WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 47, W07518, doi:10.1029/2010WR009792, 2011
Global monthly water stress:
2. Water demand and severity of water stress
Yoshihide Wada,1 L. P. H. van Beek,1 Daniel Viviroli,2,3 Hans H. Dürr,1
Rolf Weingartner,2,3 and Marc F. P. Bierkens1,4
Received 23 July 2010; revised 14 April 2011; accepted 2 May 2011; published 12 July 2011.
This paper assesses global water stress at a finer temporal scale compared to
conventional assessments. To calculate time series of global water stress at a monthly time
scale, global water availability, as obtained from simulations of monthly river discharge
from the companion paper, is confronted with global monthly water demand. Water
demand is defined here as the volume of water required by users to satisfy their needs.
Water demand is calculated for the benchmark year of 2000 and contrasted against blue
water availability, reflecting climatic variability over the period 1958–2001. Despite the
use of the single benchmark year with monthly variations in water demand, simulated
water stress agrees well with long‐term records of observed water shortage in temperate,
(sub)tropical, and (semi)arid countries, indicating that on shorter (i.e., decadal) time scales,
climatic variability is often the main determinant of water stress. With the monthly
resolution the number of people experiencing water scarcity increases by more than 40%
compared to conventional annual assessments that do not account for seasonality and
interannual variability. The results show that blue water stress is often intense and frequent
in densely populated regions (e.g., India, United States, Spain, and northeastern China).
By this method, regions vulnerable to infrequent but detrimental water stress could be
equally identified (e.g., southeastern United Kingdom and northwestern Russia).
[1]
Citation: Wada, Y., L. P. H. van Beek, D. Viviroli, H. H. Dürr, R. Weingartner, and M. F. P. Bierkens (2011), Global monthly
water stress: 2. Water demand and severity of water stress, Water Resour. Res., 47, W07518, doi:10.1029/2010WR009792.
1. Introduction
[2] In this series of two papers [see also van Beek et al.,
2011], global water stress at a monthly time scale is assessed,
in order to capture the seasonal phase shifts in peak water
demand and water availability and to assess both frequency
and persistence of water stress as captured by a dynamic water
stress index (DWSI). In this study water demand concerns
the net water demand (i.e., water withdrawal minus return
flow) from surface fresh water (i.e., water in rivers, lakes and
reservoirs) or blue water. Water stress is a measure of the
amount of pressure put on blue water resources by their use
[Flörke and Alcamo, 2004]: the higher the water stress, the
more vulnerable the population in a region will be to water
scarcity. In 1997, the United Nations estimated that approximately one third of the world’s population currently lives in
countries experiencing moderate to severe water stress
[World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 1997]. Previous studies [e.g., Arnell, 1999, 2004; Vörösmarty et al., 2000;
Oki et al., 2001; Alcamo and Henrichs, 2002; Alcamo et al.,
1
Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht,
Netherlands.
2
Hydrology Group, Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern,
Switzerland.
3
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern,
Bern, Switzerland.
4
Unit Soil and Groundwater Systems, Deltares, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043‐1397/11/2010WR009792
2003b; Islam et al., 2007; Viviroli et al., 2007] assessed water
stress by comparing water availability and water demand on
a yearly time scale, mainly by using macroscale hydrological
models. On the basis of these assessments, regions with present
and future water stress were identified. Annual assessments,
however, potentially underestimate the intensity of water
stress since within‐year variations of water stress are not
taken into account. Such variations can be brought on by
increased demand, for example in ever‐expanding urban
centers, by a temporary rise in demand, for example increased
irrigation demand during droughts, and by untimely availability, for example, in the monsoon‐dominated areas of (sub)
tropical Asia, where 80% of the average annual discharge is
concentrated in the summer period because of the coincidence
of the snowmelt and the peak in rainfall [Shiklomanov, 1993].
[3] Expanding on existing annual assessments this study
reveals a new dimension of water stress by using a finer,
monthly, temporal scale and by explicitly incorporating
nonrenewable groundwater abstraction as a particular water
resource. The first paper of this series [van Beek et al., 2011]
described the global hydrological model PCR‐GLOBWB
[van Beek and Bierkens, 2009] and the prospective reservoir
scheme that were used to simulate monthly time series of
blue water (i.e., surface fresh water) and green water (i.e.,
soil water) availability for the years 1958–2001. In this second paper, global blue water demand is calculated comprising
that of the agricultural (i.e., irrigation and livestock), industrial and domestic sectors, using the latest available global
data sets (e.g., population, livestock densities and irrigated
areas; see Figure 1), all aggregated to the same spatial reso-
W07518
1 of 17
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
W07518
Figure 1. Flowchart of dependencies between data sources and computation of the water scarcity index.
Sources indicated in the flowchart are as follows: 1, Lehner and Döll [2004]; 2, International Commission
on Large Dams [2003]; 3, World Water Assessment Programme (WWDR‐II, http://wwdrii.sr.unh.edu/);
4, Mitchell and Jones [2005]; 5, Kållberg et al. [2005]; 6, New et al. [1999]; 7, Siebert and Döll [2008];
8, Portmann et al. [2008]; 9, EROS, USGS (Global land cover characteristics data base, version 2.0, http://
edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/globedoc2_0.html); 10, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAinfo/resources/en/glw/GLW_dens.html) and Environmental Research Group
Oxford (http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/); 11, MLIT [2007]; 12, World Bank [2006, 2007; country classification,
http://web.worldbank.org]; 13, FAO AQUASTAT database (http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/);
14, International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (http://www.igrac.nl/).
lution of 0.5°. Here, blue water demand is defined as net blue
water demand, the potential consumptive use from available
resources (see Table 1 for an overview of terms and their
respective components). Consequently, it is lower than the
gross blue water demand as water withdrawn for industrial
and domestic use is recycled and returned to the surface water
while part of the gross irrigation water demand is met by
green water availability [cf. Rost et al., 2008]. Use of the net
blue water demand consequently leads to an optimistic
assessment of water stress yet can be defended on the grounds
that the return flow of water in is fairly constant and that the
losses by evapotranspiration in irrigation constitute a large
amount of the overall water demand, be it gross or net. Thus,
net blue water demand may be used to estimate the consumptive water use, as proposed by Döll and Siebert [2002],
although actual consumption may be lower as a result of
Table 1. List of Terms and Components Considered
Gross (considering all
water requirements)
Net (consumptive blue
water requirements only)
Required to Satisfy Needs
Actually Available to Satisfy Needs
Gross demand. (1) Irrigation: evapotranspiration
(blue and green water) and transport losses.
Livestock. (2) Domestic: blue water
consumption and return flow.
(3) Industrial: blue water consumption
and return flow.
Net demand. (1) Irrigation: evapotranspiration
(blue only), transport losses, and livestock.
(2) Domestic: blue water consumption.
(3) Industrial: blue water consumption.
Withdrawal. (1) Irrigation: evapotranspiration (blue only),
transport losses, and livestock. (2) Domestic: blue water
consumption and return flow. (3) Industrial: blue water
consumption and return flow.
2 of 17
Consumptive water use [cf. Döll and Siebert, 2002].
(1) Irrigation: evapotranspiration (blue only),
transport losses, and livestock.
(2) Domestic: blue water consumption.
(3) Industrial: blue water consumption.
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
physical, technological or socioeconomic limitations. Also, we
explicitly quantified the amount of water made available
through desalination and nonrenewable groundwater abstraction that decreases the demand for blue water. In order to make
use of the best available data and to make our assessment as
relevant for the present‐day situation as possible, we opted for
the year 2000 as benchmark while the long‐term climate variability is characterized by the 44 year period from 1958 until
2001. Thus, irrigation water demand is computed for the irrigated areas of the year 2000 but with inclusion of the long‐
term climatic variability in green water availability over the
period 1958–2001 [see van Beek et al., 2011, section 2.1].
Monthly livestock, industrial and domestic water demand are
estimated for the year 2000 and constant between years. Total
blue water demand is thus the sum of the climate‐driven irrigation water demand for each year of 1958–2001 and the other
sectoral demands of the year 2000. Per month, total blue water
demand is confronted with the blue water availability over the
period 1958–2001 to obtain a 44 year monthly time series, i.e.,
528 maps, of global blue water stress, thus reflecting long‐term
climate variability only. The inclusion of long‐term blue water
availability sets this study apart from that of Hanasaki et al.
[2008a, 2008b] who assessed temporal variations in global
water stress in a comparable manner albeit at a lower spatial
resolution (1° × 1°) and for a shorter period of 10 years (1986–
1995). Moreover, this study has a finer spatial and temporal
resolution as it takes spatial variations in the recycling ratio of
the domestic and industrial sectors into account and it considers a monthly climatology of domestic water demand and
monthly variations in the use of particular resources, including
the alleviating role of nonrenewable groundwater abstraction
which is evaluated globally for the first time.
[4] Blue water stress is defined in terms of the commonly
used water scarcity index (WSI) of Falkenmark [1989]. This
static water stress is calculated on a monthly and an annual
basis over the total period of 1958–2001. The detrimental
effect of recurring and persistent water stress is captured by
the DWSI, conform to Porporato et al. [2001] for situations
corresponding to severe water stress. In a limited validation
exercise for this assessment, the water stress over the past
44 years reflecting the climate variability only, thus neglecting the changes in past water demand, is compared with
observed water shortage (i.e., drought) in several developed,
emerging and developing countries such as the Netherlands,
Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Zimbabwe and the state of Virginia (United States).
2. Methods
2.1. Definition of Water Stress
[5] Water stress occurs when different types of water
demand compete for the same scarce water resources.
Falkenmark [1989] defined the WSI that compares water
demand with water availability:
WSI ¼
D
;
A
et al. [2007] delineated looming water scarcity and actual
scarcity between 0.2 ≤ WSI < 0.4 and WSI ≥ 0.4, respectively. These domains correspond to the conditions of
moderate to severe water stress of Kundzewicz et al. [2007],
with water availability per capita ranging between 1700 and
1000 m3 yr−1. According to these authors, very high stress
or economically debilitating water stress occurs at water
availabilities below 500 m3 yr−1 per capita or water scarcity
indices above 0.8.
[7] In this study, water availability corresponds to blue
water availability, Q (106 m3 month−1), consisting of the
locally generated runoff and any remaining upstream discharge after evaluation of the prognostic reservoir operation
scheme [see van Beek et al., 2011, section 2.4] and the
deduction of the upstream local water consumption (see also
Figure 1):
Qi ¼ Qloc i þ
n
X
Qj
j¼iþ1
Dj ;
ð2Þ
where Q is the total discharge, Qloc is the specific discharge or
local runoff, D is the local net blue water demand, taken to be
the local water consumption [Döll and Siebert, 2002] (all in
106 m3 month−1). Subscript i denotes the cell under consideration and j = i + 1, …, n all cells upstream from this point.
[8] The summation in Equation returns no upstream water
for the cell under consideration whenever the available
discharge is less than the local water consumption (i.e., net
blue water demand). Otherwise, the discharge in excess of
the local water consumption is accumulated along the
drainage network. Water demand includes the demand of
the industrial and the domestic sector, corrected with the
recycling ratio if appropriate (sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4), and
the agricultural sector (sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2; see also
Figure 1). The agricultural water demand is broken down
into the livestock and the irrigation water demand, the latter
being the amount of water required to satisfy the crop‐
specific potential transpiration with inclusion of any additional losses during transport or application but after
deduction of the available green water, i.e., the soil moisture
available to transpiration under nonirrigated conditions. In
several regions of the world part of water demand is met
from desalination and/or the abstraction of nonrenewable
groundwater resources (section 2.4). Therefore, the volume
of desalinated water and abstracted nonrenewable groundwater is subtracted from the water demand prior to the
calculation of the WSI (equation (1)).
[9] Over the period 1958–2001 the WSI is calculated on an
annual basis as done in previous studies [e.g., Vörösmarty
et al., 2000] and on a monthly basis. The monthly values
are subsequently degraded to annual values to evaluate the
effect of temporal resolution on the identification of problem
regions. To identify regions that are significantly different
over the simulation period, we use a difference of means test
on a cell‐by‐cell basis to calculate the Student’s t statistic:
ð1Þ
where WSI is the water scarcity index, D is the total water
demand and A is the total water availability (m3 month−1).
This study uses monthly averages of demand and availability.
[6] The WSI essentially expresses how much of the
available water is taken up by the demand. Falkenmark
W07518
WSIa WSIm
t ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
2
S WSIa
n 1
þ
S WSI
m
n 1;
ð3Þ
where WSI is the mean WSI based on the annual and the
monthly assessments (subscripts a and m, respectively).
Likewise, sWSI denotes the standard deviation, which is cal-
3 of 17
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
W07518
Table 2. Population and Water Withdrawal by Sector per Continent and Classified by GDP per Capita for the Year 2000a
Continents
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
South America
Oceania
GDP per capita classesc
Low income countriesd
Middle income countriese
High income countriesf
Global
Withdrawal per Sector (%)
Population in
2000 (millions)
Total Freshwater
Withdrawal (km3 yr−1)
Per Capita Withdrawal
(m3 capita−1 yr−1)
Agriculture
Industry
Domesticb
818.7
3679.8
729.2
476.1
341.2
28.7
213.2
2294.8
392.2
622.5
164.6
26.3
260.4
623.6
537.8
1307.5
482.4
916.4
83.1
84.9
29.3
44.1
84.8
64.9
4.3
7.2
48.5
33.9
6.4
10.4
12.6
7.9
22.2
22.0
8.8
24.7
2203.2
2961.7
908.8
6073.7
1288.2
1549.4
875.7
3713.7
584.7
523.2
963.6
611.4
86.0
69.0
39.6
68.6
7.7
16.1
39.4
18.1
6.3
14.9
21.0
13.3
a
These data are based on FAO AQUASTAT, the work of Gleick et al. [2006], and the Pacific Institute’s The World’s Water Web site (http://www.
worldwater.org/data.html).
b
Domestic sector, comprising households and municipalities.
c
GDP per capita is based on the year 2000/2001 (year 2000 U.S. dollars, World Bank).
d
GDP per capita of low income countries is less than US$755, and the average GDP per capita of these countries is US$359.
e
GDP per capita of middle income countries is between US$756 and US$9265, and the average GDP per capita of these countries is US$2843.
f
GDP per capita of high income countries is more than US$9266, and the average GDP per capita of these countries is US$21,880.
culated from the n = 44 averaged annual values in the case of
the monthly assessment. The degrees of freedom were estimated for each cell assuming different standard deviations
and the two‐tailed probability of equality of means returned.
[10] In addition to the WSI, a compound statistic is calculated from the monthly time series combining the mean duration and the frequency of water scarcity with the severity of the
water stress. This statistic is based on that of Porporato et al.
[2001] developed to quantify the effect of prolonged or
recurring droughts for vegetation [e.g., Brolsma and Bierkens,
2007]:
1pffiffi
s Ts fs
DWSI ¼
;
kT
ð4Þ
where DWSI is the dynamic water stress index, s is the
average water stress over a period of continuous stress that is
counteracted by the resilience parameter k (both dimensionless). Ts is the mean duration of a stress period (months), T is
the length of the growing season under consideration
(months) and fs is the frequency of recurring stress periods.
Damage increases when the stress exceeds the resilience,
when the stress persists over a longer period or when the
stress occurs more frequently. This relationship is nonlinear
with frequency being more damaging under low‐stress conditions but duration being dominant under high‐stress conditions. In this study we evaluate the DWSI, for an average
year (T = 12 months) and assume water stress to occur
whenever the monthly water scarcity index ≥ 0.4. For k, we
adopt the lower limit at which water stress limits economic
development (WSI = 0.8), reduced by the threshold of 0.4
denoting the onset of water stress. Hence, s /k = (WSI 0:4)/
(0.8 − 0.4). The frequency and the mean duration are calculated from the total number of stress periods over the 44 year
period and the total number of months that the threshold is
exceeded, respectively.
2.2. Water Demand
[11] In most countries of the world, water withdrawal and
consumption have increased over the last decades because
of demographic and economic growth, changes in lifestyle,
and expanded water supply systems [Kundzewicz et al.,
2007]. Table 2 shows the statistics of population and water
withdrawal by sectors (%) by continent and GDP per capita
classes in the year 2000. Industrial and domestic water
withdrawals are about 18% and 13% of total water withdrawal, respectively. Agricultural water withdrawal amounts
to nearly 70% of total water withdrawal and is by far the
largest among the three sectors. Water withdrawal and
socioeconomic data were collected from various sources as
shown in Figure 1. All data are specified per month for the
year 2000 and gridded at 0.5°. In this study, gross water
demand is subsequently reduced to net blue water demand
by considering green water availability for irrigation and
recycling ratios for the industrial and the domestic sector.
Sections 2.2.1–2.2.4 describe the methodologies used in
this study to compute net blue water demand for the agricultural (i.e., livestock and irrigation), the industrial, and
the domestic (i.e., households and municipalities) sectors.
2.2.1. Livestock Water Demand
[12] The amount of water used by livestock is very small
(i.e., less than 1–2% of total water demand) in most
countries compared to the other sectors. However, livestock
water demand may be considerable if irrigation water
demand is low [Flörke and Alcamo, 2004]. Livestock water
demand was computed from the grid‐based distribution at
0.05° of six major types of livestock and their water consumption rate, following the method of Alcamo et al.
[2003a] (Figure 1). It is assumed that all water withdrawals for livestock are fully consumed [Alcamo et al.,
2003a; Flörke and Alcamo, 2004] and we therefore equate
net with gross blue water demand. We obtained the gridded
data of global livestock density of cattle, buffalo, sheep,
goats, pigs and poultry in the year 2000 from Wint and
Robinson [2007]. We then multiplied the number of livestock in each grid cell by their specific daily water consumption [Alcamo et al., 1997] to estimate daily livestock
water demand. This value was summed to monthly values
under the assumption that livestock water consumption is
constant over the year.
4 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
2.2.2. Irrigation Water Demand
[13] Irrigation is particularly important among all the
sectors as its water withdrawal comprises nearly 70% of the
total [Shiklomanov, 2000a] (see Table 2). Importantly, irrigation water demand has a large seasonal variability because
of the various growing seasons of different crops and varies
spatially depending on cropping practices and climatic
conditions. Döll and Siebert [2002] estimated irrigation
water requirements by using the CROPWAT method [Smith,
1992] based on the CRU data set of meteorological conditions provided by New et al. [2000]. Flörke and Alcamo
[2004] and Hanasaki et al. [2006] used similar methods to
estimate irrigation water demand. They simulated the crop
calendar to estimate the amount of irrigation water required
for paddy (rice) and nonpaddy crop types. This estimation
method heavily relies on precipitation and temperature as
irrigation is assumed to be applied under optimal climate
conditions only. This may be inaccurate for water scarcity
may lead farmers to irrigate under less than optimal climate
conditions [Döll and Siebert, 2002].
