A Quota for Water

  • Kate Meyer
  • Peter Newman


Water is a unique resource in that it is essential to life and irreplaceable. The water cycle is a critical Earth-system process that human activity is beginning to alter. Water availability varies significantly across the globe. There is an abundance of water in some places, and extreme shortages in others. This regionality has led to some debate as to the existence of a global limit for water.

The regional variability of water scarcity does not mean that water is not a global commodity. Water used directly by a consumer is only a small proportion of her total water use. Water is also used indirectly in the production of goods and services as “virtual water”. Approximately 40% of the water consumed in Europe is virtual water. It is not a rational argument to suggest that those in water-rich locations need not be concerned about water consumption as much of the water they consume is likely to be from other locations.

The Planetary Boundary for water is only for blue water, i.e. it excludes the use of green water (rainwater) and grey water (contaminated water). Blue water consumption is a reasonable proxy indicator with which to understand the state of the world’s water assets. However, the Planetary Quota for water needs to be in a unit that makes sense across different scales of human activity. As such, the use of green water and production of grey water are both relevant and important. Further, the Planetary Boundary for water considers gross water consumption. The level of water treatment now available is such that net water consumption is substantially lower than gross water consumption. It is also more relevant to planetary health.

There is no consensus as to a global water budget for net blue, green, and grey water. However, some argue that even at current consumption rates many of our global water bodies are under stress suggesting that the upper limit cannot be higher than current consumption rates.

Thus, the Planetary Quota for water is net water (blue, green, and grey water) ≤8500 km3. This limit is set based on the current global water footprint and can be compared to the water footprint of any scale of activity.


  1. AMTA (2016) Membrane desalination power usage put in perspective. America’s Authority in Membrane Treatment, Stuart, FLGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjørn A, Diamond M, Birkved M, Hauschild MZ (2014) Chemical footprint method for improved communication of freshwater ecotoxicity impacts in the context of ecological limits. Environ Sci Technol 48:13253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Fraiture C, Molden D, Amarasinghe U, Makin I (2001) PODIUM: projecting water supply and demand for food production in 2025. Phys Chem Earth B Hydrol Oceans Atmos 26:869–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Egeghy PP, Judson R, Gangwal S, Mosher S, Smith D, Vail J, Cohen Hubal EA (2012) The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals. Sci Total Environ 414:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Falkenmark M (1986) Fresh water—time for a modified approach. Ambio 15:192–200Google Scholar
  6. Hoekstra AY (2017) Water footprint assessment: evolvement of a new research field. Water Res Manag 31:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoekstra AY, Wiedmann TO (2014) Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 344:1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leahy S (2018) From not enough to too much, the world’s water crisis explained. National Geographic, National Geographic SocietyGoogle Scholar
  9. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2011a) The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:1577–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2011b) National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption. Value of water research report series no. 50. UNESCO-IHE, DelftGoogle Scholar
  11. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2016) Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci Adv 2:e1500323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Molden D (2007) Comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. International Water Management Institute, Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Oki T, Kanae S (2006) Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313:1068–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pfister S, Bayer P (2014) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pitt C (2018) Cape Town water consumption drops by 43 million litres. news24. news24Google Scholar
  17. Porada B (2012) Virtual water imports and exports by regionGoogle Scholar
  18. Postel SL, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1996) Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 271:785–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raskin P, Gleick P, Kirshen P, Pontius GA, Strzepek K (1997) Water futures: assessment of long-range patterns and problems. In: SEI (ed) Comprehensive assessment of the freshwater resources of the world. SEI, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  20. Ridoutt BG, Huang J (2012) Environmental relevance—the key to understanding water footprints. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:E1424; author reply E1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2010) A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Glob Environ Chang 20:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ridoutt B, Pfister S (2013) A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:204–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rockström J, Gordon L, Folke C, Falkenmark M, Engwall M (1999) Linkages among water vapor flows, food production, and terrestrial ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 3:5Google Scholar
  24. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, Van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Secretariat of the CBD (2001) Global biodiversity outlook 1. In: SotCoB (ed) Diversity. UNEP, CBD, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  26. Shiklomanov IA (1993) Water in crisis: a guide to the world’s fresh water resources. In: Gleick P (ed) Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Smakhtin VU (2008) Basin closure and environmental flow requirements. Int J Water Res Develop 24:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, De Vries W, De Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. UN (2015) The human right to water and sanitation. UN, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  30. Vörösmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289:284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wangnick Consulting (1990) IDA worldwide desalting plants inventory. International Desalination Association, Englewood, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. WWF, WWL (2014) Freshwater: what’s at stake, what we’re missing, what we’re losing, what it’s worth. Accessed 27 Mar 2014

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Meyer
    • 1
  • Peter Newman
    • 2
  1. 1.The Planetary Accounting NetworkAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityWestern AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations