such as Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004); it was in- Foreign Water Footprint
troduced by Chapagain et al. (2006) using the term “dilution Imports - Re-exports
water” which later evolved into the concept of grey water. Grey
19%
Grey
19%
Blue
There is no doubt that the breakdown of a water foot- 13% Green
68%
Blue
13%
Green
68%
print into sub-categories provides more information than
a footprint consisting of a single number. For example, 3
the estimated global average water footprint for wheat 4
5 Figure 2. The composition of a national water footprint. It
3 −1
(1827 m ton ) breaks down to a green water footprint 6 of is composed of domestic goods and services plus imports (in-
1277 m3 ton−1 , a blue water footprint of 342 m3 ton−1 7
and coming water) minus exports (outgoing water). Each of these
Figure 2: The composition of a national water footprint. It is composed of domestic goods
a grey water footprint of 207 m3 ton−1 . Crops frequently has green/blue/grey components. Data are from Hoekstra and
8 and services plus imports (incoming water) minus exports (outgoing water). Each of these has
grown using irrigation will have higher average blue water Mekonnen (2012b) and show global averages to illustrate differ-
9 green/blue/grey
ences in components. Data are from Hoekstra & Mekonnen (2012b) and show global
water composition.
footprints than crops that are largely rainfed.
Some crops, an example of which is rice, vary signifi- 10 averages to illustrate differences in water composition.
cantly between countries in the mix of water types used. 11 In is because, whereas in agriculture blue and green water can
the Philippines green water makes up 63 % of the water 12 foot- be substituted and both have a certain opportunity cost, this
13
print of rice whereas in Pakistan blue water makes up 82 % does not apply to products which do not receive agricultural
of the water footprint (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2011); in inputs and as such have no green water component.
this case, the higher blue water component per unit of out- With regard to grey water, the consensus among water ex-
put in Pakistan can be explained by the greater use of irriga- perts and policymakers is that it is the least meaningful of
tion compared to the Philippines. According to Vanham and the three water types as it is a theoretical rather than an ac-
Bidoglio (2013), rainfed agriculture is globally the largest tual measured volume (Morrison et al., 2010). It is extremely
productive green water user as only a small share of green difficult to determine how much freshwater will be contam- 42
water is utilised in irrigated crop systems, whereas irrigated inated by polluted water, with the actual extent being de-
agriculture is globally the largest blue water using sector (the pendent upon local hydrology and water quality standards
others being industry and households). The blue/green/grey (Nazer et al., 2008). In the global water footprint assess-
distinction can be used in a similar way to disaggregate na- ments, grey water quantification is only associated with ni-
tional water footprints into their component colours (Fig. 2). trogen leaching but in many areas other leached nutrients can
The scientific validity of breaking down a water foot- be the major pollution threat for water quality (Juntunen et
print into its three different “colours” or constituents has al., 2002; Johnston and Dawson, 2005). However, these nu-
been questioned, however, on the grounds that blue and trients are not usually considered in water footprint assess-
green water are not necessarily discrete categories (Wichelns, ments even though their inclusion has been discussed con-
2011a), while grey water is essentially a fictional measure ceptually in the WFN manual (Hoekstra et al., 2009b) and
of water pollution that does not reflect either a consump- in Franke et al. (2013). Furthermore, the grey water concept
tive use of water or pollution treatment costs (Gawel and does not provide any information with respect to the impact
Bernsen, 2011b). Witmer and Cleij (Witmer and Cleij, 2012) of polluted water on downstream ecosystem service deliv-
indeed argue that the three water “colours” are incompatible ery (Launiainen et al., 2014). Given the fundamental criti-
as blue and green water are resource use (pressure) indicators cisms which exist with respect to the grey water footprint
while grey water is an environmental impact indicator. Fur- component in addition to the fact that it is not a consumptive
thermore, the inclusion of green water creates inconsistencies use, water quality is best quantified through other means such
between water content figures for agricultural products com- as water quality modelling (Thomann and Mueller, 1987) or
pared to non-agricultural products (Zhang et al., 2011). This LCA (reviewed in the following sections).

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

2330 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept
1
2.3 Attempts to estimate impacts of water use – Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) WATER Ridoutt et al. (2012)
2 estimate estimate
stand-alone impact-oriented approaches FOOTPRINT
3
Within the bottom-up family of approaches, and in 4addi-
tion to the original method proposed by the WFN, there are
5
currently several published methods. Some of these simply
elaborate the WFN method whereas others critically 6argue 15,415 litres < 221 litres of
of water water
for omitting or adding certain elements in order to enhance
7
its potential as an impact indicator. Furthermore, some of
these methods are proposed as stand-alone procedures 8(even 1 Kg of meat
though some use LCA software) whereas others are designed 9
to be part of a broader and more comprehensive LCA (Berger
and Finkbeiner, 2012). This section reviews several 10 of the
most important stand-alone alternatives whereas the next 11 sec-
tion examines full-blown LCA-oriented approaches. 10,412 litres 44 litres of
12 of water water
Sausse (2011) notes that certain studies (e.g. Gerbens-
Leenes et al., 2009) define the three water footprint13com-
ponents, but omit this distinction in the quantification pro-
14
cess, which limits the clarity and usefulness of the concept. Figure 3. A comparison of the water footprints for beef and lamb
Ridoutt and Pfister (2010a) argue that green water should 15 not
calculated by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012a) and Ridoutt et
be included in water footprints since it does not contribute 16 toFigure 3:al.A(2012a, b), illustrating
comparison clearly how
of the water footprints different
for beef methodological
and lamb ap-
calculated by Mekonnen
water scarcity from a water management perspective –17green proaches for calculating a water footprint can produce starkly dif-
and Hoekstra (2012a) and Ridoutt et al (2012a) and Ridoutt et al (2012b), illustrating clearly
water neither contributes to environmental flows nor is ac- ferent results.
18 how different methodological approaches for calculating a water footprint can produce starkly
cessible for other productive uses. Rather, since green water
19 different results.
is only accessible through the occupation of land it is better
considered as an impact of land use within an environmen- 20 print when they calculate the water footprint of lamb, es-
tal LCA rather than through water footprinting. In contrast, 21
timating a footprint of 44 m3 ton−1 , compared to the esti-
many authors still argue that green water resources are also mate 10 412 m3 ton−1 for lamb of Mekonnen and Hoekstra
limited, scarce and highly variable, and can be substituted (2012a) (Fig. 3).
by blue water as well as, in the case of agriculture, act as Ridoutt et al.’s (2012a) proposed method accounts, in part,
a substitute for blue water (Jefferies et al., 2012), especially for the opportunity cost of water in different destinations by
in areas where blue water resources are scarce. According to showing how improved knowledge of water scarcity in dif-
Berger and Finkbeiner (2012), the actual question to be ad- ferent locations has the potential to lead to selective pro-
dressed is how the green water footprint affects blue water curement and better choices (Ridoutt et al., 2012a). The
availability4 . Water Footprint Network (WFN), led by A. Hoekstra and
The revised water footprint methodology developed by colleagues, is opposed to the use of a stress-weighted water
Ridoutt et al. (2012a) and Pfister and Hellweg (2009) con- footprint on the grounds that calculated weighted figures no 43
siders only consumptive water use, using a stress-weighted longer represent real volumes (Morrison et al., 2010), and do
blue water footprint calculated by multiplying the blue water not make sense from a water resources management perspec-
footprint at each point of a product’s life cycle by a ge- tive (Hoekstra et al., 2009c). Using a similar logic, it is de-
ographically specific indicator of water stress. Using this batable, however, whether green and grey water can, in fact,
methodology for six different beef production systems in be viewed as real volumes. Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012a)
Australia, Ridoutt et al. (2012a) estimate water footprints have recently reiterated their opposition to the concept of
ranging from 3.3 to 221 m3 ton−1 of beef (illustrated in a weighted water footprint, arguing that it may lead to an
Fig. 3). This compares to the global weighted average water over-emphasis on reducing water use in water-stressed catch-
footprint calculated by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012a) of ments, thus preventing investment in improved efficiency in
15 415 m3 ton−1 , with the difference largely due to Ridoutt water-abundant areas. Their idea of promoting global water
et al.’s (2012a) exclusion of green water and grey water. savings is attractive and ambitious. Nonetheless, an environ-
Ridoutt et al. (2012b) estimate a similarly low water foot- mental indicator must still account for the fact that water use
in a region of water abundance does not impact human well-
4 In the case of managed forests in Fennoscandian forests, being and ecosystem health to the same extent as water use
Launiainen et al. (2014) have shown that there is no evidence of in a region where water is scarce (Ridoutt and Huang, 2012;
forest management having had any effects on evapotranspiration or Guieysse et al., 2013). This relates to the need of capturing
blue water availability. Nevertheless, this is a context- and climati- the local opportunity cost associated with the use of a certain
cally specific finding which may differ in other environments. volume of water (detailed in Sects. 3.1 and 3.2).