[14] This study used the latest available data set of
monthly irrigated areas and crop calendars for 26 crops
around the year 2000 (MIRCA2000 [Portmann et al., 2008,
2010]). This data set includes monthly cropping patterns and
monthly cropping calendars for 26 major irrigated crops on
the global scale with a spatial resolution of 5 min. For both
variables, the main crop and up to nine subcrops are specified that may represent multicropping systems, varieties of
the same crop growing in different seasons in different areas
of the grid cell, or different specific crops included in crop
groups [Portmann et al., 2008, so rice is grown more than
once a year in the same field in many regions of the world as
part of multicropping systems. The corresponding crop
development stages, crop factors and effective rooting depth
for each crop are given by the GCWM data set of Siebert
and Döll [2008, Table 2]. We blended the values with the
crop factors used in PCR‐GLOBWB. First, we aggregated
the monthly crop factors and the irrigated areas of the
26 crops to one monthly value for each 0.5° cell (see also
Figure 1). These were then substituted for those calculated
from the GLCC data set (Earth Resources Observation and
Science Center (EROS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Global land cover characteristics data base, version 2.0,
http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/globedoc2_0.html, accessed 2002)
and the fraction irrigated areas updated in the calculation of
the effective values for short and tall vegetation [see van
Beek et al., 2011, section 2.1]. When the fraction of the
irrigated areas specified was larger than that of the GLCC
data set, it was expanded first at the expense of rain‐fed
agriculture, then at that of natural vegetation. If the fraction
irrigated areas was smaller than that specified in the GLCC,
rain‐fed agriculture and natural vegetation were increased
proportionally.
[15] Irrigation blue water demand was calculated for each
0.5° cell by using the simulated potential and actual
evapotranspiration from PCR‐GLOBWB (see equations (1),
(3), (4), and (6) of van Beek et al. [2011, section 2.2]). Crop‐
specific potential evapotranspiration for the irrigated areas
is calculated from the effective crop factor at 0.5° for the
26 irrigated crop types represented by MIRCA2000 [Portmann
et al., 2008, 2010] and the reference potential evapotranspiration. Taking the simulated actual transpiration under
nonirrigated conditions from PCR‐GLOBWB as green
W07518
water availability, the crop‐specific transpiration that has to
be met by irrigation to ensure optimum growth, DIrrcrop (m d−1),
is given by
DIrrcrop ¼ Tc′
ð5Þ
Ta′;
where the primed variables T′c and T′a denote the crop‐specific
potential and actual transpiration for the irrigated areas,
respectively (all in m d−1), which may differ from the overall
cell values used in PCR‐GLOBWB.
[16] The actual transpiration for the irrigated areas, T′a,
may differ from that obtained from PCR‐GLOBWB, Ta, as
crops tend to have shallower rooting systems, especially
under irrigated conditions [Siebert and Döll, 2010]. Thus,
the actual transpiration for the irrigated areas is estimated by
Ta′ ¼ Tc′
X Ta
ri′ i ;
Tci
ð6Þ
where Tc and Ta correspond to the overall cell values of
potential and actual transpiration for the two land cover
types (short, tall) of PCR‐GLOBWB (all in m d−1) and the
subscript i, denotes the two soil layers present. Primed
variables denote the values over the irrigated area where r′i
is the root fraction obtained from the effective rooting depth
of each irrigated crop in a 0.5° cell, assuming an exponential
root distribution with depth [Jackson et al., 1996].
[17] To account for losses during application we included
the additional loss of bare soil evaporation (ES0 – ESa) over
the irrigated areas and multiplied the required irrigation
water with a dimensionless efficiency factor, eIrr [Flörke
and Alcamo, 2004] to obtain the total net irrigation blue
water demand, DIrr tot (m d−1):
DIrrtot ¼ eIrr DIrrcrop þ ðES0
ESa Þ :
ð7Þ
The potential bare soil evaporation, ES0, and the actual bare
soil evaporation, ESa, were simulated by PCR‐GLOBWB
(all in m d−1) [see van Beek et al., 2011, section 2.2]. The
efficiency factor takes into account that additional water is
lost to evaporation during transport and water in excess of
the demand has to be applied to prevent salinization. In
general, about half of the water diverted for irrigation is
consumed through evapotranspiration [Jackson et al., 2001].
However, some of irrigation water is returned to the available blue water resources and we applied here a single
efficiency factor of 1.2, i.e., 20% more irrigation water is
needed to account for additional evaporative losses during
transport and application, without explicitly taking the
return flow into account. Moreover, we did not consider any
evaporative losses by canopy interception as most irrigation
is applied by flooding.
2.2.3. Industrial Water Demand and Recycling Ratio
[18] Industrial water withdrawal often amounts to more than
a half of total water withdrawal in developed (i.e., industrialized) countries. According to Gleick et al. [2006], the ratio of
industrial to total water withdrawal in Finland, United
Kingdom, France, Canada and Russian is 84%, 75%, 74%,
69%, and 64%, respectively. Industrial water withdrawals
were taken from the WWDR‐II data set [Shiklomanov, 1997;
World Resources Institute, 1998; Vörösmarty et al., 2005] and
assumed to be constant over the year, similar to the study of
Hanasaki et al. [2006].
5 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
Figure 2. Total desalinated water use for the year 2000.
[19] A large amount of industrial water is used for cooling
of thermal and nuclear power generation and returned to the
river after use [Shiklomanov, 2000b] and most of the
industrial water is recycled or reused, especially in developed countries (e.g., Japan). Oki et al. [2001] suggested that
the recycling ratio for industry is 86%. Later, Oki and Kanae
[2006] indicated that nearly 80% of water withdrawn for the
industrial sector in Japan is currently recycled [Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure, and Transport in Japan (MLIT), 2007].
The recycling ratio is considered as high as the one for Japan
in other developed countries.
[20] Because of a lack of data, we generalized the recycling
ratio for other countries on the basis of the historical development of the recycling ratio of Japan (1965–2007; see also
Figure 1). The ratio was obtained from Japanese Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure and Transport [MLIT, 2007]. On the
basis of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, we
classified countries into three groups of economic development [World Bank, 2006; World Bank, country classification, http://data.worldbank.org/about/country‐classifications,
accessed 2006]: (1) developing (i.e., low income) economies,
(2) emerging (i.e., middle income) economies and developed
(i.e., high income) economies (see Table 2). Equally, we
classified the historical development of Japan on the same
grounds, using indexed data for 2000 considering deflation
(GDP deflator [World Bank, 2006, 2007]) and averaged the
recycling ratio for each development stage, respectively 40%,
65% and 80%. China is classified as an emerging country and
its recycling ratio of about 60 to 65% for 2004 (Ministry of
Water Resources of China, http://www.mwr.gov.cn/english/)
agrees well with the estimate obtained from Japan.
[21] To estimate the net industrial water demand, gross
industrial water demand data of the WWDR‐II were multiplied with the complement of the generalized recycling
ratio of each country (60%, 35%, or 20%). If there were no
GDP data available, the original gross demand was used
without reduction to emphasize the detrimental effect of
untreated spillage on water availability.
2.2.4. Domestic Water Demand
[22] Domestic water demand is a complex function of
socioeconomic and climatic factors as well as public water
policies and strategies [Babel et al., 2007]. We evaluated
annual courses or monthly fluctuations in domestic water
demand for selected countries representing a wide range of
environmental and socioeconomic conditions: Japan [MLIT,
2007], Spain [Martinez‐Espiñeira, 2002], Australia [Loh
and Coghlan, 2003], Iran [Mahvi and Norouzi, 2005], and
Nigeria [Nyong and Kanaroglou, 1999]. In general, there is
a higher demand in summer, when water availability may be
at its ebb. Therefore, monthly domestic water demand was
estimated as a function of temperature:
WDomm ¼
WDom a
12
T
Tmax
Tavg
RDom
Tmin
þ 1:0 ;
ð8Þ
where WDom is the domestic water withdrawal (106 m3)
based on the WWDR‐II [Vörösmarty et al., 2005]. Subscripts m and a denote month and year, respectively. T, TAvg,
Tmin, and Tmax are the monthly temperature and the average,
minimum, and maximum temperature over the year,
respectively (all in °C), as obtained from the CRU climatology (1961–1990) [New et al., 1999]. RDom is the amplitude (dimensionless), the relative difference in domestic
water demand between the months with the warmest and the
coldest temperatures. Here we used a value of 10% or 0.1
that fitted the small variations in Japan and Spain and the
near‐constant values for tropical Nigeria best.
[23] Identical to the industrial sector, a substantial part of
water withdrawn for domestic sector is returned, purified or
not, to the river network [Shiklomanov, 2000b] (see also
Figure 1). This fraction largely depends on a presence and
an advancement of the sewer system. To quantify the net
water demand for the domestic sector, we applied the same
6 of 17
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
W07518
Figure 3. Nonrenewable groundwater abstraction for the year 2000 [after Wada et al., 2010].
recycling ratio as estimated for the industrial sector but
multiplied it with the fraction of the urban population that
was assumed to be connected to the sewer system:
DDom m ¼ WDom m 1
Furban RIndustry ;
ð9Þ
where DDom is the net domestic water demand (106 m3),
Furban is the fraction of urban to total population (dimensionless) and RIndustry is the recycling ratio derived for the
industrial sector (dimensionless).
2.3. Desalinated Water Use
[24] The amount of water from particular resources (i.e.,
desalinated water use and groundwater abstraction; Figure 1)
can be extremely important in regions where surface water is
scarce in quantity or quality. Desalinated water, for example,
is drawn from oceans and used in many desert regions of the
world (e.g., the Middle East), its volume increasing each
year. We obtained the latest data of desalinated water use
from the FAO AQUASTAT database. According to FAO
AQUASTAT, the total amount of desalinated water use was
around 4.6 km3 yr−1 in the year 2000. Kazakhstan used the
largest amount, around 1.3 km3 yr−1. Population data of the
WWDR‐II [Elvidge et al., 1997a, 1997b; Environmental
Systems Research Institute, 1993; Tobler et al., 1995]
were used to downscale the country statistics. We weighed
desalination by the population density in a ribbon up to
40 km from the coast as this population has ready access to
desalinated water. Desalinated water use was assumed to be
constant over the year (Figure 2). Desalinated water use was
eventually subtracted from the blue water demand as this
alleviates the demand that has to be met from the available
surface fresh water.
2.4. Nonrenewable Groundwater Abstraction
[25] Groundwater is in demand all over the world because
of its high quality or to supply water when surface water is
scarce or absent altogether. On the global scale groundwater
satisfies 40% of the need of self‐supplied industry, 20% of the
irrigation water demand and 50% of the demand of drinking
water supply [Zektser and Everett, 2004]. Global groundwater
abstraction was obtained from the GGIS (Global Groundwater
Information System) of IGRAC (International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre, http://www.igrac.net/) as annual
groundwater abstraction in m3 per capita per country and for
major groundwater regions of the world. The data is not
available in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, North
Korea, the former Yugoslavia and several countries in Africa
and South America where no groundwater abstraction rates
have been reported in GGIS. Groundwater abstraction was
indexed for the year 2000 on the basis of population. Annual
groundwater abstraction was then spatially downscaled into
0.5° by using an intensity of the annual total water demand
per cell over a country. Groundwater abstraction was subsequently disaggregated into monthly values on the basis of
the monthly total water demand. For both desalinated water
use and groundwater abstraction, country statistics were
weighed by extent whenever multiple countries were present
in a 0.5° cell (i.e., up to four countries in one grid cell in
this study).
[26] Importantly, if the groundwater that is abstracted is
renewable, i.e., smaller than the groundwater recharge, it has
no bearing on the water stress analysis. This, because water
thus abstracted will only decrease the base flow to the river
(simulated by PCR‐GLOBWB), and it makes no difference
if this water is available from surface water or by abstraction. However, the amount of groundwater that is abstracted
in excess of groundwater recharge will, albeit temporally
and nonrenewably, decrease the demand for blue water or
river discharge [Wada et al., 2010]. As we aim to assess the
blue water stress, the nonrenewable groundwater abstraction
is subtracted from the total water demand. Figure 3, as taken
from Wada et al. [2010], shows the nonrenewable groundwater abstraction (106 m3 yr−1) calculated by subtracting the
7 of 17
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
W07518
Figure 4. (a) Annual total net irrigation water demand and (b) relative seasonal distribution over the
period 1958–2001 (clockwise from the top left: DJF, December‐January‐February; MAM, March‐
April‐May; JJA, June‐July‐August; SON, September‐October‐November).
natural groundwater recharge (106 m3 yr−1) as simulated by
PCR‐GLOBWB from the groundwater abstraction (106 m3
yr−1). The global nonrenewable groundwater abstraction is
309 km3 yr−1, which is 42% of the total groundwater
abstraction of 734 km3 yr−1. Nonrenewable groundwater
abstraction is particularly large in NW and southern India,
NE Pakistan, NE China, central and western United States,
Mexico, southern Spain and northern Iran. This study thus
identifies the regions that are currently under diminished
water stress, but where water stress can be expected to increase
in the near future when groundwater aquifers become unattainable (i.e., groundwater levels fall too deep).
3. Results
3.1. Irrigation Water Demand
[27] To place our results in the context of existing water
scarcity studies we start by comparing our estimated irri-
gation water demand with previous studies. We estimate
the global annual amount of irrigation water required to
satisfy the additional crop‐specific transpiration (DIrrcrop,
equation (5)) to be 1176 km3 yr−1 on average over the period
1958–2001, while that required to meet the total net irrigation blue water demand (DIrr tot, equation (7)) amounts to
2057 km3 yr−1; spatial distribution and seasonal variations
are shown in Figure 4. These results compare well with
those of Döll and Siebert [2002], Hanasaki et al. [2006],
Rost et al. [2008], and Wisser et al. [2008], who estimated
these values ranging from 1092 to 1364 km3 yr−1 and from
2254 to 3100 km3 yr−1. Because of the inclusion of additional losses, total net irrigation water demand is larger than
the estimated vapor flux over irrigated areas of 1800 km3
yr−1 by Shiklomanov [2000b] but lower than the estimate of
3100 km3 yr−1 by Wisser et al. [2008] that is based on the same
climatology and irrigated areas but considered higher losses
because of irrigation efficiency (between 1.4 and 2.8 [cf. Döll
8 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
tively small (coefficient of variation less than 10%). In
contrast, estimates of irrigation water withdrawal are very
uncertain for want of reliable national statistics and more
points fall within the uncertainty band around the 1:1 line
(e.g., Jamaica and Ethiopia).
Figure 5. Comparison between simulated net blue water
demand for livestock and irrigation (y axis) and reported agricultural water withdrawals (x axis) per country. Reported values
are taken from the FAO AQUASTAT database over the period
1998–2002. X error bars are based on the estimated agricultural
water withdrawal for 90 developing countries by FAO compared to the observed value reported to the AQUASTAT database [Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008]. Simulated
values are representative for the year 2000. Y error bars are
based on the range in net irrigation blue water demand due to
variations in green water availability over the simulation period
1958–2001. Selected countries are identified by their ISO
country codes.
and Siebert, 2002]). According to the FAO AQUASTAT
database, the annual agricultural water withdrawal was
2483 km3 yr−1 for 2002. Figure 5 compares per country the
annual agricultural water withdrawal as reported by the
FAO AQUASTAT database with the sum of the computed
livestock and irrigation water demand. Overall, the correlation between the reported and simulated values is high
(R2 = 0.98) and good results were obtained for the largest
users of irrigation water (i.e., India, China, and the United
States). However, overall the simulated values are 15%
lower than the reported ones. Underestimation is particularly
large for countries with paddy cultivation (e.g., Indonesia,
Thailand, and Japan) for which the efficiency factor of 1.2
may be too optimistic and multiple cropping calendars very
uncertain and for countries for which total irrigated area
estimates are poor (e.g., Iraq, Iran, and Egypt). In addition,
the reported withdrawals generally exceed the simulated
blue water demand as the latter does not explicitly consider
return flow. Overestimation occurs for more developed
countries that may not exploit the irrigated areas fully (e.g.,
Russia) or where irrigation is more efficient (e.g., New
Zealand, France, and Australia). Also, the reported totals
are those of agricultural water withdrawals and the inclusion
of livestock water withdrawal may constitute another source
of error (e.g., Germany and Romania). As indicated by the
Y error bars and as observed by Wisser et al. [2008] the
interannual variability in irrigation water demand is rela-
3.2. Static Water Stress
[28] Table 3 compares our estimate of water stress with
those of other authors [e.g., Arnell, 1999, 2004; Alcamo
et al., 2000, 2003b; Vörösmarty et al., 2000; International
Water Management Institute, 2000; Oki et al., 2001, 2006;
Islam et al., 2007] in terms of global population exposed to
different degrees of blue water stress. Estimates vary considerably depending on the spatial resolution (i.e., country,
watershed, or grid based). Country‐based estimates generally return lower values for the population under water stress
compared to watershed and grid‐based estimates as they
hide substantial within‐country variation of water availability and demand [Arnell, 2004]. Previous watershed and
grid‐based estimates of the population under severe water
stress range from 1.2 to 2.7 billion when based on annual
totals of water availability and demand. In comparison, we
estimate the total global population in the year 2000 experiencing severe water stress to be 1.1 billion while 0.6 billion experience moderate water stress. This estimate on
annual totals is close to the one by Islam et al. [2007] for the
same benchmark year. However, the total population under
severe water stress is lower for our study than for any other
study except the country‐based estimates. Besides differences in blue water availability arising from variations in
simulated runoff [van Beek et al., 2011, Table 6] and the
inclusion of upstream local water consumption not taken
into account in other studies [e.g., Oki et al., 2001], the main
reason for the observed difference is a lower water demand.
This study applied a recycling ratio to the industrial and the
domestic sector to account return flow and considered green
water availability in the definition of irrigation water
demand, thus defining this assessment in terms of net rather
than gross blue water demand. In addition, this study considered the additional availability of the desalinated water
use and the nonrenewable groundwater abstraction which
was subtracted from the total water demand as our objective
is to assess current blue water stress as described in the
sections 2.3 and 2.4.
