Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

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

Feng, Kuishuang, Chapagain, Ashok, Suh, Sangwon, Pfister, Stephan, Hubacek, Klaus·2011·Economic Systems Research

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09535314.2011.638276

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Feng, K., Chapagain, A., Suh, S., Pfister, S., & Hubacek, K.
Venue
Economic Systems Research
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.