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/

J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2331

Large differences in estimated water footprints frequently 2012). However, the diversity of approaches, with their dra-
occur, even with relatively minor differences in methodolog- matically different results, means that the outcomes of stud-
ical approaches. Some companies are recently employing ies performed by different researchers or organisations may
the concept of “net green water” which refers to the differ- not be compatible. In some cases there may even be a risk of
ence between water evaporated from crops and the water that biased outcomes since researchers are more likely to choose
would have evaporated from natural vegetation (SABMiller the methodology which best gives the desired result.
and WWF-UK, 2009; Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013). The use
of this metric could well lead to negative water footprints in
2.4 Attempts to estimate impacts of water use –
certain cases. A common example is where farming activi-
full-blown LCA approaches
ties have replaced a pre-existing forested catchment. In this
case the removal of trees leads to a decrease in evapotranspi-
ration, resulting in more soil moisture availability as well as Despite the primary aim of this review being to concentrate
more blue water in the form of surface runoff to rivers and on the usefulness of stand-alone procedures, the voluminous
aquifer recharge (Ruprecht and Schofield, 1989). LCA literature also demands some attention. In an attempt to
Herath et al. (2011) compare three methods of calculating provide water footprint methods with an improved ability to
the water footprint of hydroelectricity: (a) consumptive water quantify environmental impact and to complement existing
use whereby the volume of water evaporated from a reser- LCA methodologies, several studies have been published in
voir is divided by the energy produced by its hydropower recent years proposing various ways to integrate water foot-
plant, (b) net consumptive use whereby land use changes re- prints into LCA inventories (Pfister et al., 2009; Bayart et
sulting from the construction of the dam are considered and al., 2010; Boulay et al., 2011a; Milà i Canals et al., 2009;
thus evapotranspiration that would have occurred from the Berger and Finkbeiner, 2010). LCA, a technique which orig-
vegetation which the dam replaced is subtracted from the inates from the field of industrial ecology, is a tool capable
evaporative water losses, and (c) net water balance whereby of measuring the combined effect of several environmental
both water inputs and outputs from the reservoir are con- impacts of products across their supply chain (from cradle to
sidered and thus the volume of precipitation occurring over grave) (Finnveden et al., 2009). LCA did not traditionally in-
the reservoir is subtracted from the evaporative water losses clude water consumption (freshwater use) as an impact (Milà
from the reservoir. Approach (a) is the approach suggested by i Canals et al., 2009), hence the process of integrating water
Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012b). Approaches (b) and (c) are footprinting into LCA is still relatively new and the proce-
alternative variants of the “net green” approach. The results dures far from clear-cut, which is, perhaps, a reflection of the
demonstrate the considerable range in water footprint values state of the concept in general.
depending on the method: approach (a) produces an average Several comprehensive reviews of methodological alter-
water footprint for New Zealand hydro-electric reservoirs natives and developments by different working groups are
of 6.05 m3 GJ−1 , method (b) 2.72 m3 GJ−1 and method (c) available in the LCA literature (Berger and Finkbeiner, 2010,
1.55 m3 GJ−1 . Deurer et al. (2011) similarly estimate the “net 2012; Kounina et al., 2013). According to Kounina et al.
blue water” footprint of kiwi fruit production by calculat- (2013) there is no single method which comprehensively de-
ing the net aquifer recharge occurring beneath kiwi orchards. scribes all potential impacts derived from freshwater use.
They subsequently compare this with the water footprint- Approaches differ significantly in terms of considered water
ing methodology proposed by Hoekstra et al. (2009b), which types, whether or not they account for local water scarcity
estimates total water consumed during production. The net and differentiation between watercourses and quality aspects
blue water footprint averaged −500 L tray−1 5 of kiwi fruit (Berger and Finkbeiner, 2010). Some LCA applications also
whereas the blue water footprint using the Hoekstra et al. explicitly quantify potential health impacts (Boulay et al.,
(2009b) methodology was 100 L tray−1 . Deurer et al. (2011) 2011b; Motoshita et al., 2011), ecosystem impacts (Milà i
found that kiwi fruit production had no impact on freshwa- Canals et al., 2009; Pfister et al., 2009), and resource deple-
ter scarcity in soils and thus questioned the usefulness of the tion impacts (Milà i Canals et al., 2009; Pfister et al., 2009)
green water footprint concept. whereas others do not. Approaches focusing on comprehen-
Although the methodological possibilities for stand-alone sive water quality assessment also exist which consider the
measures are numerous depending on the context, there is potential water use impacts caused by a loss of functionality
as yet no established method that stands out as a gold stan- (due to water quality impairment) for human users (Boulay
dard. To a certain extent, the appropriate methodology for a et al., 2011a). Important dilemmas also exist with respect to
water footprint study should depend on what goal it is try- whether the final impact category indicator will be chosen at
ing to achieve (Chapagain and Tickner, 2012; Jefferies et al., midpoint (problem-oriented with more specific scientific fo-
cus) or endpoint (damage-oriented, which is easier for con-
5 A tray is defined by the authors as 3.6 kg of fresh produce, and sumers to understand) (Kounina et al., 2013) and with respect
is the standard functional unit of productivity in the New Zealand to which scarcity indicator to use in order to account for local
kiwi fruit industry (Deurer et al., 2011). water scarcity (Berger and Finkbeiner, 2012).

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

2332 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

A lengthy discussion of the aforementioned and other et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2010; Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012b).
technical discrepancies is beyond the scope of this review On the other hand, local-specific assessments rely on spa-
but what becomes clear is that there is still only prelimi- tial and temporally explicit data, and can potentially provide
nary scientific consensus with respect to the parameters to more relevant results for local policy formulation. For ex-
consider as well as the methodology to account for water ample, Aldaya et al. (2010b) analysed the crop production
use-related impacts (Núñez et al., 2012). Moreover, as with water footprint of the Mancha Occidental Region in Spain
stand-alone approaches, different methods produce a range using monthly average climate data for three distinct years
of results. Most authors agree that there are certainly advan- (dry, average and humid). The study revealed that the share of
tages to incorporating water footprints into the more com- green and blue crop water footprints for typical crops grown
prehensive and tested environmental assessment tool that is in the region can vary substantially between seasons.
LCA (Buckley et al., 2011), the most important being that Another example is a spatiotemporally explicit soil water
water use impacts of interest can be comprehensively quan- balance model for the island of Cyprus (Zoumides et
tified as impact-oriented indicators (Berger and Finkbeiner, al., 2012, 2013). The model used daily climatic data and
2012). Recently, some authors have introduced a promis- community-level land use data for the period 1995–2009.
ing stand-alone LCA-based procedure (Ridoutt and Pfister, The results of this model were compared with previous
2013) which provides another option and yet another possi- global water use assessments of Siebert and Döll (2010) and
bility, however. Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2010a, 2011b) for Cyprus, to re-
Other authors maintain that LCA and conventional water veal the large discrepancies among estimates. In particular,
footprints are useful for different purposes (Jefferies et al., the Siebert and Döll (2010) estimates for Cyprus were 72 %
2012). Their main argument is that the volumetric water foot- lower for total green water use and 41 % higher for blue
print approach as defined by the WFN is effective in de- water use for the period 1998–2002, while the Mekonnen
scribing the local and temporal nature of water-related im- and Hoekstra (2011b) average estimates for the period 1996–
pacts, with its focus being on the components at the differ- 2005 were 43 % higher for blue water use and almost identi-
ent locations as opposed to the final number. Nevertheless, cal for green water use. These differences in modelling out-
the problem is that this creates the need for interpretation comes are attributed both to different climate and land use
of the separate components of the water footprint which in data sets, but also to different modelling parameters, such as
an impact-oriented LCA approach would be combined into a planting and harvesting dates, soil and other parameters.
final impact indicator. An LCA-derived final impact indica- The differences between global and local model estimates
tor does require more intricate modelling and calculation but indicate one of the key issues regarding the credibility and
produces a result which tends to be easier to comprehend for usefulness of the water footprint as environmental impact
consumers and business. indicator. Finger (2013) has recently argued that the mean
global crop water footprint values that are most frequently
2.5 Choice of spatiotemporal scale of analysis cited are not informative enough. This mainly relates to the
fact that the spatial heterogeneity in terms of both climate pa-
According to Hoekstra et al. (2011), there are three major rameters and production systems is poorly captured and re-
levels where water footprint analysis can be applied, namely ported. Furthermore, although the limitations of global water
global, national/regional and local/corporate level. For each footprint assessments are usually included in academic re-
of these spatial applications, there are different temporal ports, they are not stressed to the same extent when these
explications regarding the data requirements, ranging from mean global values are reported in the media or forwarded
mean annual data in the case of global assessments, to daily to policy makers. A recent example is the attempt by the
data in the case of location or corporate specific case studies. Federal Statistical Office of Germany to establish water foot-
Because of these spatiotemporal differences regarding the print accounts of food products in the country, for the pe-
modelling of input data, the results provided often have dif- riod 2000–2010 (Flachmann et al., 2012). Although the input
ferent end uses. On the one hand, global studies provide static statistics are directly derived from the national food-related
or average results that crudely capture different components accounts of Germany, the water footprint values per crop and
of national or crop-specific water footprints. For this reason, per country are from the global water footprint assessment of
global studies (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012b; Chapagain Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011b).
and Hoekstra, 2004; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010b) are not Similarly, global estimates have been recently employed to
appropriate for policy formulation; as such, they can only be assess the sustainability of consumption in France (Ercin et
used for comparative purposes in order to raise public aware- al., 2013), and to quantify the impact of the cut flower trade
ness with regards to agricultural water use, or for developing in Lake Naivasha basin (Kenya) (Mekonnen et al., 2012); the
projections for future water consumption levels at a global latter is going one step further and proposes a water sustain-
level. ability premium to fund water use efficiency measures, even
The results of global assessments are typically used to though the limitations of global water footprint estimates is
quantify the virtual water flows related to food trade (van Oel acknowledged. In the absence of temporally explicit analysis

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/

J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2333

using location-specific data as well as calibration and vali- water footprinting suggested by those developing the water
dation of model parameters with field data, such studies can footprinting methodologies can be grouped under three broad
potentially result in false estimates and provide the wrong themes: (i) a tool for assisting water resources management
indication both to policy makers and the general public re- and dealing with water scarcity; (ii) a means of consumer
garding the internal and external water footprint, and the blue empowerment; and (iii) a way of promoting equity in the use
and green water components of production and consumption of global water resources.
within a country or region. The same limitation also applies
for product-specific water footprint assessments that rely on 3.1 A tool for assisting water resources
global water use model estimates (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, management and managing water scarcity
2010b; Van Oel and Hoekstra, 2012; Ercin et al., 2011). Ad- at national/regional/corporate level
ditional development is required if water footprints are going
to be used for sustainability assessments, as the social and Water footprinting is put forward as a tool for assisting policy
economic components require further development and test- development in the water sector by showing the extent of in-
ing (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013). However, it is in sustain- terdependence of individual countries on the water resources
ability assessments and the identification of specific unsus- of other countries (Chapagain et al., 2006) and thus allowing
tainable hot spots in a supply chain which Witmer and Cleij countries to assess their national food security and develop
(2012) see as among the major uses of water footprints. environmental policy (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012b). The
The choice of spatiotemporal scale should depend on what ability to quantify in simple terms the hydrological interde-
the study is trying to achieve. Using global averages taken pendencies at the national level is one of the strengths of
from the WFN for a locally specific application is certainly water footprinting, as prior to the development of water foot-
not advisable and is likely to result in erroneous estimations prints such an indicator was lacking.
of local water use impacts. This is particularly relevant to It has been suggested that water footprinting can help gov-
businesses wishing to engage in transparent water use es- ernments understand the extent to which the size of their
timates across product supply chains, with potential bene- national water footprint is due to consumption patterns or
fits to both their own interests (saving water and reducing inefficient production and thus to prioritise policy actions
costs) as well as for better informing customers. Many com- such as changing consumption patterns or improving the
panies and corporations have already embraced water foot- water efficiency of production (Hoekstra and Mekonnen,
printing of their operations (Unilever, 2012; Coca-Cola and 2012b; Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007; Aldaya et al., 2010a;
Nature Conservancy, 2010; Raisio, 2010; Rep, 2011; Pepsi Flachmann et al., 2012). Similarly, water footprinting has
Co, 2011; Nestlé, 2011; SABMiller et al., 2011; Cooper et been proposed as a tool for exploring whether production
al., 2011; Ruini et al., 2013; Francke and Castro, 2013). sites are suitable for producing crops for export (Chapagain
Nevertheless, it would appear that most studies do not use and Orr, 2009; Mekonnen et al., 2012). It has also been sug-
their own spatially and temporally explicit water footprint gested as a means to assist corporations improve their ef-
values and are potentially basing the analysis of their own ficiency of production and minimise water-related business
operations on previously published global values. Herein lies risk by identifying any components of their supply chain
one of the dangers with conventional water footprints. A which are vulnerable (Coca-Cola and Nature Conservancy,
company or institution wishing to quantify the water embed- 2010; Ercin et al., 2011). However, by adopting an entirely
ded in its supply chain must carry out its own estimates of water-centric approach, other factors, like the livelihoods of
water use at different stages of production and also engage those working in agriculture, are largely ignored (Mostert
with all its suppliers in order to acquire the most representa- and Raadgever, 2008). It has been argued, for instance, that
tive water use data for all inputs to production. Making use the main purpose of trade worldwide is not necessarily to re-
of existing global figures from the WFN or other figures cal- duce the demand for scarce production inputs but to enhance
culated in previous studies is unlikely to provide an insight- incomes and well-being, especially when the net benefit of
ful metric of water use impact along a specific supply chain such a policy to the local environment or society is uncertain
or lead to reliable environmental hotspot identification (see or poorly justified (Wichelns, 2010b). While water is clearly
Sect. 3.2). an input to production, it cannot be the sole criterion for judg-
ing the rationality of trading patterns, as trade between coun-
tries is determined by a variety of factors such as land, labour,
3 Uses of water footprints technology, trade agreements and other factors (Aldaya et al.,
2010b; Verma et al., 2009).
Despite the growing interest in water footprinting and Some water footprinting researchers have suggested in a
the continuing refinements and comparisons of alternative policy context that water footprinting can be used to show
methodologies, there has been relatively little critical discus- countries how to externalise their water demands and thus
sion about the purpose or the uses of water footprints, with save water (Hoekstra, 2009; Hoekstra et al., 2009a; Aldaya
only a handful of papers questioning its purpose. Uses of et al., 2010b; Biewald, 2011; Biewald and Rolinski, 2012),

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

2334 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

with the dominant argument being that water-scarce coun- that some of the recent developments in water footprints have
tries should aim at importing water-intensive products from occurred whereby monthly or daily climatic variables have
humid countries with abundant water resources. Conceptu- been combined with annual land use and crop production to
ally, however, it is difficult to see how a water-scarce country obtain location- and time-specific water footprints (Aldaya et
can save through international trade something which it never al., 2010b; Zoumides et al., 2014).
had, and some countries are shown to have saved through While such developments of the water footprint concept
food imports more water than they have available locally make the results more accurate (rather than just being global
(Wichelns, 2010b, 2011b). Antonelli et al. (2012) strongly averages), policy makers and the media are attracted to the
criticise the concept of “savings”, particularly in the case of big simple numbers derived from global studies which have
green water, which is trapped in the soil and cannot possibly little relevance for local water resources management or po-
be diverted to non-agricultural uses. licy making. As the methodology and results of water foot-
Suggesting that a country “loses” water by exporting print analysis becomes more spatially and temporally spe-
goods from employment- and wealth-generating industries cific and thus sophisticated, it loses its major strength – an
is also conceptually problematic. While countries need to en- indicator that simplifies complicated data down to a form
sure that water is allocated in ways that reflect its scarcity and which is conceptually simple and readily understood. The
its opportunity cost, water footprinting does not assess the further water footprints move in this direction, the further
opportunity cost of water (Wichelns, 2010b). Furthermore, they get from their starting point of quantifying the volumes
there is no consideration of the important concept of eco- of “virtual water” being traded between countries and their
nomic water productivity in a basic water footprint (Gleick, role as a consumer indicator, thus becoming simply another
2003). However, water footprints do allow comparisons of form of local hydrological assessment.
economic productivity if results are linked to the gross value The water footprint is a useful indicator for highlighting
added per unit of water used in addition to just product yields in simple terms global or regional hydrological interdepen-
per unit of water (Aldaya et al., 2010b). Economic water pro- dences and drawing attention to water issues but in its ba-
ductivity (usually measured in dollars per unit of water), im- sic form its simplicity restricts its usefulness for local water
plies that any comparisons of volumes of water used in the management or policy making while enhancing the indicator
making of agricultural or industrial products must also ac- to overcome this problem means losing the simplicity.
count for (at least) the economic yield of the water used.
Dividing water footprints into blue, green and grey water 3.2 A means of consumer empowerment
footprints has been suggested by Mekonnen and Hoekstra
(2010b) as a means to identify ways of saving blue water, Water footprinting at the product level has been suggested
which is seen as having a higher opportunity cost than green as a means of empowering consumers by providing informa-
water. However, the opportunity cost of water use is location- tion to allow them to take responsibility for the impact of
specific: high value rain-fed agricultural land may be scarce their consumption (Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010b; Hoekstra and
in a region where blue water is not scarce, thus blue water Mekonnen, 2012b; Feng et al., 2012). According to its propo-
will not always have a higher opportunity cost than green nents, by empowering the final consumers of products, a tool
water. For example, in the Netherlands 8.7 % of total renew- like water footprinting can extend water management beyond
able (blue) water resources are withdrawn each year, sug- single catchments or countries (Chapagain et al., 2006), thus
gesting that blue water is not particularly scarce, but arable providing a means to overcome the inadequacies of water
land is obviously a limited resource (FAO, 2009). This comes governance found in some countries (Ridoutt and Pfister,
back to the argument with respect to the usefulness of the 2010b).
green water concept. Where there is no apparent impact of The extent to which consumer choices in one country can
any green water use on surface or groundwater, its use impact modify water policy decisions elsewhere in the world is de-
is essentially a land use impact and so should be considered batable. More fundamentally, it is unclear how water foot-
as such via LCA rather than through water footprints. printing can empower consumers. A water footprint alone
Water footprints have been suggested as a means to en- only indicates the volume of water required to produce a
courage improved agricultural water efficiency throughout product and thus does not provide consumers with informa-
the world. Nevertheless, improving irrigation efficiency does tion to allow judgement on the sustainability of this water use
not necessarily save water at the basin scale as it may reduce (Witmer and Cleij, 2012). A water footprint does not pro-
valuable return flows and limit aquifer recharge (Ward and vide information on the impact of that water use on the lo-
Pulido-Velazquez, 2008). Watersheds differ with respect to cal environment, the opportunity costs of the water used, nor
their physical and institutional characteristics, meaning that the degree of water scarcity in the producer region. Inform-
decisions to achieve more efficient water use are best taken at ing consumers of the environmental impact of the products
the water-basin scale, as advocated by more traditional water they consume may potentially be useful, but water footprints
resources management perspectives (Mitchell, 1990; Bach et do not do this as the information provided, at present, is too
al., 2011; Gooch and Stalnacke, 2010). It is along these lines aggregated and limited. This may even become misleading,