[29] When based on the monthly averaged, climate‐
induced water stress over the period 1958–2001, the total
global population in the year 2000 experiencing severe
water stress is estimated to be 1.7 billion while 0.8 billion
experience moderate water stress. These figures are more
than 40% higher than those based on the annual totals as
seasonal and interannual variability in availability are taken
into account in case of the irrigation water demand and the
domestic water demand. Figure 6 shows the global distribution of areas experiencing different degrees of water stress
based on the annual and the monthly totals of water availability and water demand (Figures 6a and 6b). In addition, a
comparison is made between the assessments at different
temporal resolutions by means of the t test of equation (3)
(Figure 6c). Compared to conventional assessments on an
annual basis, this test shows a clear increase in water stress
(see Table 3), as also observed by Hanasaki et al. [2008b] in
a recent assessment of water stress at a fine temporal scale
9 of 17
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
W07518
Table 3. Global Assessments of World Population Experiencing Blue Water Stressa
Degrees of Water Stress
Per capita water availability
(m3 capita−1 yr−1)
Water scarcity index
WMO [1997]
Arnell [1999]
Vörösmarty et al. [2000]
Oki et al. [2001)
Alcamo et al. [2000]
Revenga et al. [2000]
Oki et al. [2001]
Arnell [2004]
Vörösmarty et al. [2000]
Oki et al. [2001]
Arnell [2004]
Islam et al. [2007]
Hanasaki et al. [2008b]f
This study
This study
No Stress
Low Stress
Moderate Stress
Severe Stress
>1700
‐
1700–1000
<1,000
WSI < 0.1
1.7 (30%)
‐
2.0 (35%)
1.8 (32%)
‐
3.1 (54%)
1.2 (21%)
‐
3.2 (55%)
2.8 (49%)
‐
3.8 (62%)
2.4 (46%)
3.8 (62%)
3.0 (49%)
0.1 ≤ WSI < 0.2
2.1 (37%)
‐
1.7 (30%)
1.5 (27%)
‐
‐
0.5 (9%)
‐
0.4 (7%)
0.6 (11%)
‐
0.5 (8%)
‐
0.6 (10%)
0.6 (10%)
0.2 ≤ WSI < 0.4
1.4 (25%)
1.4 (27%)
1.5 (26%)
1.5 (27%)
‐
0.7 (12%)
1.2 (21%)
0.8 (14%)
0.4 (7%)
0.6 (11%)
0.8 (14%)
0.6 (10%)
0.9 (17%)
0.6 (10%)
0.8 (13%)
0.4 ≤ WSI
0.5 (9%)
0.4 (8%)
0.5 (9%)
0.8 (14%)
2.1 (37%)
1.7 (30%)
2.7 (48%)
1.4 (25%)
1.8 (31%)
1.7 (30%)
2.6 (46%)
1.2 (20%)
1.9 (37%)
1.1 (18%)
1.7 (28%)
Total
Yearb
Spatial
Resolution
Temporal
Resolutionc
5.7
5.2
5.7
5.6
5.7
5.7d
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.7
5.7
6.1
5.2
6.1
6.1
1995
1990
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2000
1995
2000
2000
Country
Country
Country
Country
Watershed
Watershed
Watershede
Watershed
0.5°
0.5°
0.5°
0.5°
1°
0.5°
0.5°
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Subannual
Annual
Subannual
a
Per class, population is given in billions, and the corresponding fraction of the total population is in percent.
Year indicates the year of the population figure used for the estimates.
c
Temporal resolution refers to the aggregation level of demand and availability. In the case of Hanasaki et al. [2008b] the aggregation was on a daily
value over the period 1986–1995; this study used monthly mean values over the period 1958–2001.
d
Approximately 200 million people were unallocated on the global scale.
e
Transport factor a was set to 0.0 in the watershed‐based estimate so that no upstream water was available to downstream reach along the river networks.
f
Assessed by means of the cumulative withdrawal to demand ratio (CWD), which assesses the fulfillment of the demand on a subannual basis, divided
into equivalent categories of no stress, medium stress, and high stress on the basis of WSI < 0.2, WSI < 0.4, and WSI ≥ 0.4, respectively. Shown are the
values including both the effects of environmental flow and the reservoir operation scheme that are the most compatible with this study.
b
over the period 1986–1995. Identical to the study by Hanasaki
et al. [2008b], the following regions emerge as suffering
from moderate to severe water stress (Figure 6c): central
North America, eastern South America, the Mediterranean,
the Ukraine, central Russia, the Sahel, central Africa, India
and SE Asia, NE China, Indonesia, and parts of Australia.
Figure 7 shows the seasonality of water stress, highlighting
these problem regions with considerable water stress as
temporal variability is a decisive factor for water stress
assessment especially for the regions experiencing wet and
dry seasons such as the (sub)tropics. However, compared
to the study of Hanasaki et al. [2008b] the inclusion of
particular water resources in this study remediates water
stress in areas where desalination and (nonrenewable)
groundwater abstraction are important, e.g., the Arabian
Peninsula for desalinated water use and NW India, NE
Pakistan, NE China, central and western United States, Iran,
and Saudi Arabia for nonrenewable groundwater abstraction. Thus, although the number of persons suffering from
moderate water stress is roughly equal in both studies, our
estimate of people suffering from severe water stress is
lower (Table 3).
3.3. Comparison of Static Water Stress
With Country Records
[30] The assessment on the basis of the monthly totals
allows for a comparison of the dynamics of water stress
against long‐term observations. To obtain the historical
trend of the WSI on a national scale, the monthly WSI was
averaged over all pertinent cells. As a consequence, the
country‐averaged WSI is not capable of capturing water
shortage that occurs in a particular part of a country (see
section 3.3.2). Moreover, WSI levels associated with water
scarcity may differ from those identified in section 2.1 This
does not invalidate the comparison as indicators of water
scarcity at the national level may differ from the general
levels delineated by Falkenmark et al. [2007]. The water stress
over the past 44 years was then compared with observed water
shortage (i.e., drought) in the countries which are located in
temperate, (sub)tropical and (semi)arid climates. We selected
the following countries where people suffer periodic water
shortage and past observed drought events were sufficiently
recorded in the literature: the Netherlands, Japan, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, and the
state of Virginia. Figure 8 shows the simulated WSI of this
study on both a monthly and an annual temporal scale for those
countries over 1958–2001. The comparison shows that the
simulated monthly WSI captures observed extreme or major
drought events reasonably well in most of these countries (see
sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.8 for detailed descriptions) while the
simulated annual WSI is often too coarse in its temporal resolution to capture high intensities of WSI caused by seasonal
drought events throughout the simulated period.
3.3.1. The Netherlands
[31] According to the Netherlands Drought Study (http://
www.droogtestudie.nl/), the Netherlands experienced a very
dry year (i.e., once every 50 years) in 1959 and an extremely
dry year (i.e., once every 200 years) in 1976 [Institute for
Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment,
2003]. The droughts of 1959 and 1976 were more intense
than any other years because of a pronounced rainfall deficit, the latter year also being associated with extreme low
flows of the River Rhine (recurrence period of 19 years for
2003 compared to 67 and 178 years for 1959 and 1976,
respectively [Beersma et al., 2004; Beersma and Buishand,
2004]). Other peaks are observed for the years 1974, 1981–
1983, 1991 and 1995–1996 (Figure 8a) characterized by
rainfall deficits and low flows for the Rhine. Large rainfall
deficits caused the second driest summer on record for the
10 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
Figure 6. Mean water scarcity index based on (a) annual and (b) monthly totals of water availability and
demand and (c) significant increase in water scarcity when increasing the temporal resolution from yearly
to monthly (two‐tailed t test with a = 0.05).
11 of 17
W07518
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
Figure 7. Mean seasonal water scarcity index over the period 1958–2001 (clockwise from top left).
Figure 8. Comparison of simulated, country‐averaged monthly (red) and annual (black) water scarcity
index (WSI; left axis) over 1958–2001 for (a) the Netherlands, (b) Japan, (c) the Philippines, (d) Afghanistan, (e) Pakistan, (f) Malaysia, (g) Zimbabwe, and (h) Virginia. Labels indicate years with severe water
scarcity; symbols represent drought events expressed as days of drought for Japan (Figure 8b) and persons
affected by drought events in million for the Philippines (Figure 8c).
12 of 17
W07518
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
year 1983 and caused the longest drought on record for the
years 1995–1996. The simulated monthly WSI captures
these drought events well. However, the simulated annual
WSI is not capable of reproducing the high intensity of each
major drought event (see Figure 8a).
3.3.2. Japan
[32] Figure 8b shows the estimated water stress and
drought events for Japan. Drought events are represented by
the number of days of drought, i.e., the total number of days
on which the water supply was suspended for the three
sectors (i.e., agriculture, industry and households and
municipalities) per region (about 150 regions in Japan; in this
case, state/province > region > city/town), by MLIT [2007].
Japan experienced intense water stress in the years 1973,
1978 and 1994. Water stress was particularly intense in the
years 1978 and 1994 when for several weeks the water supply
was suspended in the city of Fukuoka and Matsuyama for
nearly 20 h a day [Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA),
2002]. Overall, the severity of droughts is well approximated by the simulated monthly WSI with a notable exception for 1967. According to the JMA [2002], severe water
shortage occurred particularly in southern Japan (i.e.,
Kyushu) in the year 1967, which is not captured by the
country‐averaged WSI. The simulated annual WSI significantly underestimates the intensity of water shortage
throughout the simulation periods.
3.3.3. The Philippines
[33] Drought recurrently occurs in the Philippines associated with an effect of El Niño‐Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) [Wilhite, 1992]. Figure 8c shows the simulated WSI
and the number of persons affected by drought events in the
Philippines by the National Disaster Coordinating Council
(NDCC) [1999]. The severe drought hit the Bicol region in
the years 1968–1969 and the Central Luzon in the years
1972–1973 and affected nearly one million hectares of
agricultural land in Central Luzon in the years 1982–1983
[NDCC, 1999; Bankoff, 2002]. Large rainfall deficits caused
a severe drought in the years 1987–1988 resulting 46 of the
78 provinces being declared calamity compared with only
16 and 6 in the droughts of the years 1990 and 1991,
respectively [Wilhite, 1992]. Drought in the years 1992–
1993 affected around half a million hectares of agricultural
land [NDCC, 1999]. In the years 1997–1998, 50% deficit of
the average rainfall between October and March over 90%
of the country [Higashiura and Rees‐Gildea, 1998] caused
reduced water supply throughout the country where 10% of
water supply and 4 h of daily water service were reduced in
Manila and irrigation water supply for 27,000 ha was cut off
[Jegillos, 2007]. Overall, the observed major drought events
are relatively well approximated by the simulated monthly
WSI with exceptions of 1992–1993 and 1995 when drought
events mainly affected agricultural lands and particular
regions, respectively.
3.3.4. Afghanistan
[34] Afghanistan, characterized by (semi)arid climate,
suffers from periodic droughts [Qureshi, 2002]. Two intense
droughts hit Afghanistan in the years 1970–1971 and 2000–
2001, which were more severe than any other years [Alim
and Shobair, 2002]. Precipitation was only around 60% of
the average in 1970–1971 [Alim and Shobair, 2002]. All
ephemeral rivers dried out in early spring and perennial
rivers (e.g., Helmand, Farah Rud, and Murghab) dried out in
early to mid summer in 2000–2001. Two intense droughts in
W07518
1970–1971 and 2000–2001 agree well with the simulated
monthly WSI (see Figure 8d). The simulated annual WSI
also captures these droughts although it largely underestimates the intensity of each event.
3.3.5. Pakistan
[35] Pakistan being mostly (semi)arid is prone to frequent
droughts mainly caused by rainfall deficits during the
monsoon season. After the mid‐1950s, the most intense
drought occurred in the year 1999 and continued up to the
year 2002 [Ahmad et al., 2004]. This intense drought
aggravated the water supply of the country’s already high
water‐stressed situation [Asian Development Bank, 2005]
resulting in a water shortage of up to 51% of normal supply
as the total flow in major rivers declined more than 30%
[Ahmad et al., 2004]. The simulated monthly WSI captured
the worst drought event of 1999–2001 (see Figure 8e).
However, the simulated monthly WSI also shows two other
similar peaks during the mid‐1960s and the year 1974 even
though droughts in these periods were not as intense as the
worst drought of 1999–2001. As this study used the year
2000 as benchmark, past water demand is overestimated.
This is likely a main cause of the too high peaks of 1960s
and 1974. The simulated annual WSI also shows the similar
trend of water stress with the monthly WSI and captures the
worst drought event of 1999–2001. In Pakistan, water stress
or water shortage, is persistent or relatively nonseasonal
over the years, which enables the annual totals of water
availability and water demand to reflect the intensities of
water stress close to that of the monthly WSI.
3.3.6. Malaysia
[36] Two severe droughts hit Malaysia in its recent history. One occurred in the year 1983 and continued 6 months
[Daily Express: Independent National Newspaper of East
Malaysia, 2008] and the other occurred in the year 1998
associated with the ENSO [Shaaban and Sing, 2003]. The
drought of 1998 particularly affected 1.8 million residents in
South Kuala Lumpur City and disrupted domestic water
supply for a certain period from April to September
[Shaaban and Sing, 2003]. Most parts of Sabah received
less than 25% of the average rainfall from January to April
in 1998 [Shaaban and Sing, 2003]. The recurrence interval
of 1998 drought was estimated to be more than 40 years in
some parts of Malaysia [Shaaban and Sing, 2003]. The
simulated monthly WSI of this study agrees well with the
two worst drought events of 1983 and 1998 (Figure 8f)
while the simulated annual WSI is not capable of reproducing the drought events which are characterized by the high
peaks because of their large seasonality.
3.3.7. Zimbabwe
[37] The years 1980–1981 showed very wet conditions
reminiscent of the mid‐1970s and annual rainfall was over
150% of the average in some areas [Bratton, 1988]. However, Zimbabwe experienced the worst drought in the following years of 1982–1984 [Bratton, 1988; Wilhite, 1992;
Maphosa, 1994]. The drought of 1982–1984 was the most
intense on record because of the rainfall deficits in three
consecutive years [Wilhite, 1992]. This drought caused
depletion of water reservoirs and water shortage was prevalent throughout the country while domestic water supply
was rationed in urban areas [Bratton, 1988; Wilhite, 1992;
Maphosa, 1994]. Other major droughts hit Zimbabwe in the
years 1986–1987, 1991–1992 and 1994–1995 which particularly affected agricultural production [Kinsey et al.,
13 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
W07518
Figure 9. Dynamic water stress index (DWSI) based on monthly WSI ≥ 0.4 over the period 1958–2001.
1998]. The severity of the droughts are overall well approximated by the simulated monthly WSI and the periods of wet
years by low WSI during the mid‐1970s and 1980–1981 are
captured as well (Figure 8g). The simulated annual WSI, on
the other hand, shows the similar trend of WSI with the
monthly WSI but it underestimates the intensity of each
drought event.
3.3.8. Virginia
[38] Virginia, located halfway the eastern coast of the
United States, is classified as a humid subtropical climate.
Since the mid‐1900s, Virginia has experienced several major
or statewide droughts (USGS, http://va.water.usgs.gov/drought/
histcond.htm). The statewide drought of 1962–1971 was the
most intense in its duration because of extensive low‐flow
conditions over several years and the recurrence interval of
the drought was estimated as 50 to 80 years [Nuckels et al.,
1990]. The prolonged drought of 1962–1971 with its severity was well reproduced by the simulated monthly WSI as
shown in Figure 8h. The drought of 1988, being not only
statewide but also nationwide, was the most severe in its
intensity because of large rainfall deficit. Another major
drought hit Virginia from 1998 to 2002 following the record
wet months in which Virginia received well above‐average
rainfall [Drought Monitoring Task Force, 2002]. The drought
of 1998–2002 was less prolonged but as severe as in its
intensity compared to that of 1962–1971. While the droughts
of 1962–1971, 1988 and 1998–2002 are well reproduced
by the simulated monthly WSI (Figure 8h), the drought of
1980–1982, being less intense compared to other droughts, is
less well approximated as it mainly affected the James River
Basin (recurrence interval of 80 years compared to 15 years
for the other regions of Virginia). Similar to the monthly WSI,
the annual WSI captures the drought events reasonably well
as drought events are fairly persistent in Virginia.
3.4. Seasonality, Severity, and Dynamic Water Stress
[39] Figure 9 shows the dynamic water stress (equation (4))
calculated over the 44 year period 1958–2001. By definition,
it identifies all areas subject to actual water scarcity (WSI ≥
0.4) and the potential damage given the persistence and
recurrence of water scarcity. Highlighted are those areas
experiencing frequent and persistent water scarcity (DWSI ≥
0.6), such as India, central North America, Sahel, parts of
the Pacific coast of South America and NE China, mostly
associated with a irrigation water demand. On the other hand,
in SE United Kingdom, Russia and part of Brazil, DWSI is
lower, indicating the existence of infrequent or intermittent
periods of actual water scarcity. The DWSI equally identifies
the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Virginia as regions
experiencing frequent periods of actual water stress and the
Netherlands, Japan, Malaysia and Zimbabwe as regions
experiencing infrequent water stress as shown in Figure 8.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
[40] With the study of Hanasaki et al. [2008a, 2008b], this
study assessed global blue water stress with a finer temporal
resolution than annual totals. Net blue water demand was
estimated for 2000 as benchmark year following the methods
used in previous studies [Vörösmarty et al., 2000; Oki et al.,
2001; Alcamo et al., 2003a; Flörke and Alcamo, 2004;
Siebert and Döll, 2008] but with the latest available data sets,
with the additional inclusion of seasonal variations in the
domestic water demand, accounting for desalinated water use
and the nonrenewable groundwater abstraction and with
consideration of the spatially variable recycling ratios for the
industrial and the domestic sector, and green water availability for the irrigated areas, thus assessing water scarcity in
terms of net rather than gross blue water demand. Blue water
availability was computed by means of the macroscale
hydrological model PCR‐GLOBWB over the period 1958–
2001 with inclusion of the prognostic reservoir operation
scheme similar to Haddeland et al. [2006].
[41] Using the annual totals of water demand, the estimated
number of persons suffering from moderate to severe water
stress in the year 2000 is 1.7 billion and is lower than that of
previous studies (Table 3). This number increases more than
14 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
40% to 2.5 billion when the monthly temporal variability over
this period is considered. This increase is largely attributable
to the inclusion of climate variability although seasonal variation in demand also plays a role, particularly where blue
water availability is large but seasonal as is the case for the
Asian monsoon belt.
[42] Meigh et al. [1999] pointed out that water shortages
often become apparent only as occasional deficits at certain
times of the year. Both the comparison of the assessments at
the annual and the monthly scale (Figure 6) and the DWSI
(Figure 9) identify many regions where the annual resolution is too coarse to identify the occurrence of water stress.
Moreover, the long‐term assessment of water stress compared with the country‐based drought events reveals that the
annual resolution significantly underestimates the intensity of
water stress in countries where drought events are seasonal
(Figure 8). Our long‐term assessment of monthly water stress
and the DWSI illustrate Meigh et al.’s [1999] argument for the
first time on a global scale. The study also identified regions
where actual water scarcity is a frequent and prolonged issue
such as India, central North America, Spain, and NE China,
next to those where actual water scarcity is infrequent and
intermittent such as SE United Kingdom, Brazil, and Russia.
[43] Various sources of uncertainty are associated with the
estimates of water demand and water availability used in this
study. Data availability and consistency are major constraints
to the definition of water demand at the scale of an individual
year, in this case 2000, let alone a substantial period, for
example the years 1958–2001. This explains the choice for a
single benchmark year. The comparisons with actual water
scarcity for seven countries and one state indicate (Figure 8)
that the results are relatively insensitive to this choice, with
past events being successfully identified regardless of the
demand estimated only for the year 2000. It thus appears that
climatic variability, reflected in local rainfall deficits and
regional low‐flow conditions, is often the main determinant
of water stress in developed countries. Figure 8 also shows
that water demand likely plays a significant role in emerging
countries such as Pakistan when including the effects of an
increasing population and heightened water demand. Therefore, reliable estimates of water demand are indispensable to
improve the assessment of water stress especially when
considering the increased standard of living in populous
emerging and developing countries (e.g., China, India, and
Pakistan) [Meinzen‐Dick and Rosegrant, 2001]. Notwithstanding the scarcity of data, substantial improvements have
been obtained in the assessment of the irrigation water
demand which is the largest amount among all the sectors,
comprising 70% of the total water withdrawal (Table 2).
