It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The inclusion of environmental flow requirements (EFRs) in global water scarcity assessments is essential to obtain a reasonable representation of the water scarcity status. However, at a global scale, the quantification of EFRs is subject to large uncertainties resulting from various methods. So far, it is unclear to what extent the uncertainties in EFRs affect global water scarcity assessments. In this study, we examined the differences between EFR estimation methods and quantified their effects on spatially explicit water scarcity assessments, based on reconstructed global water withdrawal data and naturalized streamflow simulations. The global mean EFRs estimated by different methods ranged from 129 m3 s−1 to 572 m3 s−1. Consequently, with the fulfillment of the EFRs, the area under water scarcity ranged between 8% and 52% of the total global land area, and the affected population ranged between 28% and 60% of the total population. In India and Northern China, 44%–66% and 22%–58% of the country’s land area, respectively, is affected by water scarcity; this percentage is higher than that found in other countries. The effects of different EFRs on water scarcity assessment are large in many regions, but relatively small in regions that experience intensive water use due to anthropological activities (such as Northern China and India). Through this study, we have put forth the need for the reconciliation of the estimates of EFRs to produce more reasonable and consistent water scarcity assessments.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Ueberlandstrasse 133, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland; Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
2 Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, People’s Republic of China
3 Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
4 School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People’s Republic of China
5 Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Ueberlandstrasse 133, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland; Department of Environmental Sciences, MGU, University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, CH-4003 Basel, Switzerland