Cited by 30Environmental Impact and SustainabilityWater Resources and SustainabilityWater resources management and optimization

Improving regional water scarcity footprint characterization factors of an available water remaining (AWARE) method

Open access
Kaewmai, Roihatai, Grant, Timothy, Eady, Sandra, Mungkalasiri, Jitti, Musikavong, Charongpun·2019·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

Increasing water demand and decreasing freshwater availability in an area can cause water scarcity leading to damage to human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources. Many countries around the world, including Thailand, have recognized the importance of this problem. The available water remaining (AWARE) characterization model provides water scarcity footprint characterization factors (WSF CFs) for assessing the WSF of products. AWARE CFs were prepared from WaterGAP model's data and are available in watershed and country levels. They were not provided for specific areas and could not accurately explain water scarcity situations in certain regions, potentially leading to inappropriate water management. This work calculates the annual and monthly local CFs from local data in the Chao Phraya watershed in Thailand. The monthly local CFs with local environmental water requirement (EWR) calculations ranged from 0.10 to 100. The mean difference between AWARE CFs and local CFs was statistically significant. The most sensitive parameters for local CFs in the dry season were water availability (WA) and agricultural water consumption and that in the wet season was WA. The weighting of AWARE CFs by each type of water consumption and an aggregate of AWARE CFs for product production has been recommended for WSF assessment. The AWARE methodology was modified to assess the individual water scarcity of each water user based on the order of priority. For the Chao Phraya watershed, the ranges of the monthly local individual CFs using local EWR calculations of domestic, environment, livestock, agriculture, and industry were 0.10-0.33, 0.10-0.37, 0.10-0.37, 0.10-100, and 0.10-100, respectively. This assessment of individual water scarcity is helpful for prioritizing the level and timing of water use to minimize their impacts on critical water scarcity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.013

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 30

Authors
Kaewmai, R., Grant, T., Eady, S., Mungkalasiri, J., & Musikavong, C.
Affiliations
  • Prince of Songkla University (TH)
  • National Science and Technology Development Agency (TH)
Corresponding author
Musikavong, Charongpun
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
681
Pages
444-455
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2943971719
Cited by
30
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
  • Thailand Research Fund (PHD/0090/2556)
  • Prince of Songkla University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Resources and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Water resources management and optimization
Keywords
water scarcity footprint, characterization factors, environmental water requirements, water availability, agricultural water use, water use prioritization, WaterGAP, seasonal water scarcity, water management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review