Estimates of the irrigation water demand are robust and
compare well with the reported values of the AQUASTAT
database (Figure 2). Important sources of uncertainty for
irrigation water demand are biases in climatic forcing, discrepancies in irrigated area, poor estimates of the irrigation
efficiency and imprecise and prescribed calendars of multiple
cropping systems.
[44] Although this study allows for the assessment of the
vulnerability of the present‐day population to water stress, the
assessment of future water including the effect of climate
change and socioeconomic developments (e.g., IPCC scenarios) is of greater scientific and societal importance. As this
study confirms and identifies areas that are liable to water
scarcity by increasing the temporal resolution, as it explores
W07518
new data resources and approaches to assess water scarcity
and as it highlights sources of uncertainty, it may help to
increase the reliability of coming assessments of future water
scarcity.
[45] Acknowledgments. We cordially thank Felix Portmann and
Stefan Siebert (Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, after 2009) of the Hydrology Group of Petra Döll, Johann
Wolfgang Goethe University (Frankfurt), for sharing the MIRCA2000 data
set with us. We are also grateful to all the contributors to the many other data
sets that gave us the possibility to complete this study. Finally, we would like
to thank two anonymous reviewers and the associate editor, who gave constructive comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Y.W. is financially supported by Utrecht University Focus Areas Theme
“Earth and Sustainability” (Project FM0906, Global Assessment of Water
Resources).
References
Ahmad, S., Z. Hussain, A. S. Qureshi, R. Majeed, and M. Saleem (2004),
Drought mitigation in Pakistan: Current status and options for future
strategies, Work. Pap. 85, Int. Water Manage. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Alcamo, J., and T. Henrichs (2002), Critical regions: A model‐based estimation of world water resources sensitive to global changes, Aquat. Sci.,
64, 352–362, doi:10.1007/PL00012591.
Alcamo, J., P. Döll, F. Kaspar, and S. Siebert (1997), Global change and
global scenarios of water use and availability: An application of WaterGAP 1.0, Rep. A9701, Cent. for Environ. Syst. Res., Univ. of Kassel,
Kassel, Germany.
Alcamo, J., T. Henrichs, and T. Rösch (2000), World water in 2025—
Global modeling and scenario analysis for the World Commission on
Water for the 21st Century, Kassel World Water Ser. Rep. 2, Cent. for
Environ. Syst. Res., Univ. of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.
Alcamo, J., P. Döll, T. Henrichs, F. Kaspar, B. Lehner, T. Rösch, and
S. Siebert (2003a), Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global
model of water use and availability, Hydrol. Sci. J., 48, 317–337,
doi:10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290.
Alcamo, J., P. Döll, T. Henrichs, F. Kaspar, B. Lehner, T. Rösch, and
S. Siebert (2003b), Global estimation of water withdrawals and availability under current and “business as usual” conditions, Hydrol. Sci. J., 48,
339–348, doi:10.1623/hysj.48.3.339.45278.
Alim, A. K., and S. S. Shobair (2002), Drought and human suffering in
Afghanistan, paper presented at Tsukuba Asian Seminar on Agricultural
Education, Agric. and For. Res. Cent., Univ. of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Arnell, N. W. (1999), Climate change and global water resources, Global
Environ. Change, 9, S31–S49, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(99)00017-5.
Arnell, N. W. (2004), Climate change and global water resources: SRES
emissions and socio‐economic scenarios, Global Environ. Change, 14,
31–52, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.006.
Asian Development Bank (2005), Pakistan: Emergency assistance for
drought impact mitigation and recovery component, ADB Completion
Rep. Proj. 28266, 48 pp., Manila.
Babel, M. S., A. Das Gupta, and P. Pradhan (2007), A multivariate econometric approach for domestic water demand modeling: An application to
Kathmandu, Nepal, Water Resour. Manage., 21, 573–589, doi:10.1007/
s11269-006-9030-6.
Bankoff, G. (2002), Cultures of Disaster: Society and Natural Hazard in the
Philippines, 238 pp., Routledge, London, doi:10.4324/9780203221891.
Beersma, J. J., and T. A. Buishand (2004), Joint probability of precipitation
and discharge deficits in the Netherlands, Water Resour. Res., 40,
W12508, doi:10.1029/2004WR003265.
Beersma, J. J., T. A. Buishand, and H. Buishand (2004). Droog, droger
droogst, de tweede fase van de Droogtestudie Nederland, KNMI Publ.
199‐II, K. Ned. Meteorol. Inst., De Bilt, Netherlands.
Bratton, M. (1988), Drought, food and the social organization of small
farmers in Zimbabwe, in Drought and Hunger in Africa: Denying Famine
a Future, edited by M. H. Glantz, pp. 213–244, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, U. K.
Brolsma, R. J., and M. F. P. Bierkens (2007), Groundwater‐soil water‐
vegetation dynamics in a temperate forest ecosystem along a slope, Water
Resour. Res., 43, W01414, doi:10.1029/2005WR004696.
Daily Express: Independent National Newspaper of East Malaysia (2008),
Forestry Dept warns against open burning, 30 May.
15 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
Döll, P., and S. Siebert (2002), Global modeling of irrigation water requirements, Water Resour. Res., 38(4), 1037, doi:10.1029/2001WR000355.
Drought Monitoring Task Force (2002), Drought status report February
21 2002, Richmond, Va. [Available at http://www.deq.state.va.us/
waterresources/pdf/dmtfreportfeb02.pdf/.]
Elvidge, C., K. Baugh, E. Kihn, H. Kroehl, and E. Davis (1997a), Mapping
city lights with nighttime data from the DMSP operational linescan
system, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 63, 727–734.
Elvidge, C., K. Baugh, E. Kihn, H. Kroehl, E. Davis, and C. Davis (1997b),
Relation between satellite‐observed visible‐near infrared emissions, population, economic activity and electric power consumption, Int. J. Remote
Sens., 18, 1373–1379, doi:10.1080/014311697218485.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (1993), The Digital Chart of the
World, Redlands, Calif.
Falkenmark, M. (1989), The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa—
Why isn’t it being addressed?, Ambio, 18, 112–118.
Falkenmark, M., A. Berntell, A. Jägerskog, J. Lundqvist, M. Matz, and
H. Tropp (2007), On the verge of a new water scarcity: A call for good
governance and human ingenuity, SIWI policy brief, Stockholm Int.
Water Inst., Stockholm.
Flörke, M., and J. Alcamo (2004), European outlook on water use, final
report, Cent. for Environ. Syst. Res., Univ. of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.
Food and Agriculture Organization (2008), Review of agricultural water
use per country, report, Rome.
Gleick, P. H., H. Cooley, D. Katz, E. Lee, J. Morrison, M. Palaniappan,
A. Samulon, and G. H. Wolff (Eds.) (2006), The World’s Water 2006–2007:
The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Island Press, Washington,
D. C.
Haddeland, I., T. Skaugen, and D. P. Lettenmaier (2006), Anthropogenic
impacts on continental surface water fluxes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,
L08406, doi:10.1029/2006GL026047.
Hanasaki, N., S. Kanae, and T. Oki (2006), A reservoir operation scheme
for global river routing models, J. Hydrol., 327, 22–41, doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2005.11.011.
Hanasaki, N., S. Kanae, T. Oki, K. Masuda, K. Motoya, N. Shirakawa, Y. Shen,
and K. Tanaka (2008a), An integrated model for the assessment of global
water resources—Part 1: Model description and input meteorological forcing,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1007–1025, doi:10.5194/hess-12-1007-2008.
Hanasaki, N., S. Kanae, T. Oki, K. Masuda, K. Motoya, N. Shirakawa, Y. Shen,
and K. Tanaka (2008b), An integrated model for the assessment of global
water resources—Part 2: Applications and assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., 12, 1027–1037, doi:10.5194/hess-12-1027-2008.
Higashiura, H., and P. Rees‐Gildea (1998), Drought information bulletin
no. 1, Int. Fed. of Red Cross and Red Crescent Soc., Geneva, Switzerland.
Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (2003),
Netherlands Drought Study: Final report phase 1, Lelystad, Netherlands.
International Commission on Large Dams (2003), World Register of Dams:
1984 Full Edition and Update, Paris.
International Water Management Institute (2000), World water supply and
demand in 2025, in World Water Scenarios Analyses, edited by F. R.
Rijsberman, Earthscan, London.
Islam, S., T. Oki, S. Kanae, N. Hanasaki, Y. Agata, and K. Yoshimura
(2007), A grid‐based assessment of global water scarcity including virtual
water trading, Water Resour. Manage., 21, 19–33, doi:10.1007/s11269006-9038-y.
Jackson, R. B., J. Canadell, J. R. Ehleringer, H. A. Mooney, O. E. Sala, and
E. D. Schulze (1996), A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes, Oecologia, 108, 389–411, doi:10.1007/BF00333714.
Jackson, R. B., S. R. Carpenter, C. N. Dahm, D. M. McKnight, S. L. Postel,
and S. W. Running (2001), Water in a changing world, Ecol. Appl., 11,
1027–1045, doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1027:WIACW]2.0.CO;2.
Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) (2002), Climate in Twentieth
Century in Japan [in Japanese], Tokyo.
Jegillos, S. R. (2007), Philippines country case study: Impacts and responses
to the 1997–1998 El Niño event, report, Univ. Corp. for Atmos. Res.,
Boulder, Colo.
Kållberg, P., P. Berrisford, B. Hoskins, A. Simmons, S. Uppala, S. Lamy‐
Thepaut, and R. Hine (2005), ERA‐40 atlas, ERA‐40 Proj. Rep. Ser. 19,
Eur. Cent. for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, U. K.