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/

J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2335

when, for the sake of simplicity, only total water footprints of ate share of the world’s water resources, and therefore just
products are reported, with no elaboration on what the figure as greenhouse gas reduction targets have been set, water
includes and where it was taken from. footprint reduction targets need to be set. Mekonnen and
Breaking the footprint down into its constituent compo- Hoekstra (2010b) suggest that a water scarcity rent on traded
nents of blue, green and grey waters at the global or na- products would be another means of tackling the inequality
tional level still does not provide consumers with real infor- of water resources use and allow externalities to be passed
mation on the opportunity cost of the water or the environ- on to the consumers of products. Hoekstra (2011) advocates
mental impact of production, besides the fact that the agri- for water footprint quotas to be allocated to countries on a
cultural stages of production are always shown to account per capita basis to ensure that their citizens consume a fair
for the majority of water use for all three components. It also proportion of the world’s water resources and thus increase
means that consumers are no longer being provided with a equity in total water use. Furthermore, Hoekstra (2013) and
single indicator but a set of indicators. It instead becomes an- Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2013) suggest that benchmarking
other composite sustainability indicator complete with value values can be used for formulating water footprint reduction
judgements upon which the weighting is based. targets.
As mentioned above, several companies have already Conversely, it has been argued that the discussion on the
made attempts to calculate water footprints of their activi- equity of water use ignores the fact that water scarcity is a
ties. Most of these companies have embraced the concept largely local or regional problem where demands on water
of water footprints, seeing them as a natural follow-up to resources exceed local supplies; if people in one location cut
carbon footprints and offering an additional way to render their consumption of water-intensive products it will have
the environmental impact of their supply chains more trans- little impact on water scarcity in other regions (Wichelns,
parent to consumers. While the credibility of such corporate 2011a). Farmers in the exporting regions would likely adapt
water footprints can be questioned, as previously discussed, by switching to other crops or export markets while carry-
they do appear to force companies to directly consider their ing on using the water, while water-intensive products be-
use of water in the supply chain and the broader impacts on ing consumed may not originate from water-scarce regions
the aquatic environment. Indeed, Witmer and Cleij (2012) in the first place. Suggesting that people in one location are
argue that by calculating the water footprint of their supply consuming an unfair amount of water because they consume
chains and operations, companies can identify hot spots of more than people in another region is unhelpful. People liv-
environmental impact relating to their water use. Focusing ing in humid areas are likely to consume more water than
upon these “unsustainable hot spots” they argue would be people living in arid areas simply because people tend to
more beneficial than publishing their overall water footprint make use of the available resources in the area where they
in their sustainability report. live (Wichelns, 2011a). Countries with high total water foot-
Water footprints thus do not provide a means of environ- prints tend to consume water available from their own ter-
mental consumer empowerment but through their calculation ritories (Fader et al., 2011), while many of those countries
water footprints may focus corporate attention on the water with high external water footprints (such as the Netherlands;
use of their operations. This may lead corporations to start van Oel et al., 2009) import goods due to a scarcity of arable
considering inefficient or unsustainable water use even if a land not local water resources (Wichelns, 2010b). To this
conventional water footprint assessment does not explicitly end, water is just one of the factors influencing a country’s
identify inefficient or unsustainable water use. comparative advantage when it comes to trade.
Gawel and Bernsen (2013) argue that nearly all “virtual
3.3 A way of promoting equity of water use and “virtual water” trades can be condemned from a certain moral stand-
water” trade point due to the potential negative consequences for develop-
ing countries, and thus attaching moral judgements to water
By quantifying direct and indirect water use, water footprint- footprints is not helpful. A developed country importing food
ing allows the comparison of total per capita water use in from a developing country can be accused of externalising
different countries where previously it was only possible to the environmental consequences of its water footprint and
compare direct water use and only within national bound- unfairly taking the water resources of developing countries.
aries. The inclusion of indirect and external water use allows A developed country exporting food to a developing coun-
consideration of the equity and sustainability of consump- try can be accused of creating an unacceptable state of de-
tion (Chapagain et al., 2006). Under current production ef- pendency in the importing country; however, a developed
ficiencies, it is not possible for everyone in the world to de- country which does not export can be accused of hoarding
velop water footprints equal to those currently achieved in its water resources or consuming internally more than its
countries with very high water footprints, such as the US “fair share” of global water resources. A developing country
(Hoekstra, 2011). Based upon this concept of inequitable importing food can be accused of neglecting its rural econ-
water use, Ridoutt and Pfister (2010b) argue that developed omy and allowing itself to become dependent upon others.
countries, through their supply chains, take a disproportion- Lastly, a developing country exporting food can be accused

