Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 1585–1598 | Cite as

Method Development for Including Environmental Water Requirement in the Water Stress Index

  • Pariyapat Nilsalab
  • Shabbir H. Gheewala
  • Stephan Pfister
Article
  • 178 Downloads

Abstract

The overuse of human demand for water threatens the capacity of rivers or watersheds to retain their ecosystem services. Environmental water requirement (EWR) needs to be taken explicitly into account when assessing the impact from freshwater use on freshwater resources. Thus, we propose two perspectives for incorporating EWR into the Demand to availability (DTA) ratio of the water stress index (WSI); including it as a separate demand along with anthropogenic demands (Index 1) or reserving it from the available water (Index 2). It is expected that the more demand increases, the more pressure is put on the lowest priority sector. Index 2, by definition, gives the first priority to EWR whereas this is not so for Index 1. Thus Index 2 provides a more conservative approach in terms of the environmental protection and Index 1 allows a more flexible prioritization approach. Both these indices, however, allow flexibility of changing the EWR based on specific circumstances and context, thus making the evaluation more appropriate for water resource planning at both policy and implementation levels.

Keywords

Water stress Environmental water requirement Freshwater Screening indicator Decision support 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support by the Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE) and the Thailand Research Fund under the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. program (Grant PHD/0028/2555) is gratefully acknowledged. This research has been carried out under the project “Research Network for LCA and Policy on Food, Fuel and Climate Change” supported by the National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand.

Supplementary material

11269_2017_1892_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (346 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 345 kb)

References

  1. Amarasinghe UA, Sharma BR, Aloysius N, Scott C, Smakhtin V, de Fraiture C (2005) Spatial variation in water supply and demand across river basins of India. IWMI research report, 83. IWMIGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthington A, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16(4):1311–1318Google Scholar
  3. Börkey P, Cassar A, Meadors L, Saade L, Siebentritt M, Stein R, Tognetti S, Tortajada C (2005) Chapter 7 freshwater ecosystem services. In: Chopra K, Leemans R, Kumar P, Simons H (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: policy responses, volume 3 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment SeriesGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulay A-M (2012) WATER footprinting: where are we now? WATER in LCA: which assessment techniques are emerging or ready? Including lots of challenging aspects. 50th LCA discussion forum, ETH Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Klemmayer I, Lathuilliere M, Loubet P, Manzardo A, Margni M, Nunez M, Ridoutt B, Worbe S, Pfister S (2014) Building consensus on a generic water scarcity indicator for LCA-based water footprint: preliminary results from WULCA. 9th international conference LCA of food San Francisco, USA, October, 8-10Google Scholar
  6. Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Lathuilliere M, Manzardo A, Margni M, Motoshita M, Nunez M, Pastor AV, Ridoutt B, Oki T, Worbe S, Pfister S (2017) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprint: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8
  7. Chebaane M, Salas JD, Boes DC (1993) Modeling of monthly intermittent streamflow processes. DIANE Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  8. Penning de Vries FWT, Acquay H, Molden D, Scherr SJ, Valentin C, Cofie O (2003) Integrated land and water management for food and environmental security. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Research Report 1. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Comprehensive Assessment SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  9. Fingerman KR, Berndes G, Orr S, Richter BD, Vugteveen P (2011) Impact assessment at the bioenergy-water nexus. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 5(4):375–386.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Arthur B, Norbert E, Gabi H (2006) Swiss Ecological Scarcity Method: The New Version 2006. ESU-Services, Switzerland. http://www.esuservices.ch/fileadmin/download/Frischknecht-2006-EcologicalScarcity-Paper.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2014
  11. Gheewala SH, Silalertusksa T, Nilsalab P, Mungkung R, Perret SR, Chaiyawannakarn N (2013) Implications of the biofuels policy mandate in Thailand on water: the case of bioethanol. Bioresour Technol 150:457–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gheewala SH, Silalertusksa T, Nilsalab P, Mungkung R, Perret SR, Chaiyawannakarn N (2014) Water footprint and impact of water consumption for food, feed, fuel crops production in Thailand. Water 6(6):1698–1718.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w6061698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez FJ, Basson T, Schultz B (2005) Final report of IPOE for review of studies on water Escapages below Kotri barrage. Delft, the Netherlands http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.pakistan.gov.pk/ContentPages/19050336.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  14. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, Chapagain AK, Mathews RE, Richter BD (2012) Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprint versus blue water availability. PLoS One 7(2):e32688.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iglesias A, Garrote L, Flores F, Moneo M (2007) Challenges to manage the risk of water scarcity and climate change in the Mediterranean. Water Resour Manag 21(5):227–288Google Scholar
  16. ISO (2014) ISO 14046:2014-Environmental management -Water footprint-Principles, requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  17. King J, Brown C, Sabet H (2003) A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Res Appl 19(5-6):619–639.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nilsalab P, Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T (2017) Methodology development for including environmental water requirement in the water stress index considering the case of Thailand. J Clean Prod 167:1002–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pastor AV, Ludwig F, Biemans H, Hoff H, Kabat P (2014) Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18(12):5041–5059.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-5041-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfister S, Bayer P (2013) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es802423e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, Henriksen J, Jacobson RB, Kennen JG, Merritt DM, O’Keeffe O, Olden JD, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A (2009) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55(1):147–170.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02204.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Popan A (2011) Impact of sea water intrusion on soil salinity and land used in bang Pakong River basin, Chachoengsao Province. Dissertation, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang. Doi: https://doi.org/10.14457/KMITL.res.2011.67
  24. Richter BD, Davis MM, Apse C, Konrad C (2012) A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res Appl 28(8):1312–1321.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. RID (2014) Annual Report 2014. Royal Irrigation Department. http://www.rid.go.th/2009/_data/docs/AnnualRID57.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2015
  26. RID (2015) RID response plan for tidal bore to prevent seawater intrusion and maintain raw water quality for tap water. Royal Irrigation Department. http://water.rid.go.th/news/news_58_032.htm. Accessed 13 May 2015
  27. Scherer L, Pfister S (2016) Dealing with uncertainty in water scarcity footprints. Environ Res Lett 11(5).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054008
  28. Smakhtin V, Revenga C, Döll P (2004) Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments. Comprehensive assessment research report 2. Colombo, Sri Lanka: comprehensive assessment secretariatGoogle Scholar
  29. Speed R, Li Y, Le Quesne T, Pegram G, Zhiwei Z (2013) Basin water allocation planning. Principles, procedures and approaches for basin allocation planning, UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Tharme RE (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl 19(5-6):397–441.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wei Y, Miao H, Ouyang Z (2008) Environmental water requirements and sustainable water resource management in the Haihe River basin of North China. Int J Sust Dev World 15(2):113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500809469776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Joint Graduate School of Energy and EnvironmentKing Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, PERDOBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Ecological Systems Design, Institute for Environmental EngineeringSwiss Federal Institute of Technology ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations