Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

A contribution to harmonize water footprint assessments

Michael J. Lathuillièrea,b,⁎, Cécile Bullec, Mark S. Johnsonb,d

a Stockholm Environmental Institute, Stockholm, 10451, Swedenb Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadac CIRAIG, ESG-UQAM, Department of Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canadad Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Water policySupply chainsImpact assessmentSustainability assessmentSoybeanBrazil

A B S T R A C T

The water footprint (WF) has introduced a much-needed perspective for decision-makers on the use of waterresources in supply chains. It has been used as a tool to assess and improve water use efficiency and waterresources management, as well as inform on potential environmental impacts of water consumption in products.This paper is a contribution towards harmonizing WF assessments within decision-making contexts as they relateto their specific focus on either products or water management. First, we describe the relationship betweenproduct- and water management-focused WF approaches and their distinct perspectives, priorities and relianceon specific academic fields in relation to water resources decision-making. We then propose a harmonized WFassessment that observes both hydrogeographic and product system boundaries. We apply this harmonized WFassessment to the case of soybean production in Mato Grosso, Brazil, to illustrate how micro- and macro-leveldecision-making can be combined for a more complete set of policy responses affecting water resources. Ourcontribution aims to better highlight the strengths and limitations of individual WF approaches and assessmentswhich can be overcome by a harmonized approach. By focusing the conversation on a more integrated assess-ment of water use in relation to decision-making, we show the range of different purposes and useful WF resultsthat, together, can promote responses for greater local and global water security.

1. Introduction

The efficient, equitable and sustainable management of our planet’swater resources is one of the main challenges humanity is currentlyfacing. For example, 1.2 billion people experience physical waterscarcity (UN-Water/FAO, 2007), while close to four billion peopleworldwide live under extreme water scarcity at least some months ofthe year (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016). By 2050, the number ofpeople living under medium and severe water stress could reach 5billion, with water demand more than doubling for households, live-stock and electricity (WWAP, 2015a). In 2015, the United Nationslaunched the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a roadmap to2030 which includes objectives for clean water and sanitation (SDG 6)to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sa-nitation for all” (WWAP, 2015b). While SDG 6 is specific to water andsanitation, other goals also include water, either directly (e.g. SDG 14:Life under water, SDG 15: Life on land) or indirectly (SDG 2: Zerohunger, SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy, SDG 12: Responsibleconsumption and production), therefore requiring a wide range ofgovernance strategies, measures and indicators to ensure that these

goals are met.The relation between human-beings and nature in the context of

water management has evolved through the centuries, but recently thisinteraction has been embodied by the Integrated Water ResourcesManagement (IWRM) and Water Security concepts, which themselveshave evolved over time. The introduction of IWRM in the 1992 DublinInternational Conference on Water and Development outlined the ne-cessity to integrate knowledge about the complex physical interactionsover the full water cycle (e.g., by considering surface and groundwaterinteractions), as well as between the water cycle and society (Savenijeet al., 2014). Savenije et al. (2014) describe an evolution in IWRM to-wards coordinated action among stakeholders sharing water resourcesin a given geographic space (e.g., a river basin) and a period of time(e.g., the hydrologic year) with trade-offs to be weighted so as to“maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitablemanner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems”following the definition from the Global Water Partnership (GWP,2000).

Over the past decade, the concept of Water Security has beengaining attention as an important paradigm for water resources

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.004Received 18 December 2017; Received in revised form 5 October 2018; Accepted 13 October 2018

⁎ Corresponding author at: Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, Box 24218, 10451, Stockholm, Sweden.E-mail address: michael.lathuilliere@sei.org (M.J. Lathuillière).

Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

0959-3780/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

management and, in some cases, may be considered an extension ofIWRM (Bakker and Morinville, 2013). In 2013, the United NationsWater Task Force on Water Security defined it as “the capacity of apopulation to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities ofacceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being,and socio-economic development, for ensuring protection against waterpollution and water related disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in aclimate of peace and political stability” (UN-Water, 2013). Many otherdefinitions have been proposed and used in specific contexts (Zeitounet al., 2014), but more generally, Water Security implies a cross-sectoralinfluence of water in social, economic, ecological and political layersaffecting individuals and Society. While there are many overlappingconcerns between IWRM and Water Security perspectives, Bakker andMorinville (2013) describe that Water Security further implies: (1) theprotection of water resources, (2) the idea of a threshold that may affectsocio-ecological resilience, and (3) the necessity to respond to risksgiven imperfect information about water resources with an emphasis onadaptive management.

Along with the evolution of thought regarding the relationshipsbetween humans, Society and water resources is the notion of scale ofaction and the increasing importance of global structures affecting thewater cycle. Water resources management is particular in that localmanagement has global impacts, while at the same time, local andglobal forces can constrain present and future local water resources(Vörösmarty et al., 2015). Increases in extreme precipitation events andlocalized droughts resulting from global climate change (Hartmannet al., 2013) can affect local water availability. Local flood or physicalwater scarcity can affect local food production with consequences onglobal food prices. Likewise, inter-basin transfers, and the effects of theglobal economy on water quantity and quality impose additionalstresses on water resources by actors that are not using local waterresources directly. For instance, production and consumption activitiesrepresent a large portion of hidden water use for trade, requiring anadditional consideration of water use efficiencies in distant watersheds(Hoekstra, 2010). This indirect water use (supply chain use, or wateruse crossing a production to consumption boundary) has importantconsequences in consumption and production activities, especiallygiven that water withdrawals typically occur in stressed watersheds(Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010).

The introduction of the water footprint (WF) in 2002 (Hoekstra andHung, 2002) brought to light an important connection between pro-duction and consumption activities and water resources. In its originaldefinition, the WF quantifies the volumetric freshwater use of a productor a service by summing direct (or operational use) and indirect (orsupply chain use) water consumption (Hoekstra et al., 2011), therebyhighlighting the link between the consumption of products and theglobal water cycle (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012a). The WF can ad-dress various aspects of SDG 12 such as: 12.2 “achieve sustainablemanagement and efficient use of natural resources”, 12.4 “achieve theenvironmentally sound management of chemicals and wastesthroughout their life cycle (…)”, 12.6 “encourage companies (…) toadopt sustainable practices (…)”, and 12.7 “promote public procure-ment practices that are sustainable (…)” (UN, 2017). When dealingwith water specifically, the above goals then have repercussions forother water related SDGs (e.g., SDG 6, SDG 14) depending on how theWF is determined.

There are currently two distinct and complementary approaches tothe WF, each of which follows specific steps and with a focus on waterresources management and impact assessment (Boulay et al., 2013).The WF has been described as a freshwater volume which can becompared to total sustainable limits within a boundary following stepspublished by the Water Footprint Network (Hoekstra et al., 2011) todetermine water scarcity. The WF has also been described as the resultof a life cycle assessment (LCA) used to estimate potential environ-mental impacts of water use following the ISO 14046 standard (ISO,2015). Despite these differences in perspectives, these WF approaches

make an important connection between the physical boundary of thenatural resource and the boundary of production systems. Conclusionsfrom these WF approaches and assessments can then highlight actionsthat can be taken with respect to water uses following predefined ob-jectives.

This paper proposes to combine these existing WF approaches intoone harmonized WF assessment. Rather than focusing on parallel ap-proaches as described in Boulay et al. (2013), we highlight the type ofdecisions that follow each assessment based on the boundaries that theycover. We propose to associate WF decision-making into two focusgroups (as previously defined in Boulay et al. (2013)), based on theprimary level of intervention that each decision carries on the watercycle: (1) a physical boundary represented by a hydro-geographic re-gion (“water management-focused”) with implications on water re-sources management, and (2) a product system boundary with a focuson water use and impact assessment in production processes (“product-focused”). We argue for a more integrated discussion around waterresources decisions as they relate to water management and products,as well as actors and their specific roles in the water cycle.

We first describe the relationship between the decision-makingcontexts and the most common WF approaches (Section 2) prior tomerging these contexts into one harmonized WF assessment (Section 3).We then apply the proposed framework to soybean production in MatoGrosso, Brazil (Section 4), as an illustrative example of how such aharmonized assessment can benefit decision-making regarding a spe-cific product within a given hydro-geographic region. We conclude withimplications of the framework regarding policy decisions with the ob-jective to clarify the role of each WF approach (Section 5). Our paperbrings new light to prior discussions on the two main WF approaches(e.g. Hoekstra (2016); Pfister et al. (2017)). A harmonized WF assess-ment has the merit to clarify the role of each approach while high-lighting strengths and limitations for the purposes of water decision-making for improving water resources management in river basins, andthrough supply chains.

2. Problem definition: multiple water footprint approaches

Current WF approaches have been applied at the product or thehydro-geographic levels for the purposes of informing water resourcesdecision-making. These levels are inherently bound to specific waterresource objectives which are important to define in order to harmonizeWF approaches. In general, water is used either directly (e.g., fordrinking, cleaning), or indirectly in the consumption of products orservices (Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014). A convenient boundary todistinguish between direct and indirect uses is the product system(Fig. 1). This boundary contains all production processes serving So-ciety’s consumption that are connected to the global economy(Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014). Consequently, Society consumeswater directly, but also indirectly through the product system (Fig. 1).While water uses through the product system are considered indirectuses from Society’s standpoint, these same water uses are direct uses forthe product system. For instance, cotton irrigation is a direct water usein the product system, but also represents an indirect water use forSociety when the harvested cotton is used for a t-shirt subsequentlyconsumed by Society.

In the making of products, water flows are considered as inputs toand outputs from product systems within the typical boundaries of aproduction facility, several interconnected factories and/or businesseslinked through the global supply chain (Hoekstra and Wiedmann,2014). Within this context, typical research questions relate to theimprovement of the efficiency of water use in the product system (e.g.water productivity of cropland irrigation) with the objective of havinggreater product output per unit of water input in relation to manage-ment decisions or technological solutions. Improvements in efficiencycan also include economic and environmental efficiencies consideringeconomic output and environmental impact per unit water input. These

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

253

strategies are to be contrasted with the considerations of water re-sources within their hydro-geographic region (Fig. 1) where studiestypically focus on the natural water cycle traditionally represented bythe connection of a variety of flows in the landscape. Within this con-text, typical research questions are often bound to the quantification ofwater quantity and quality through in-situ data monitoring or fieldsampling to gather information for hydrologic models, or to test foreffects of human activities such as agriculture, forestry or mining on thelandscape.

The above is only a guide for what we consider to be typical de-scriptions of the water cycle for water resources management bySociety, and a backdrop of existing WF approaches. With product sys-tems being nested into Society, which is itself nested into hydro-geo-graphic regions (Fig. 1, Table 1), we see a multi-layered structure forwater decision-making according to their respective focus: a physicalboundary delimited by the location and availability of water resources,and product system boundaries which may involve several farm fields,factories and products located in different hydro-geographic locations.These areas of considerations for water resources can be linked to theWF approaches previously categorized by their focus on either watermanagement or products (Boulay et al., 2013) with different objectivesas attested by the academic literature. They are viewed here as thestarting point for harmonization of existing approaches.

Recent systematic reviews by Hoekstra (2017) and Quinteiro et al.(2017) point to a wider application of WF assessments to products.From a total of 59WF assessments, 52 studies have focused on products(see Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplemental Material), with 7 focused onsome form of water management (see Table S3). A product-focused WF

approach can describe the amount of freshwater per unit output ofproduct or activity (e.g. agricultural and industrial commodities byHoekstra and Mekonnen (2012a)), or potential impacts (e.g. beef as perRidoutt et al. (2012)) to improve water efficiency or environmentalperformance. A water management-focused WF approach can highlightwater resource management options to reduce water scarcity, and im-prove the equitable and sustainable use of water within the basin (e.g.Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2016) by considering all activities within thebasin.

These two approaches therefore have different objectives based ontheir focus: a product-focused WF approach primarily seeks to improvethe product system; a water management-focused WF approach pri-marily seeks to understand the water cycle and allocation of water re-sources. Management decisions resulting from these WF approachestherefore need to be complimentary to avoid potential conflictingmicro- (individual actions, product system), and macro- (e.g., riverbasin) management strategies. The distinction between the resultingdecision-making is therefore at the core of differences in WF ap-proaches, and forms the basis of the harmonized WF assessment.

3. Proposed framework to harmonize water footprint assessments

3.1. Goal and scope definition

Our proposed framework is inspired from prior assessments used inthe two WF approaches (Hoekstra et al., 2011; ISO, 2015) and beginswith the definition of the goal and scope of the study which include thestudy’s objectives, geographic boundary, functional unit (see below),intended audience and use of the results. The WF inventory is thestarting point of the two main WF approaches, which we propose toharmonize here into a WF assessment considering the focus of each ofthe following steps defined in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 2: (1) Goal andscope definition, (2) WF inventory, (3) volumetric WF (VWF) assess-ment, (4) WF impact assessment (WFIA), (5) VWF sustainability as-sessment, (6) policy recommendation.

We emphasize here the differences in terminology used in thisproposed assessment with previous steps from Hoekstra et al. (2011)and ISO 14046 (ISO, 2015). These differences are described in detailbelow, as well as other potential uses of the WF, especially in LCA,which can be more general in scope (Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014).Moreover, WF assessments are concerned about water consumptive anddegradative uses only. Water consumptive uses occur when water doesnot return to the watershed due to evaporation, product integration, ordirect release to the sea (Bayart et al., 2010), and is differentiated fromwater withdrawals which include return flows. Water withdrawals thatare returned to the watershed at a different quality than what wasabstracted are classified as a water degradative use (Bayart et al.,2010).

3.2. The water footprint inventory

The WF inventory represents the amount of freshwater consumptionand degradation for a production or consumption activity. The WF in-ventory includes information on water quantity accounting for surfaceand groundwater (blue water) and soil moisture regenerated by

Fig. 1. The relationships of water in the hydro-geographic region and theproduct system with direct and indirect water uses from Society and directwater releases from Society and the product system. Note that product systemconstitutes a subset of Society, which is itself embedded into the hydro-geo-graphic region.

Table 1Main considerations for Hydro-geographic region, Product system and Society domains (Fig. 1) with focus on the natural sciences and engineering.

Domain Fields Water cycle interpretation System boundary Water use

Hydro-geographicregion

Hydrology, ecohydrology, ecology,biology, etc.

Flows and residence times River basin, watershed,landscape

Environmental quality, ecosystemservices

Society Water resources management,water works, engineering

In- and outflows between water stocks andoutflows back to the hydro-geographic domain

Country, state, city, etc. Direct agriculture, industry anddomestic uses

Product system Engineering Input to a product system and output to thehydro-geographic domain

Field, factory, globalsupply chain

Direct use in operations and indirectuse in the supply chain

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

254

precipitation (green water), but also water degradation by including allemissions to the water body. It has been suggested that emissions couldalso be represented volumetrically as gray water, which is the fresh-water volume required to dilute a chemical or thermal pollution load tobackground levels and following water quality standards (Hoekstraet al., 2011). The designation of blue, green and gray water and therespective methods to quantify their volumes was at the forefront offirst WF assessments where these volumes were typically summed torepresent a total WF inventory (Hoekstra et al., 2011). This procedurehas been criticized however (e.g. as in Pfister and Ridoutt (2014)) dueto the environmental relevance of each individual inventory;

particularly in the case of green water which is closely related to landuse, and gray water which is better represented by water degradativeuse in LCA (Ridoutt and Pfister, 2013).

The above accounting step relies on the analysis of a unit processconsidering the entire life cycle of the products and activities enteringand leaving the process, from resource use all the way to disposal orrecycling (Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014). This focus therefore re-quires detailed knowledge about product systems in their entirety,which often means involving several sub-processes (e.g., cooling,transportation, packaging), and carefully selecting what should be in-cluded in the system under study and what could be considered a

Table 2The harmonized water footprint (WF) assessment, step by step.

Stage Name Step

1 Goal and scope definition Define the objectives of the study, the functional unit and hydro-geographic extent, the intended audience and how resultswill be used. This step follows step 1 of current WF approaches (Hoekstra et al., 2011; ISO, 2015)

2 WF inventory, or Volumetric WF(consumptive use)

Calculate the amount of water consumed (and polluted) for the unit process under consideration. Water resources aredefined in terms of green and blue water which are accounted separately.

3 Volumetric WF Assessment Compare results of stage 2 to a geographic benchmark with similar technology and identify possible water savings toimprove the efficiency of water use in the product system.

4 WF Impact Assessment Characterize results from stage 2 using a factor that translates the water consumed (and polluted) into a quantifiablepotential impact using characterization factors. Compare these impacts to a benchmark for a similar product, or the sameproduct in a different product system or hydro-geographic region to identify improvements in the product system. This stepfollows the ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006) and ISO 14046 (ISO, 2015) standards.

5 Volumetric WF Sustainability Assessment Add volumetric WF of all unit processes (separating green from blue water) within a hydro-geographic extent or businessnetwork and compare to water availability (green and blue, separately) to identify allocation of water resources within thestudy boundary. This step follows the WF Network guidelines (Hoekstra et al., 2011).

6 Policy decisions Integrate findings from stages 3 to 5 and provide recommendations for the product system (per functional unit, from stages3 and 4) and the hydro-geographic extent (from stage 5). Conflicting decisions should be highlighted with potential cost andbenefit analysis.

Fig. 2. Proposed harmonized water footprint (WF) assessment and terminology combining approaches from the Water Footprint Network (Hoekstra et al., 2011) andlife cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO, 2015) communities within product- and water management-focused assessments.

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

255

background process (e.g., energy generation). The focus on productsystems requires detailed databases describing production processes indifferent geographic locations such as the Ecoinvent database (www.ecoinvent.ch) whose recent update includes additional water informa-tion (Pfister et al., 2016). As such, the WF inventory is inherently tied tothe product-focused WF approach as water is often treated as an inputto the product system (e.g., irrigation use for crop production), withvalues expressed, for instance, as a volume per unit output (or knownmore generally as a functional unit following ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006),which could be represented by a mass or economic output (e.g., m3 ofwater per tonne of crop, m3 of water per dollar of output)).

3.3. The volumetric water footprint assessment

The VWF assessment follows the WF inventory phase with an ex-clusive focus on freshwater consumptive use and, therefore, parallelswhat has been described as water productivity. Water productivity (asthe inverse of freshwater consumption expressed in the WF inventory)is a commonly used metric which has been employed to highlight waterefficiencies in agricultural production, and should include economicefficiencies and multiple benefits of the product system (Giordano et al.,2017). The VWF assessment can highlight efficiencies in the productsystem when compared to individual product VWF benchmarks(Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2014), but also global efficiencies in thedistribution of water consumption for production and consumptionactivities when associated with trade flows. This so-called “virtualwater trade” analysis has been studied globally and intranationally(Dalin et al., 2014, 2012). Moreover, the VWF of production has beenlinked to consumption of individual countries (Ercin et al., 2013;Schyns and Hoekstra, 2014), and more recently, cities (Vanham et al.,2016) (for a full list of studies, see Ercin et al. (2016)) to highlightdemand side management of water through consumption (also knownas “WF analysis”), recognizing that trade and consumption decisionsshould not be focused exclusively on VWF (Hoekstra, 2017).

3.4. The water footprint impact assessment

The WFIA relates to the field of LCA whose goal is to quantify po-tential impacts of production and consumption activities. The inclusionof water use in LCA emerged in 2008 with the proposal that waterconsumption and degradation activities carry environmental impactsthat should be quantified (Koehler, 2008). LCA is a scientific methodwhich relies on the logical sequence of a cause-effect chain that con-nects resource use to potential impacts from a production or organi-zational standpoint (Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014). Impacts areconsidered on a relative basis since real impacts often cannot be ex-plicitly measured; rather, LCA models rely on previous work in fieldssuch as ecotoxicology, water chemistry or epidemiology to derivemodels that quantify a level of impact with a resource use and emis-sions release. The WFIA is but one step of a WF assessment as defined bythe ISO 14046 standard (ISO, 2015): (1) Goal and scope definition, (2)WF inventory, (3) WFIA, and (4) interpretation (following the termi-nology of the standard). In step 2, the WF inventory serves as a buildingblock for characterization of impacts (using characterization factors)which relies on models that can translate freshwater consumption anddegradation during a production or consumption activity into an ex-plicit impact quantified per functional unit. These impacts are ex-pressed in terms of either mid-point impacts (e.g. eutrophication,acidification, etc.) or end-point impacts classified within human health,ecosystem quality and natural resources. One can therefore imagine anexhaustive suite of impact assessment models given the complexity ofthe effects that water consumption and degradation may entail. Forinstance, Pfister et al. (2009) proposed three end-point impact assess-ment models based on the potential effects of deprivation of waterconsumption on human health, ecosystem quality and water resources.These models respectively express the effect of reduced water

availability on crop irrigation leading to potential nutritional losses,declines in net primary production leading to environmental degrada-tion, and water resources more generally leading to a rise in energydemand for desalination (Pfister et al., 2009). Many other models havebeen proposed to describe impacts to human health (Boulay et al.,2011; Motoshita et al., 2011) and environmental quality (Núñez et al.,2016) but, overall, model integration remains needed.

Here, we use WFIA to attribute the quantification of impacts as theyrelate to a well-defined functional unit linked to a production system(e.g., 1 t of agricultural product, 10,000 hand dryings) representing theultimate use of the product or activity of study within a well-definedboundary. As such, and similarly to the VWF assessment, we focus theWFIA on the original product-based scope in LCA despite wider emer-ging LCA scopes recently proposed (Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014).The guiding standard is ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006), and ISO 14046 (ISO,2015). ISO 14046 (ISO, 2015) provides principles, requirements andguidelines on how to conduct such an assessment when consideringwater quantity alone (termed “Water Scarcity Footprint”), or whenconsidering both water quality and quantity (termed “Water Avail-ability Footprint”) (ISO, 2015).

3.5. The volumetric water footprint sustainability assessment

The VWFSA is one step of a four step process described in the WFAssessment Manual published by the Water Footprint Network(Hoekstra et al., 2011): (1) Goal and scope definition, (2) WF ac-counting, (3) WF sustainability assessment, and (4) response formula-tion (Hoekstra et al., 2011) (following the terminology of the manual).In step 2, the WF accounting is defined spatially and serves as a buildingblock to obtain the total water consumed within the system boundary,defined either geographically (river basin, country, etc.) or within theboundaries of a business, and include virtual water trade across theseboundaries (Hoekstra, 2017). However, the ultimate goal of the VWFSAis to relate water consumption to maximum sustainable limits (Hoekstraand Wiedmann, 2014). Thus, in step 3 of the assessment, the sum ofVWF of all processes and activities taking place within the study’sboundaries is compared to water availability, which, in the case of bluewater, is defined as the natural runoff minus environmental flow re-quirements (Hoekstra et al., 2011). While step 2 requires intimateknowledge of production processes, step 3 requires detailed knowledgefrom the hydro-geographic region derived from the natural sciences fora detailed picture of the watershed or river basin system, its ecosystemsand vulnerabilities as they relate to water quality and quantity in theregion.

The VWFSA, therefore, contextualizes the product-focused WF as-sessment (represented here by the VWF assessment), but includes thebackground information relevant to water management (Fig. 2) byexplicitly highlighting the actors of water consumption in the basin andtheir roles in the context of water resources management. The assess-ment is mainly guided by the premise that the main issues of concernare the sustainable and equitable use of water resources (Hoekstra,2017) with implications on water resources management locally andglobally (Vörösmarty et al., 2015), and solutions aimed at improvingwater efficiency and reducing water stress. The VWFSA has providedinformation on the sustainability of water use in major basins of theworld (e.g., Hoekstra et al., 2012; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016), withsome indication of demand side management effects on water man-agement through consumption, such as the implications of diets onwater resources (Vanham et al., 2016, 2013; Vanham and Bidoglio,2014).

3.6. Case study: soybean production in Mato Grosso, Brazil

We illustrate the use of the harmonized WF assessment with the caseof soybean produced in Mato Grosso, Brazil. We combine previouslypublished results and organize them within the framework of the

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

256

harmonized WF assessment (Fig. 2, Table 2). The goal of the study is toexplore water policy decisions that would be beneficial at both micro-and macro-levels by identifying potential efficiencies in water use at theproduction and regional levels, while at the same time diminishingenvironmental impacts of soybean production in Mato Grosso. MatoGrosso is the largest producer of soybean in Brazil with productionincreases accompanying the conversion of tropical forest and savannain both the Amazon and Cerrado biomes (Macedo et al., 2012). In 2015,Mato Grosso produced close to 28 million tons of soybean on 9 millionhectares of land (or 28% of total land used for soybean in Brazil) (IBGE,2017).