Kinsey, B., K. Burger, and J. W. Gunning (1998), Coping with drought in
Zimbabwe: Survey evidence on responses of rural households to risk,
World Dev., 26(1), 89–110, doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00124-1.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., L. J. Mata, N. W. Arnell, P. Döll, P. Kabat, B. Jiménez,
K. A. Miller, T. Oki, Z. Sen, and I. A. Shiklomanov (2007), Freshwater
resources and their management, in Climate Change 2008: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
W07518
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by L. Parry et al., pp. 173–210, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
U. K.
Lehner, B., and P. Döll (2004), Development and validation of a global
database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands, J. Hydrol., 296, 1–22,
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028.
Loh, M., and P. Coghlan (2003), Domestic water use study in Perth, Western
Australia 1998–2001, report, Water Corp. of West. Aust., Leederville,
West. Aust.
Mahvi, A. H., and H. A. Norouzi (2005), Domestic water consumption in
rural areas: A case study, Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 8, 1170–1172, doi:10.3923/
pjbs.2005.1170.1172.
Maphosa, B. (1994), Lessons from the 1992 drought in Zimbabwe: The
quest for alternative food policies, Nord. J. Afr. Stud., 3, 53–58.
Martinez‐Espiñeira, R. (2002), Residential water demand in the northwest of
Spain, Environ. Resour. Econ., 21, 161–187, doi:10.1023/A:1014547616408.
Meigh, J. R., A. A. McKenzie, and K. J. Sene (1999), A grid‐based
approach to water scarcity estimates for eastern and southern Africa,
Water Resour. Manage., 13, 85–115, doi:10.1023/A:1008025703712.
Meinzen‐Dick, R. S., and M. W. Rosegrant (Eds.) (2001), A 2020 Vision for
Food, Agriculture and the Environment: Focus 9: Overcoming Water
Scarcity and Quality Constraints, Int. Food Policy Res. Inst., Washington,
D. C.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport in Japan (MLIT) (2007).
Water resources in Japan [in Japanese], report, Tokyo.
Mitchell, T. D., and P. D. Jones (2005), An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high‐
resolution grids, Int. J. Climatol., 25, 693–712, doi:10.1002/joc.1181.
National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) (1999), Annual statistical
data on drought, 1970–1999, report, Quezon City, Philippines.
New, M., M. Hulme, and P. D. Jones (1999), Representing twentieth century
space‐time climate variability. Part 1: Development of a 1961–90 mean
monthly terrestrial climatology, J. Clim., 12, 829–856, doi:10.1175/
1520-0442(1999)012<0829:RTCSTC>2.0.CO;2.
New, M., M. Hulme, and P. D. Jones (2000), Representing twentieth century
space‐time climate variability. Part 2: Development of 1901–96 monthly
grids of terrestrial surface climate, J. Clim., 13, 2217–2238, doi:10.1175/
1520-0442(2000)013<2217:RTCSTC>2.0.CO;2.
Nuckels, E. H., B. J. Prugh Jr., P. J. Michaels, and D. R. Jones (1990),
National water summary 1988–1989: Floods and droughts, U.S. Geol.
Surv. Water Supply Pap., 2375, 543–550.
Nyong, A. O., and P. S. Kanaroglou (1999), Domestic water use in rural
semiarid Africa: A case study of Katarko village in northeastern Nigeria,
Hum. Ecol., 27, 537–555, doi:10.1023/A:1018739910377.
Oki, T., and S. Kanae (2006), Global hydrological cycles and world water
resources, Science, 313, 1068–1072, doi:10.1126/science.1128845.
Oki, T., Y. Agata, S. Kanae, T. Saruhashi, D. Yang, and K. Musiake (2001),
Global assessment of current water resources using total runoff‐integrating
pathways, Hydrol. Sci. J., 46, 983–995, doi:10.1080/02626660109492890.
Porporato, A., F. Laio, L. Ridolfi, and I. Rodriguez‐Iturbe (2001), Plants in
water‐controlled ecosystems: Active role in hydrologic processes and
response to water stress: III. Vegetation water stress, Adv. Water Resour.,
24, 725–744, doi:10.1016/S0309-1708(01)00006-9.
Portmann, F., S. Siebert, C. Bauer, and P. Döll (2008), Global data set of
monthly growing areas of 26 irrigated crops, Frankfurt Hydrol. Pap. 6,
Inst. of Phys. Geogr., Univ. of Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Portmann, F., S. Siebert, C. Bauer, and P. Döll (2010), MIRCA2000—
Global monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: A
new high‐resolution data set for agricultural and hydrological modelling,
Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 24, GB1011, doi:10.1029/2008GB003435.
Qureshi, A. S. (2002), Water resources management in Afghanistan: The
issues and options, Work. Pap. 49, Int. Water Manage. Inst., Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
Revenga, C., J. Brunner, N. Henninger, K. Kassem, and N. Payne (2000),
Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Freshwater Ecosystems, World
Resour. Inst., Washington, D. C.
Rost, S., D. Gerten, A. Bondeau, W. Lucht, J. Rohwer, and S. Schaphoff (2008),
Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global
water system, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09405, doi:10.1029/
2007WR006331.
Shaaban, A. J. B., and L. K. Sing (2003), Droughts in Malaysia: A look at
its characteristics, impacts, related policies and management strategies,
paper presented at Water and Drainage 2003 Conference, Malaysian
Natl. Comm. on Irrig. and Drain, Kuala Lumpur.
Shiklomanov, I. A. (1993), World fresh water resources, in Water in Crisis,
edited by P.H. Gleick, pp. 13–24, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
16 of 17
W07518
WADA ET AL.: GLOBAL MONTHLY WATER STRESS, 2
Shiklomanov, I. A. (Ed.) (1997), Assessment of Water Resources and
Water Availability in the World: Comprehensive Assessment of the
Freshwater Resources of the World, World Meteorol. Organ., Geneva,
Switzerland.
Shiklomanov, I. A. (2000a), World water resources and water use: Present
assessment and outlook for 2025, in World Water Scenarios Analyses,
edited by F. R. Rijsberman, pp. 160–203, Earthscan, London.
Shiklomanov, I. A. (2000b), Appraisal and assessment of world water
resources, Water Int., 25, 11–32, doi:10.1080/02508060008686794.
Siebert, S., and P. Döll (2008), The Global Crop Water Model (GCWM):
Documentation and first results for irrigated crops, Frankfurt Hydrol.
Pap. 7, Inst. of Phys. Geogr., Univ. of Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany.
Siebert, S., and P. Döll (2010), Quantifying blue and green virtual water
contents in global crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation, J. Hydrol., 384, 198–217, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.031.
Smith, M. (1992), CROPWAT—A computer program for irrigation planning and management, Irrig. Drain. Pap. 46, Food and Agric. Organ.,
Rome.
Tobler, W., U. Deichman, J. Gottsegen, and K. Maloy (1995), The global
demography project, Tech. Rep. TR‐95‐6, Natl. Cent. for Geogr. Inf. and
Anal., van Santa Barbara, Calif.
van Beek, L. P. H., and M. F. P. Bierkens (2009), The global hydrological
model PCR‐GLOBWB: Conceptualization, parameterization and verification, report, Dep. of Phys. Geogr., Utrecht Univ., Utrecht, Netherlands.
[Available at http://vanbeek.geo.uu.nl/suppinfo/vanbeekbierkens2009.
pdf/.]
van Beek, L. P. H., Y. Wada, and M. F. P. Bierkens (2011), Global monthly
water stress: 1. Water balance and water availability, Water Resour. Res.,
doi:10.1029/2010WR009791, in press.
Viviroli, D., H. H. Dürr, B. Messerli, M. Meybeck, and R. Weingartner
(2007), Mountains of the world, Water towers for humanity: Topology,
mapping and global significance, Water Resour. Res., 43, W07447,
doi:10.1029/2006WR005653.
Vörösmarty, C. J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R. B. Lammers (2000),
Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth, Science, 289, 284–288, doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.284.
W07518
Vörösmarty, C. J., C. Leveque, and C. Revenga (2005), Freshwater ecosystems, in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, vol. 1, Conditions and Trends,
edited by C. Caudill et al., chap. 7, pp. 165–207, Island Press, Washington,
D. C.
Wada, Y., L. P. H. van Beek, C. M. van Kempen, J. W. T. M. Reckman,
S. Vasak, and M. F. P. Bierkens (2010), Global depletion of groundwater
resources, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L20402, doi:10.1029/2010GL044571.
Wilhite, D. A. (1992), Preparing for drought: A guidebook for developing
countries, report, 78 pp., U. N. Environ. Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Wint, G. R. W., and T. P. Robinson (2007), Gridded livestock of the world
2007, report, 131 pp., Food and Agric. Organ., Rome.
Wisser, D., S. Frolking, E. M. Douglas, B. M. Fekete, C. J. Vörösmarty and
A. H. Schumann (2008), Global irrigation water demand: Variability and
uncertainties arising from agricultural and climate data sets, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 35, L24408, doi:10.1029/2008GL035296.
World Bank (2006), World Development Indicators (WDI), Washington,
D. C.
World Bank (2007), World Development Indicators (WDI) 2007, Washington,
D. C.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (1997), Comprehensive
assessment of the freshwater resources of the world, report, Geneva,
Switzerland.
World Resources Institute (1998), World Resources, 1998–99: A Guide to
the Global Environment, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
Zektser, I. S., and L. G. Everett (Eds.) (2004), Groundwater Resources of
the World and Their Use, IHP‐VI Ser. Groundwater, vol. 6, U. N. Educ.,
Sci. and Cultural Organ., Paris.
M. F. P. Bierkens, H. H. Dürr, L. P. H. van Beek, and Y. Wada, Department
of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, NL‐3584 CS
Utrecht, Netherlands. (r.vanbeek@geo.uu.nl)
D. Viviroli and R. Weingartner, Hydrology Group, Institute of Geography,
University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, CH‐3012 Bern, Switzerland.
17 of 17