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

2336 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

of allowing itself to be exploited by developed countries are simply calculations of a single important input used for
seeking to externalise their water footprints and associated production or consumption without any accounting of the
environmental damage (Gawel and Bernsen, 2013). Apply- impacts of use. In the same way that methane and carbon
ing normative criteria to water footprints and associated “vir- dioxide emissions cannot be compared directly on a kilo-
tual water” trading is problematic and suggests that water- gram level (because of their very different global warming
related problems need to be tackled according to the specifics potential), water consumption in places with different water
of their location. Thus, as an indicator for ethical trade or scarcity levels are not comparable (Berger and Finkbeiner,
consumption, water footprints are unhelpful. 2012). Products often have complex, spatially disconnected
production chains. This means that simply aggregating all
local water consumption determined at catchment or river
4 Water footprinting compared to other “footprint” basin level into one figure is physically incorrect (Launiainen
indicators et al., 2014). Although with methodological developments
like the inclusion of pollution impacts through grey water
In a globalised world, production and consumption are fre-
footprint accounting there have been attempts to incorpo-
quently geographically distant, allowing the outsourcing of
rate impacts of use, such innovations move water footprints
high environmental impact activities to less developed coun-
away from being an actual quantitative measure of water
tries (Galli et al., 2012). As such, indicators are needed to
used in production. Furthermore, within LCA, there are still
link consumers to the demands they place on the environ-
several possible characterisation models available for water
ment. Water footprinting has been suggested as a comple-
consumption whereas an internationally agreed characterisa-
mentary indicator to the ecological and carbon footprints,
tion model for carbon footprinting already exists (Berger and
with some researchers already considering grouping the three
Finkbeiner, 2012).
footprints into a “family” of indicators (Fang et al., 2014;
While water may be scarce in some locations, in many re-
Galli et al., 2012). However, the water footprint is fundamen-
gions it is not. The impacts of water use vary spatially and
tally different to both the ecological and carbon footprints
thus water saved in a water-abundant region will have no ef-
(Perry, 2014).
fect on abundance in water-scarce regions. Water availability
The ecological footprint was introduced by Rees (1992) to
is also subject to significant seasonal and inter-annual varia-
measure human consumption in terms of land use, with all
tion in certain places, meaning that the impact of water use
consumption being converted into a common metric, global-
can vary markedly from one month or one year to the next.
hectares – the land area needed to sustainedly supply the re-
A kilogram of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere has
sources used or assimilate the wastes produced. Whereas the
the same impact regardless of where or when the emission
ecological footprint considers the land use implications of
occurs but the impact on the environment of a litre of water
consumption, the water footprint considers the water use im-
use will vary dramatically.
plications of consumption (Hoekstra, 2009).
Contrasting a hypothetical energy footprint with that of a
Meanwhile, carbon footprinting measures the total amount
carbon footprint illustrates what is, perhaps, the key short-
of greenhouse gas emissions which are directly or indirectly
coming of water footprints. An energy footprint which in-
caused by a product over its life cycle, with carbon footprints
volves calculating the total energy input required for pro-
expressed in the common metric of kg of CO2 equivalent
ducing and supplying a consumer product, would be a poor
(Galli et al., 2012). Carbon footprinting thus tries to show the
substitute for the carbon footprint since it would not pro-
impact of consumption decisions for climate change. Ridoutt
vide information on the environmental impacts of the en-
and Pfister (2010b) argue that, just like carbon footprinting,
ergy used. As such, it would provide little useful information
water footprinting can create pressure for change. They do,
to consumers or policy makers. Breaking down energy foot-
though, point out that, unlike in the case of the carbon foot-
prints into subcategories, such as a product’s renewable en-
print where several companies and countries have set them-
ergy and non-renewable energy footprints, along similar lines
selves arbitrary targets, it remains unclear how much reduc-
to which water footprints have been broken down to green,
tion in water consumption needs to be achieved at present.
blue and grey water footprints, would still not provide suf-
Water footprints, however, are not analogous to either car-
ficient information to allow useful comparisons of the envi-
bon or ecological footprints, as carbon footprints describe
ronmental impact of two products. A carbon footprint, how-
impacts in terms of the limited absorptive capacity of the
ever, while only assessing a single environmental impact –
Earth’s atmosphere of a consumption output and ecological
the climate change impact – does theoretically provide a met-
footprints in terms of the productive and absorptive capac-
ric for direct comparison of two products for the impact on
ity6 of scarce land resources (Wichelns, 2011a; Gawel and
the atmosphere will be the same where ever the carbon emis-
Bernsen, 2013). Water footprints in their conventional form
sion occurs (Gawel and Bernsen, 2013). Water footprints are
6 The majority (54 %) of the world’s ecological footprint, accord-
ing to the Global Footprint Network, is composed of the land area work, 2010). Land required to produce products for consumption
required to sequester global CO2 emissions (Global Footprint Net- thus makes up a minority of humanity’s ecological footprint.

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/

J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2337

thus fundamentally different to carbon footprints due to the lation and economic projections for scenario analysis (Ercin
fact that the former focuses upon a production input with lo- and Hoekstra, 2014). On the other hand, the uncertainties of
calised environmental characteristics while the latter focuses global assessments are significant and results need to be care-
on an output with global environmental impact. fully interpreted, especially when zooming in to specific lo-
cations. In essence, much more hydrological modelling pre-
cision and socio-economic information is required for for-
5 Conclusions: present options and future directions mulating such policies, which are currently lacking in water
footprint assessments.
In this review we have shown that there is still no consensus When the water footprint framework is applied at regional,
with regards to both the methodological standard to be em- river-basin and local levels, model parameters need to be cal-
ployed for water footprinting as well as the actual purpose ibrated and validated with field data, and results accompanied
behind water footprinting. We believe that these two types of by a sensitivity analysis (Bastiaanssen et al., 2007; Zhuo et
uncertainty (methodological and purpose-related) may be re- al., 2014). In addition, blue water footprints need to be distin-
inforcing each other as part of a vicious cycle. Exhaustive de- guished between surface and groundwater resources, as the
bates with respect to the methodological procedures actually potential impacts associated with the use of each blue water
detract from the fact that there are numerous proposed uses of source can vary considerably at the local scale (Zoumides et
the concept, with no universally defined and agreed purpose. al., 2012, 2013; Dumont et al., 2013) Such complex applica-
To some extent, the purpose of a water footprint assessment tions, however, are well established in hydrological sciences,
is determined by the spatiotemporal scale of application. For which implies that the actual contribution of the water foot-
broad scale analysis of water use, water footprinting can pro- print concept to water management policy is rather limited
vide some useful insight through its aggregation of massive (Perry, 2014).
quantities of data into simple figures. For real decision mak- Despite its methodological limitations, the water footprint
ing and policy at the regional and local levels, water foot- has succeeded in stimulating the discussion on the inter-
prints have limited use because too much critical informa- linkages between water use, food security and consump-
tion, like the opportunity cost of different water resources, tion (both in terms of different diet types as well as the in-
their spatial and temporal dimensions, and the wider socio- creasing quantities of food produced and consumed world-
economic and environmental context, are currently missing wide) (Hadjikakou et al., 2013; Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013;
from most applications and assessments. Cazcarro et al., 2012). The concept has also stimulated in-
The recent global water footprint studies distinguish creasing attention at the corporate level (Mason, 2013), fa-
water use into green, blue and grey water footprint com- cilitating companies to begin to consider the environmental
ponents and attempt to address some of the shortcomings impact of their water use. At the present stage of its method-
of previous assessments by including environmental flows ological development, corporate water footprinting is best
and monthly variations in water availability (Hoekstra et carried out through incorporating water use into LCA – a
al., 2012; Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012a; Mekonnen and more comprehensive tool which does not focus on a single
Hoekstra, 2011b). While these revised approaches offer more environmental parameter or production input. There are also
insight on water-stressed areas compared to worldwide water some emerging stand-alone procedures (Ridoutt and Pfister,
assessments that do not employ a water footprinting ap- 2013) that make use of LCA methodologies.
proach (Vörösmarty et al., 2000, 2010; Oki and Kanae, 2006; To conclude, this review has found the water footprint con-
Döll et al., 2003; Alcamo et al., 2007; Hanasaki et al., 2008), cept to be helpful in terms of highlighting hydrological in-
the distinction between different “colours” of water may be terdependencies between nations or regions in simple terms
debated (based on arguments presented earlier). (providing a previously unavailable indicator in this respect)
In our view, the quantitative components that separate and also for identifying hot spots of environmental impact
green and blue water are interrelated and their distinction relating to their water use (which can serve as an initial scop-
provides further insights. On the other hand, the grey water ing exercise, especially at a corporate level). However, the
footprint component is heavily criticised in the literature review has also found the concept to be presently unhelpful
which implies that it either needs to be abandoned (which as a means of river basin management, consumer empower-
would mean that the water footprint concentrates solely on ment, as an indicator of ethical trade or consumption or as a
water use without any consideration for water quality) or sig- complementary indicator to go alongside ecological or car-
nificantly developed in order to arrive at an accepted method- bon footprints.
ology. It is also important to consider that both recent and
previous global water use assessments rely on broad assump-
tions with relatively low climate, spatial and temporal reso-
lution data compared to locally specific studies. On the one
hand, such global assessments offer the advantage of using
dynamic models which can incorporate future climate, popu-

