Cited by 877Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesWater resources management and optimizationEnvironmental Science and Water Management

Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability

Open access
ALCAMO, JOSEPH, DÖLL, PETRA, HENRICHS, THOMAS, KASPAR, FRANK, LEHNER, BERNHARD, RÖSCH, THOMAS, SIEBERT, STEFAN·2003·Hydrological Sciences Journal

Abstract

Growing interest in global environmental issues has led to the need for global and regional assessment of water resources. A global water assessment model called “WaterGAP 2” is described, which consists of two main components'a Global Water Use model and a Global Hydrology model. These components are used to compute water use and availability on the river basin level. The Global Water Use model consists of (a) domestic and industry sectors which take into account the effect of structural and technological changes on water use, and (b) an agriculture sector which accounts especially for the effect of climate on irrigation water requirements. The Global Hydrology model calculates surface runoff and groundwater recharge based on the computation of daily water balances of the soil and canopy. A water balance is also performed for surface waters, and river flow is routed via a global flow routing scheme. The Global Hydrology model provides a testable method for taking into account the effects of climate and land cover on runoff. The components of the model have been calibrated and tested against data on water use and runoff from river basins throughout the world. Although its performance can and needs to be improved, the WaterGAP 2 model already provides a consistent method to fill in many of the existing gaps in water resources data in many parts of the world. It also provides a coherent approach for generating scenarios of changes in water resources. Hence, it is especially useful as a tool for globally comparing the water situation in river basins.

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 · 10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • About 10% of contiguous impervious area within a catchment typically causes observable and probably irreversible river degradation and loss of ecosystem functions.

    “Several studies on urbanization and rivers show consistently that about 10% of contiguous impervious area within a catchment typically causes an observable and probably irreversible river degradation and loss of ecosystem functions ( 53-55 ).”

    From Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers (2019) · cites this paper as [53]

  • WaterGAP is calibrated to estimate discharge from major river systems, meaning that while renewable groundwater is considered, fossil groundwater is omitted.

    “Furthermore, WaterGAP is calibrated to estimate discharge from major river systems (Alcamo et al., 2003;Müller Schmied et al., 2014).This means that while the renewable part of groundwater is considered, fossil groundwater is omitted.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Döll, P. & Hauschild, M. (2002) Model-based regional assessment of water use: an example for Northeastern Brazil. Water Int. 27(3), 310-320.
  2. Döll, P., Lehner, B. & Kaspar, F. (2002) Global modeling of groundwater recharge. In: Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Water Resources and Environment Research (ed. by G. H. Schmitz), vol. I, 322-326. Technical University, Dresden, Germany.
  3. Ringler, C. & Rosegrant, M. (1999) Water resource allocation in the Mekong river basin-challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the Symposium on Food and Agricultural Policy (organized by the International Food Policy Research Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 1999. Available from International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA.
  4. WRI (World Resources Institute) (2000) World Resources 2000-01. Oxford Press, New York, USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ALCAMO, J., DÖLL, P., HENRICHS, T., KASPAR, F., LEHNER, B., RÖSCH, T., & SIEBERT, S.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Venue
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Published
2003-06
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
317-337
ISSN
  • 0262-6667 (ISSN-L)
  • 2150-3435
OpenAlex
W2113442858
Cited by
877
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 55
FWCI
19.79
Type
journal article
Language
fr
Open access
Locations
Hydrological Sciences Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Water resources management and optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental Science and Water Management
Keywords
water resources assessment, water availability, irrigation water demand, climate change impacts on agriculture, surface runoff, groundwater recharge, soil water balance, river flow routing, model calibration, water use scenarios, river basins

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