Direct and indirect vulnerability of economic sectors to water scarcity: A hotspot analysis of the Indian economy

Abstract

Resource scarcity is capable of affecting economic activity. Though the dependence of direct users is easily acknowledged, indirect vulnerability imposed on downstream sectors of the economic system is not as easily understood. In the context of growing water scarcity across India, this study maps the dependence of prominent sectors of the Indian economy to the water‐withdrawal model of India (Bogra, Bakshi, & Mathur, 2016). From the suppliers' perspective, the results indicate that embodied water of the largest direct water‐withdrawing food sectors namely, Paddy, Wheat, and Sugarcane (PWS) is indirectly consumed mostly by the consumptive food sectors. However, from the users' perspective, even non‐food sectors exhibit a significant dependence on the embodied water of PWS. Further, blue‐water‐based structural path analysis (SPA) of Paddy and Wheat indicate significant contributions to Land transport, Construction, and Beverages, among others, whereas Land transport is important in terms of green water too. The out‐degree measure indicates a higher dependence of the economy on Electricity (blue water) and Forestry (green water) sectors. Specifically, infrastructural sectors exhibit a significant dependence on Electricity; whereas Forestry products contribute to non‐food sectors. State‐wise water‐scarcity indices (WSIs) indicate higher dependence of Electricity on scarce surface‐water flows of north‐western and central states, whereas forested areas in the north and north‐eastern parts of India exhibit lowest ground WSIs. By integrating regional flows with sectoral dependencies, it is observed that the risk to a reduction of the economy's throughput is higher from water withdrawn by Electricity compared to food sectors, PWS.

Greenhouse gas emissions of India's household food, apparel, mobility and energy consumption: Regional structure and inequality, and scenarios for 1.5°C climate stabilization

“…), and services (entertainment and health) [4][5][6][7]. This suggests that, with ongoing urbanization, demand for resources and associated impacts will increase as well [8][9][10][11].…”

“…However, most global and national EEIO-models are not well-suited for regional impact assessments due to (i) significant struc-tural difference bewtween regional and national economies [61] (ii) owing to lack of supply-use data of regional and inter-regional economic-flows [8,9,62]. Additionally, the use of different approaches of analysis (demand-pull versus supply-push) [8,9,27,28] for global and national EEIO models can present different values of supply-chain responsibilities [63] and of consumers versus producers [64]. The household's perspective in particular demands that con-sumption data is aligned with sector-wise defination given in the IO tables, thus missing the differentiation seen across regions and households.…”

“…input-output models do not exist for India). That said, regional environmental extensions (biodiversity [57], water [8,9], material [56], etc.) and development of physical input-output models [58] is an active area of research in IE.…”

“…As stated earlier, both global and national EEIO models have been utilized to estimate the GHG impacts of India from territorial, national and house-hold perspective [28,59,60]. However, most global and national EEIO-models are not well-suited for regional impact assessments due to (i) significant struc-tural difference bewtween regional and national economies [61] (ii) owing to lack of supply-use data of regional and inter-regional economic-flows [8,9,62]. Additionally, the use of different approaches of analysis (demand-pull versus supply-push) [8,9,27,28] for global and national EEIO models can present different values of supply-chain responsibilities [63] and of consumers versus producers [64].…”