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

2338 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank the editor, the Buckley, C., Friedrich, E., and von Blottnitz, H.: Life-cycle assess-
three anonymous referees, and also Davy Vanham for their valuable ment in the South African water sector: A review and future chal-
review comments. lenges, Water SA, 37, 719–726, 2011.
Cazcarro, I., Duarte, R., and Sánchez-Chóliz, J.: Water flows in the
Edited by: P. van der Zaag Spanish economy: agri-food sectors, trade and households diets
in an input-output framework, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 6530–
6538, 2012.
References Cazcarro, I., Hoekstra, A. Y., and Sánchez Chóliz, J.: The water
footprint of tourism in Spain, Tourism Manage., 40, 90–101,
Alcamo, J., Florke, M., and Marker, M.: Future long-term changes 2014.
in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic Chapagain, A. and Hoekstra, A.: Water Footprints of Nations: Vol-
changes, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 52, 247–275, 2007. ume 1: Main Report, UNESCO-IHE Delft, Delft, 2004.
Aldaya, M. M., Garrido, A., Llamas, M. R., Varela-Ortega, C., Chapagain, A. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The blue, green and grey water
Novo, P., and Casado, R. R.: Water footprint and virtual water footprint of rice from production and consumption perspectives,
trade in Spain, in: Water Policy in Spain, edited by: Garrido, A. Ecol. Econ., 70, 749–758, 2011.
and Llamas, M. R., CRC Press, Leiden, 49–59, 2010a. Chapagain, A. K. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Virtual water flows between
Aldaya, M. M., Martinez-Santos, P., and Llamas, M. R.: Incorpo- nations in relation to trade in livestock and livestock products,
rating the water footprint and virtual water into policy: Reflec- UNESCO-IHE, Delft, 2003.
tions from the Mancha Occidental Region, Spain, Water Resour. Chapagain, A. K. and Orr, S.: An improved water footprint method-
Manag., 24, 941–958, 2010b. ology linking global consumption to local water resources: a case
Allan, T.: “Virtual Water”: A Long Term Solution for Water Short of Spanish tomatoes, J. Environ. Manage., 90, 1219–1228, 2009.
Middle Eastern Economies?, British Association Festival of Sci- Chapagain, A. K. and Tickner, D.: Water footprint: Help or hin-
ence, Water and Development Session – TUE.51, 14.45, Univer- drance?, Water Alternatives, 5, 563–581, 2012.
sity of Leeds, 9 September 1997 1997. Chapagain, A. K., Hoekstra, A. Y., Savenije, H. H. G., and Gautam,
Allan, T.: The Middle East Water Question: Hydropolitics and the R.: The water footprint of cotton consumption: as assessment of
Global Economy, I. B. Tauris, London, 2001. the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the
Antonelli, M., Roson, R., and Sartori, M.: Systemic Input-Output water resources in the cotton producing countries, Ecol. Econ.,
Computation of Green and Blue Virtual Water “Flows” with an 60, 186–203, 2006.
Illustration for the Mediterranean Region, Water Resour. Manag., Chen, Z. M. and Chen, G. Q.: Virtual water accounting for the glob-
26, 4133–4146, 2012. alized world economy: national water footprint and international
Bastiaanssen, W. G. M., Allen, R. G., Droogers, P., D’urso, G., and virtual water trade, Ecol. Indic., 28, 142–149, 2013.
Steduto, P.: Twenty-five years modeling irrigated and drained Coca-Cola and Nature Conservancy: Product Water Footprint As-
soils: State of the art, Agr. Water Manage., 92, 111–125, 2007. sessments: Practical Application in Corporate Water Steward-
Bach, H., Clausen, T. J., Trang, D. T., Emerton, L., Facon, T., Hofer, ship, The Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, 2010.
T., Lazarus, K., Muziol, C., Noble, A., Schill, P., Sisouvanh, A., Cooper, T., Fallender, S., Pafumi, J., Dettling, J., Humbert, S.,
Wensley, C., and Whiting, L.: From local watershed management and Lessard, L.: A semiconductor company’s examination of its
to integrated river basin management at national and transbound- water footprint approach, in: ISSST 2011: IEEE International
ary levels, Mekong River Commission, Vientiane, 2011. Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, Chicago,
Bayart, J.-B., Bulle, C., Deschênes, L., Margni, M., Pfister, S., doi:10.1109/ISSST.2011.5936865, 16–18 May 2011.
Vince, F., and Koehler, A.: A framework for assessing off-stream Deurer, M., Green, S. R., Clothier, B. E., and Mowatt, A.: Can prod-
freshwater use in LCA, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass., 15, 439–453, uct water footprints indicate the hydrological impact of primary
2010. production? – A case study of New Zealand kiwifruit, J. Hydrol.,
Berger, M. and Finkbeiner, M.: Water Footprinting: How to Ad- 408, 246–256, 2011.
dress Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment?, Sustainability, 2, Döll, P., Kaspar, F., and Lehner, B.: A global hydrological model
919–944, 2010. for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and vali-
Berger, M. and Finkbeiner, M.: Methodological challenges in vol- dation, J. Hydrol., 270, 105–134, 2003.
umetric and impact: oriented water footprints, J. Ind. Ecol., 17, Dumont, A., Salmoral, G., and Llamas, M. R.: The water footprint
79–89, 2012. of a river basin with a special focus on groundwater: the case
Biewald, A.: Give virtual water a chance! An attempt to rehabilitate of Guadalquivir basin (Spain), Water Resources and Industry, 1,
the concept, GAIA, 20, 168–170, 2011. 60–76, 2013.
Biewald, A. and Rolinski, S.: The theory of virtual water: Why it Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: CCorporate Water
can help to understand local water scarcity, GAIA, 21, 88–90, Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment: The Case of the
2012. Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage,
Boulay, A.-M., Bouchard, C., Bulle, C., Deschênes, L., and Margni, Water Resour. Manag., 25, 721–741, 2011.
M.: Categorizing water for LCA inventory, Int. J. Life Cycle Ercin, A. E. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Water footprint scenarios for 2050:
Ass., 16, 639–651, 2011a. A global analysis, Environ. Int., 64, 71–82, 2014.
Boulay, A.-M., Bulle, C. C., Bayart, J.-B., Deschênes, L., and Ercin, A. E., Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Sustainability
Margni, M.: Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: of national consumption from a water resources perspective: the
modeling direct impacts on human health, Environ. Sci. Tech- case study for France, Ecol. Econ., 88, 133–147, 2013.
nol., 45, 8948–8957, 2011b.

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/

J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2339

Fader, M., Gerten, D., Thammer, M., Heinke, J., Lotze-Campen, H., Gawel, E. and Bernsen, K.: What is wrong with virtual water trad-
Lucht, W., and Cramer, W.: Internal and external green-blue agri- ing? On the limitations of the virtual water concept, Environ.
cultural water footprints of nations, and related water and land Plann. C, 31, 168–181, 2013.
savings through trade, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1641–1660, Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Hoekstra, A. Y., and van der Meer, T.: The
doi:10.5194/hess-15-1641-2011, 2011. water footprint of energy from biomass: a quantitative assess-
Falkenmark, M.: Fresh water – time for a modified approach, Am- ment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in
bio, 15, 192–200, 1986. energy supply, Ecol. Econ., 68, 1052–1060, 2009.
Falkenmark, M., Rockström, J., and Karlberg, L.: Present and future Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The
water requirements for feeding humanity, Food Security, 1, 59– water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in
69, 2009. different countries and production systems, Water Resources and
Fang, K., Heijungs, R., and de Snoo, G. R.: Theoretical exploration Industry, 1–2, 25–36, doi:10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.001, 2013.
for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water Gleick, P. H.: Water use, Annu. Rev. Env. Resour., 28, 275–314,
footprints: Overview of a footprint family, Ecol. Indic., 36, 508– 2003.
518, 2014. Global Footprint Network: National Ecological Footprint and Bio-
Food and Agriculture Organization: Aquastat: FAO’s Information capacity for 2007: Results from National Footprint Accounts
System on Water and Agriculture, Land and Water Development 2010 edition, Global Footprint Network, Oakland, USA, 2010.
Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007. Gooch, G. and Stalnacke, P.: Science, Policy and Stakeholders in
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization): Statisti- Water Management: an Integrated Approach to River Basin Man-
cal Yearbook 2009: available at: http://www.fao.org/ agement, Earthscan, London, 2010.
economic/ess/publications-studies/statistical-yearbook/ Guieysse, B., Bechet, Q., and Stilton, A.: Variability and uncer-
fao-statistical-yearbook-2009/a-resources/en/, access: tainty in water demand and water footprint assessments of fresh
22 September 2010, 2009. algae cultivation based on case studies from five climatic regions,
Feng, K., Chapagain, A. K., Suh, S., Pfister, S., and Hubacek, K.: Bioresource Technol., 128, 317–323, 2013.
Comparison of bottom-up and top-down approaches to calculat- Hadjikakou, M., Chenoweth, J., and Miller, G.: Estimating the di-
ing the water footprints of nations, Econ. Systems Res., 23, 371– rect and indirect water use of tourism in the eastern Mediter-
385, 2011. ranean, J. Environ. Manage., 114, 548–556, 2013.
Feng, K., Siu, Y. L., Guan, D., and Hubacek, K.: Assessing re- Hanasaki, N., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Masuda, K., Motoya, K., Shi-
gional virtual water flows and water footprints in the Yellow rakawa, N., Shen, Y., and Tanaka, K.: An integrated model for
River Basin, China: a consumption based approach, Appl. Ge- the assessment of global water resources – Part 2: Applica-
ogr., 32, 691–701, 2012. tions and assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1027–1037,
Finger, R.: More than the mean – A note on heterogeneity aspects doi:10.5194/hess-12-1027-2008, 2008.
in the assessment of water footprints, Ecol. Indic., 29, 145–147, Herath, I., Deurer, M., Horne, D., Singh, R., and Clothier, B.: The
2013. water footprint of hydroelectricity: a methodological comparison
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, from a case study in New Zealand, J. Clean. Prod., 19, 1582–
R., Hellweg, S., Köhler, A., Pennington, D., and Sangwon, S.: 1589, 2011.
Recent developments in life cycle assessment, J. Environ. Man- Hoekstra, A. Y.: Human appropriation of natural capital: a compar-
age., 91, 1–21, 2009. ison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis, Ecol.
Flachmann, C., Mayer, H., and Manzel, K.: Water Footprint of Food Econ., 68, 1963–11974, 2009.
Products in Germany, Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statisti- Hoekstra, A. Y.: The Global Dimension of Water Governance: Why
cal Office of Germany), Wiesbaden, 2012. the River Basin Approach Is No Longer Sufficient and Why Co-
Francke, I. C. M. and Castro, J. F. W.: Carbon and water footprint operative Action at Global Level Is Needed, Water, 3, 21–46,
analysis of a soapbar produced in Brazil by Natura Cosmetics, 2011.
Water Resourc. Ind., 1–2, 37–48, doi:10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.003, Hoekstra, A. Y.: Wise freshwater allocation: Water footprint caps
2013. by river basin, benchmarks by product and fair water footprint
Franke, N. A., Boyacioglu, H., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Grey water shares by community, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, 2013.
footprint accounting: Tier 1 supporting guidelines, UNESCO- Hoekstra, A. Y. and Chapagain, A. K.: Water footprints of nations:
IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, 2013. Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern,
Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., and Water Resour. Manag., 21, 35–48, 2006.
Giljum, S.: Integrated ecological, carbon and water footprint into Hoekstra, A. Y. and Chapagain, A. K.: The water footprints of Mo-
a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking rocco and the Netherlands: global water use as a result of do-
human pressure on the planet, Ecol. Indic., 16, 100–112, 2012. mestic consumption of agricultural commodities, Ecol. Econ.,
Gawel, E. and Bernsen, K.: Do we really need a water footprint? 64, 143–151, 2007.
Global trade, water scarcity and the limite role of virtual water, Hoekstra, A. Y. and Chapagain, A. K.: Globalization of Water:
GAIA, 20, 162–167, 2011a. Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources, Blackwell Publish-
Gawel, E. and Bernsen, K.: The colour of water: what does it tell ing, Oxford, 2008.
us about scarcity? Reaction to two articles regarding the virtual Hoekstra, A. Y. and Hung, P. Q.: Virtual water trade: a quantification
water concept, GAIA, 20, 224–228, 2011b. of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international
crop trade, IHE Delft, Delft, 2002.

