Water footprint assessment considering intermediate products: model and a 2016 case study of China

Abstract

Analysing intermediate products within a water footprint (WF) across different economic sectors can show the root causes of water usage and is helpful for water resource management and policy making. However, conventional methods and data for a WF rarely assess the input and output of intermediate products directly and comprehensively. Therefore, this study proposes an approach to access the WF of intermediate products as well as final products in each sector of an economy’s water sustainability profile. An Economic Input‐output‐based Life‐Cycle Assessment (EIO‐LCA) framework is designed for the accounting, which describes the intermediate WF products of each sector in a material‐product network. This method is implemented into a 2016 case study for a comprehensive Chinese WF. The results showed that the total WF of Chinese inhabitants (consumers) in 2016 was 5.76 × 1011 m3, and the top three sectors with the largest WF were agriculture (1.78 × 1011 m3), food (1.05 × 1011 m3) and machinery manufacturing (5.68 × 1010 m3); agriculture provided the largest quantity of virtual water contained in its intermediate product for the other sectors. From the perspective of producers, the total WF of the Chinese economic sectors in 2016 was 5.84 × 1011 m3. The sectors with the largest direct water use were agriculture (2.20 × 1011 m3), electricity (7.64 × 1010 m3) and chemical Industry (2.35 × 1010 m3); and large parts of their direct water usage were consumed to prepare intermediate products for other sectors. The results of this study show that a more inclusive approach provides an enhanced qualitative and resource‐ethical view for water accounting and management.

Game theory model for a virtual water strategy: Scenarios under rational and semirational game play

“…Most countries do not have a large‐scale VWS implementation plan (Chouchane et al, 2018; Hoekstra, 2013; Qu et al, 2018; Zhao et al, 2015). Although a few countries (e.g., Jordan and Israel) have adopted a VWS, most countries are not importing or exporting VW following the theoretical direction of a VWS (Horlemann & Neubert, 2007; WWAP, 2016; Zhi et al, 2019). Water‐rich regions are not making full use of their water resources and exporting VW, whereas some water‐scarce regions overuse their local water resources in producing exported products, which exacerbates the water shortage (WWAP/UN‐Water, 2018).…”

Research on China’s Virtual Water Trading Regarding the Differences between Countries and Industries from the Global Perspective

“…Serrano et al [14] researched 27 EU states on their virtual water trade data and found out that Germany became a key net importer of water in Europe through the trade of agricultural products, foods, chemicals, and electricity. Zhi et al [15] described the intermediate water footprint products of each sector in a material-product network, and found out that the top three sectors with the largest water footprint in China were agriculture, food and machinery manufacturing in 2016. In line with the above literature, the amount of virtual water trade on the macro-industry level of one country (region) is usually calculated through an input-output model.…”