The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
COMPARISON OF BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN APPROACHES TO CALCULATING THE WATER FOOTPRINTS OF NATIONS
Abstract
The water footprint has been introduced as a potential sustainability indicator for human-induced water consumption, and has frequently been studied at local, national and international scales during the last decade. While water footprints are sometimes understood as a measure that includes environmental impact assessment, the water footprint as used in this paper refers to volumes of water consumed, without including weighting procedures to allow for the assessment of impacts. Two types of approaches have been applied to calculate the water footprint in the literature: bottom-up and top-down approaches. This study compares and discusses advantages and limitations of the water footprint of nations based on two input–output top-down approaches (Water Embodied in Bilateral Trade (WEBT) and Multi-regional Input–Output Analysis (MRIO)) and of the existing national water footprint accounts from the literature based on the bottom-up approach. The differences in the bottom-up and WEBT approaches are caused by inter-sectoral cut-off, because bottom-up approaches do not consider the entire industrial supply chains, while the WEBT method covers the water footprint by tracing the whole domestic supply chain of each country. The differences in the WEBT and MRIO approaches are due to an inter-regional cut-off effect, as the WEBT approach only traces domestic supply chains whereas the MRIO approach traces entire global supply chains. We found that both bottom-up and top-down approaches are heavily dependent on the quality of existing datasets, and differ substantially. The total water footprints of nations based on different approaches vary by up to 48%, and this variation is even larger at the sector level.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern
Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2006) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x · Cited by 1,458 · cited 1×
“…discussed as a potential sustainability indicator for human-induced water consumption and has been frequently studied at local, national and international scales (e.g. Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004; Feng et al., 2011a, 2011b; Yu et al., 2010; Aldaya and Llamas, 2008; Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007).”
BackgroundSystem Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches
Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G. J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Moriguchi, Y., et al. (2004) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es0263745 · Cited by 1,025
Self-citation
Cited by
Henders, S., Persson, U. M., & Kastner, T. (2015) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125012 · Cited by 347
Blue, Green, and Grey Water Quantification Approaches: A Bibliometric and Literature Review
Mubako, S. T. (2018) · Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education · doi:10.1111/j.1936-704x.2018.03289.x · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Feng, K., Chapagain, A., Suh, S., Pfister, S., & Hubacek, K.
- Venue
- Economic Systems Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 371-385
- ISSN
- 0953-5314 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5758
- OpenAlex
- W2041776077
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: COMPARISON OF BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN APPROACHES TO CALCULATING THE WATER FOOTPRINTS OF NATIONS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09535314.2011.638276
- The paper
- Feng, K., Chapagain, A., Suh, S., Pfister, S., & Hubacek, K. (2011). COMPARISON OF BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN APPROACHES TO CALCULATING THE WATER FOOTPRINTS OF NATIONS. Economic Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2011.638276
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.