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

2340 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

Hoekstra, A. Y. and Mekonnen, M. M.: Reply to Ridoutt and Huang: Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: A global and high-resolution
From water footprint assessment to policy, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat,
USA, 109, E1425, doi:10.1073/pnas.1205186109, 2012a. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 1259–1276, doi:10.5194/hess-14-
Hoekstra, A. Y. and Mekonnen, M. M.: The water footprint of hu- 1259-2010, 2010b.
manity, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 3232–3237, 2012b. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: National water footprint
Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., and Mekonnen, accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production
M. M.: Water Footprint Manual: State of the Art 2009, Water and consumption, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, 2011a.
Footprint Network, Enschede, 2009a. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The green, blue and
Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., and Mekonnen, grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products, Hy-
M. M.: Water Footprint Manual: State of the Art 2009, Water drol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1577–1600, doi:10.5194/hess-15-1577-
Footprint Network, Enschede, 2009b. 2011, 2011b.
Hoekstra, A. Y., Gerbens-Leenes, W., and van der Meer, T. H.: Re- Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: A global assessment of the
ply to Pfister and Hellweg: Water footprint accounting, impact water footprint of farm animal products, Ecosystems, 15, 401–
assessment, and life-cycle assessment, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 415, 2012a.
106, E114, doi:10.1073/pnas.0909948106, 2009c. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The blue water footprint of
Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., and Mekonnen, electricity from hydropower, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 179–
M. M.: The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the 187, doi:10.5194/hess-16-179-2012, 2012b.
Global Standard, Earthscan, London, 224 pp., 2011. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Water footprint benchmarks
Hoekstra, A. Y., Mekonnen, M. M., Chapagain, A. K., Mathews, for crop production, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, 2013.
R. E., and Richter, B. D.: Global monthly water scarcity: blue Mekonnen, M. M., Hoekstra, A. Y., and Becht, R.: Mitigating the
water footprints versus blue water availability, PLoS ONE, 7, water footprint of export cut flowers from the Lake Naivasha
e32688, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032688, 2012. Basin, Kenya, Water Resour. Manag., 26, 3725–3742, 2012.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization): ISO Brief- Milà i Canals, L., Chenoweth, J., Chapagain, A., Orr, S., Antón, A.,
ing Note: Measuring the impact of water use and promoting and Clift, R.: Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I
efficiency in water management, available at: http://www.iso. – Inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main
org/iso/iso14046_briefing_note.pdf (last access: 16 June 2014), impact pathways, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass., 14, 28–42, 2009.
2014. Mitchell, B.: Integrated water management, in: Integrated Water
Jefferies, D., Muñoz, I., Hodges, J., King, V. J., Aldaya, M., Ercin, Management: International Experiences and Perspectives, edited
A. E., Milà i Canals, L., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Water footprint and by: Mitchell, B., Belhaven Press, London, 1–21, 1990.
life cycle assessment as approaches to assess potential impacts of Morrison, J., Schulte, P., and Schenck, R.: Corporate Water Ac-
products on water consumption. Key learning points from pilot counting: an Analysis of Methods and Tools for Measuring Water
studies on tea and margarine, J. Clean. Prod., 33, 155–166, 2012. Use and Its Impact, UNEP/Pacific Institute, Oakland, 2010.
Johnston, A. E. and Dawson, C. J.: Phospherus in Agriculture and in Mostert, E. and Raadgever, G. T.: Seven rules for researchers to
Relation to Water Quality, Agricultural Industries Confederation, increase their impact on the policy process, Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Peterborough, 2005. Sci., 12, 1087–1096, doi:10.5194/hess-12-1087-2008, 2008.
Juntunen, M. L., Hammar, T., and Rikala, R.: Leaching of nitrogen Motoshita, M., Itsubo, N., and Inaba, A.: Development of impact
and phosphorus during production of forest seedlings in contain- factors on damage to health by infectious diseases caused by do-
ers, J. Environ. Qual., 31, 1868–1874, 2002. mestic water scarcity, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass., 16, 65–73, 2011.
Kounina, A., Margni, M., Bayart, J.-B., Boulay, A.-M., Berger, M., Munksgaard, J., Wier, M., Lenzen, M., and Dey, C.: Using input-
Bulle, C., Frischknecht, R., Koehler, A., i Canals, L. M., and Mo- output analysis to measure the environmental pressure of con-
toshita, M.: Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life sumption at different spatial levels, J. Ind. Ecol., 9, 169–185,
cycle inventory and impact assessment, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass., 2005.
18, 707–721, 2013. Nazer, D. W., Siebel, M. A., van der Zaag, P., Mimi, Z., and Gijzen,
Launiainen, S., Futter, M. N., Ellison, D., Clarke, N., Finér, L., Hög- H. J.: Water footprint of the Palestinians in the West Bank, J. Am.
bom, L., Laurén, A., and Ring, E.: Is the Water Footprint an Ap- Water Resour. As., 44, 449–458, 2008.
propriate Tool for Forestry and Forest Products: The Fennoscan- Nestlé: Meeting the Global Water Challenge: Creating Shared Value
dian Case, AMBIO, 43, 244–256, doi:10.1007/s13280-013- Summary Report 2011, Nestlé, Vevey, 2011.
0380-z, 2014. Núñez, M., Pfister, S., Antón, A., Muñoz, P., Hellweg, S., Koehler,
Lenzen, M. and Foran, B.: An input–output analysis of Australian A., and Rieradevall, J.: Assessing the Environmental Impact of
water usage, Water Policy, 3, 321–340, 2001. Water Consumption by Energy Crops Grown in Spain, J. Ind.
Leontief, W.: Environmental repercussions and the economic struc- Ecol., 17, 90–102, 2012.
ture: an input–output approach, Rev. Econ. Statistics, 52, 262– Oki, T. and Kanae, S.: Global hydrological cycles and world water
271, 1970. resources, Science, 313, 1068–1072, 2006.
Mason, N.: Uncertain Frontiers: Mapping New Corporate Engage- Pepsi Co: Environmental Sustainability Report 2009/10: Path to
ment in Water Security, Overseas Development Institute, Lon- Zero, Pepsi Co UK & Ireland, London, 2011.
don, 2013. Perry, C.: Water footprints: Path to enlightenment, or false trail?,
Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The green, blue and grey Agr. Water Manage., 134, 119–125, 2014.
water footprint of crops and derived crop products, UNESCO- Pfister, S. and Hellweg, S.: The water “shoesize” vs. footprint of
IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands, 2010a. bioenergy, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, E93–94, 2009.

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/

J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept 2341

Pfister, S., Koehler, A., and Hellweg, S.: Assessing the environ- drol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1205–1215, doi:10.5194/hess-17-1205-
mental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA, Environ. Sci. 2013, 2013.
Techol., 43, 4098–4104, 2009. Thomann, R. V. and Mueller, J. A.: Principles of Surface Water
Raimbault, M. and Humbert, S.: ISO considers potential stan- Quality Modeling and Control, Harper & Row Publishers, 1987.
dard on water footprint, available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/ Unilever: Our water footprint, available at: http://www.unilever.
isofocusplus_bonus_water-footprint, last access: 21 June 2012, com/sustainable-living/water/footprint/ (last access: 21 June
2011. 2012), 2012.
Raisio’s H2 O Label: available at: http://www.raisio.com/www/ Vanham, D. and Bidoglio, G.: A review on the indicator water foot-
page/4397 (last access: 21 February 2010), 2010. print for the EU 28, Ecol. Indic., 26, 61–75, 2013.
Rees, W. E.: Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capac- Van Oel, P. R. and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Towards Quantification of the
ity: what urban economics leaves out, Environ. Urban., 4, 121– Water Footprint of Paper: A First Estimate of its Consumptive
130, 1992. Component, Water Resour. Manag., 26, 733–749, 2012.
Rep, J.: From Forest to Paper, the Story of Our Water Footprint, van Oel, P. R., Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The external
UPM-Kymmene, Helsinki, 2011. water footprint of the Netherlands: geographcially-explicit quan-
Ridoutt, B. G. and Huang, J.: Environmental relevance – the key tification and impact assessment, Ecol. Econ., 69, 82–92, 2009.
to understanding water footprints, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, Velázquez, E.: An input–output model of water consumption:
E1424, doi:10.1073/pnas.1203809109, 2012. Analysing intersectoral water relationships in Andalusia, Ecol.
Ridoutt, B. G. and Pfister, S.: A revised approach to water footprint- Econ., 56, 226– 240, 2006.
ing to make transparent the impacts of consumption and produc- Velázquez„ E., Madrid, C., and Beltran, M. J.: Rethinking the
tion on global freshwater scarcity, Global Environ. Chang., 20, Concepts of Virtual Water and Water footprint in Relation to
113–120, 2010a. the Production–Consumption Binomial and the Water–Energy
Ridoutt, B. G. and Pfister, S.: Reducing humanity’s water footprint, Nexus, Water Resour. Manag., 25, 743–761, 2011.
Environ. Sci. Techol., 44, 6019–6021, doi:10.1021/es101907z, Verma, S., Kampman, D. A., van der Zaag, P., and Hoekstra, A. Y.:
2010b. Going against the flow: A critical analysis of inter-state virtual
Ridoutt, B. G. and Pfister, S.: A new water footprint calculation water trade in the context of India’s National River Linking Pro-
method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into gram, Phys. Chem. Earth, 34, 261–269, 2009.
a single stand-alone weighted indicator, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass., Vörösmarty, C., Green, P., Salisbury, J., and Lammers, R.: Global
18, 204–207, 2013. Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Popu-
Ridoutt, B. G., Sanguansri, P., Freer, M., and Harper, G. S.: Water lation Growth, Science, 289, 284–288, 2000.
footprint of livestock: comparison of six geographically defined Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D.,
beef production systems, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass., 17, 165–175, Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S. E., Sullivan, C. A.,
2012a. Reidy Liermann, C., and Davies, P. M.: Global threats to hu-
Ridoutt, B. G., Sanguansri, P., Nolan, M., and Marks, N.: Meat con- man water security and river biodiversity, Nature, 467, 555–561,
sumption and water scarcity: beware of generalizations, J. Clean. 2010.
Prod., 28, 127–133, 2012b. Wang, Z., Huang, K., Yang, S., and Yu, Y.: An Input-output Ap-
Ruini, L., Marino, M., Pignatelli, S., Laio, F., and Ridolfi, L.: proach to Evaluate the Water Footprint and Virtual Water Trade
Water footprint of a large-sized food company: the case of Bar- of Beijing, China, J. Clean. Prod., 42, 172–179, 2013.
illa pasta production, Water Resources and Industry, 1–2, 7–24, Ward, F. A. and Pulido-Velazquez, M.: Water conservation in ir-
doi:10.1016/j.wri.2013.04.002, 2013. rigation can increase water use, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105,
Ruprecht, J. K. and Schofield, N. J.: Analysis of streamflow gen- 18215–18220, 2008.
eration following deforestation in southwest Western Australia, Water Footprint Network, available at: http://www.waterfootprint.
J. Hydrol., 105, 1–17, 1989. org (last access: 21 June 2012), 2012.
SABMiller and WWF-UK: Water Footprinting: Identifying & Ad- Wichelns, D.: Virtual Water: A Helpful Perspective, but not a Suf-
dressing Water Risks in the Value Chain, SABMiller and WWF, ficient Policy Criterion, Water Resour. Manag., 24, 2203–2219,
Woking, 2009. 2010a.
SABMiller, WWF-UK, and GIZ: Water Futures: Addressing Shared Wichelns, D.: Virtual water and water footprints offer limited in-
Water Challenges Through Collective Action, SAB Miller, Wok- sight regarding important policy questions, Int. J. Water Resourc.
ing, Surrey, 2011. D., 26, 639–651, 2010b.
Sausse, C.: On the water footpring of energy from biomass: A com- Wichelns, D.: Virtual water and water footprints: compelling no-
ment, Ecol. Econ., 71, 1–3, 2011. tions, but notably flawed: reaction to two articles regard the vir-
Seckler, D., Amarasighe, U., Molden, D., de Silva, R., and tual water concept, GAIA, 20, 171–175, 2011a.
Barker, R.: World Water Demand and Supply, 1990 to 2025: Sce- Wichelns, D.: Do the virtual water and water footprint perspectives
narios and Issues, Research Report 19, International Water Man- enhance policy discussions?, Int. J. Water Resour. D., 27, 633–
agement Institute, Colombo, 1998. 645, 2011b.
Siebert, S. and Döll, P.: Quantifying blue and green virtual water Witmer, M. C. H. and Cleij, P.: Water Footprint: Useful for Sustain-
contents in global crop production as well as potential production ability Policies?, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
losses without irrigation, J. Hydrol., 384, 198–217, 2010. Agency, The Hague, 2012.
Tamea, S., Allamano, P., Carr, J. A., Claps, P., Laio, F., and Ridolfi, WWF: Living Planet Report 2012, WWF International, Gland,
L.: Local and global perspectives on the virtual water trade, Hy- Switzerland, 2012.

www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014

2342 J. Chenoweth et al.: A critical review of the water footprint concept

Yu, Y., Hubacek, K., Feng, K., and Guan, D.: Assessing the regional Zoumides, C., Bruggeman, A., and Zachariadis, T.: Global versus
and global water footprints for the UK, Ecol. Econ., 69, 1140– local crop water footprints: the case of Cyprus, in: Proceedings
1147, 2010. of the Session “Solving the Water Crisis: Common Action To-
Zhang, C. and Anadon, L. D.: A multi-regional input–output analy- ward a Sustainable Water Footprint”, Planet under Pressure Con-
sis of domestic virtual water trade and provincial water footprint ference, London, 26 March 2012, 7–27, 2012.
in China, Ecol. Econ., 100, 159–172, 2014. Zoumides, C., Bruggeman, A., Zachariadis, T., and Pashiardis, S.:
Zhang, Z., Yang, H., and Shi, M.: Analyses of water footprint of Quantifying the Poorly Known Role of Groundwater in Agricul-
Beijing in an interregional input-output framework, Ecol. Econ., ture: the Case of Cyprus, Water Resour. Manag., 27, 2501–2514,
70, 2494–2502, 2011. 2013.
Zhang, Z., Shi, M., and Yang, H.: Understanding Beijing’s Water Zoumides, C., Bruggeman, A., Hadjikakou, M., and Zachariadis, T.:
Challenge: A Decomposition Analysis of Changes in Beijing’s Policy-relevant indicators for semi-arid nations: The water foot-
Water Footprint between 1997 and 2007, Environ. Sci. Technol., print of crop production and supply utilization of Cyprus, Ecol.
46, 1273–12380, 2012. Indic., 43, 205–214, 2014.
Zhuo, L., Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: Sensitivity and
uncertainty in crop water footprint accounting: a case study for
the Yellow River Basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 11,
135–167, doi:10.5194/hessd-11-135-2014, 2014.

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342, 2014 www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2325/2014/