The study’s geographic scope is delimited by the state of MatoGrosso’s Amazon and Cerrado biomes extent which constitute the limitsof a water management-focused assessment. In our product-focusedassessments, we consider one tonne of soybean produced in 2010 underaverage production conditions in Mato Grosso as the functional unit.Soybean is exclusively rainfed and is typically planted at the beginningof the wet season (October‒November) and harvested about 120 dayslater (February‒March) prior to planting maize as a double crop (Speraet al., 2014). Soybean production in Mato Grosso therefore dependsexclusively on green water resources, as well as a range of fertilizerapplication estimated at 0–5 kg N ha−1, 28–34 kg P ha−1 and39–62 kg K ha−1 for an average yield of 3.02 tonnes ha−1 (IBGE, 2017;Lathuillière et al., 2014). We also consider the role of irrigation onsoybean in September, ahead of the rainy season, as a strategy to growthree crops per year using 90mm of surface water irrigation(Lathuillière et al., 2018b).

4. Results

4.1. Volumetric water footprint assessment

Starting with the estimate of the WF inventory for one tonne ofsoybean in Mato Grosso (which we call here the volumetric WF (VWF)to describe exclusively water consumptive use), we identify opportu-nities to reduce the total volume of water required for production, aswell as the conditions under which these reductions may take place.The average green VWF for soybean in Mato Grosso over the2000–2010 period was 1590m3 ton−1 (Lathuillière et al., 2014) withan additional 298m3 ton−1 in the case of potential dry season irriga-tion. This green VWF is close to 1553m3 ton−1 soybean for the best10th percentile green-blue VWF obtained globally for the 1996–2005period (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2014), suggesting only marginal im-provements to water consumption in Mato Grosso may be possible.Reducing the VWF (or increasing water productivity) would require anincrease in yield for the same amount of water consumed, which ispossible by increasing inputs (such as irrigation or rainwater har-vesting, fertilizer, etc.) or reducing land evaporation in favour of croptranspiration (Lathuillière et al., 2016b). Results of these strategies arefield specific and therefore should consider the local soil and climateconditions. Additional fertilizer or pesticide applications may con-taminate surface and groundwater, although little evidence to datesuggests that soils in soybean-dominated watersheds are leaching con-siderable N or P in Mato Grosso’s water bodies (Neill et al., 2013; Royet al., 2016). While health issues have been reported in nearby states,similar evidence on these effects is scarce in Mato Grosso (Arvor et al.,2017). Similarly, rainwater harvesting or irrigation should consider theeffects of such practices on water vapour flows to the atmosphere andgroundwater recharge, respectively (Giordano et al., 2017; Lathuillièreet al., 2016b). Finally, technological advances that reduce the length ofcrop development cycles or improve drought resistance would alsocontribute to reducing the green VWF, assuming similar yields aremaintained.

In 2010, average cost of soybean production in Mato Grosso was914.57 USD ha−1 or 302 USD ton−1 soybean, half of which constitutedthe cost of inputs (IMEA, n.d.). Given that the 2010 producer price of

soybean was 360 USD ton−1 (or 0.22 USD perm−3 of water)(FAOSTAT, 2017), producers would have had to carefully weigh thecosts and benefits to improve the economic return of soybean produc-tion. This short-term decision is to be contrasted to longer-term de-velopments in the production system such as the development of irri-gation which would require large investment in infrastructure.Irrigation would likely be used to facilitate early planting of soybean atthe end of the dry season (e.g., September) to take greater advantage ofthe rainy season with a double crop (maize, cotton or rice) (Lathuillièreet al., 2018b). Despite minimal areas in Mato Grosso under irrigation,maize was the fastest growing second crop in Mato Grosso between2000 and 2011 (Spera et al., 2014), which allows for additional incomein the same annual period and therefore is also an important con-sideration for farm-level decision-making.

4.2. Water footprint impact assessment

From the WF inventory, we carry out a WFIA of one tonne of soy-bean produced in Mato Grosso in 2010. As soybean production in MatoGrosso has relied on land use change activities in both the Amazon andCerrado biomes, the VWF can be characterized to estimate potentialimpacts on groundwater recharge (Saad et al., 2013) and changes toregional precipitation (Lathuillière et al., 2016a). The assessment ofthese potential impacts follow United Nations Environment Life CycleInitiative guidelines for land occupation (or land use) and land trans-formation (or land use change) impacts in LCA (Koellner et al., 2013),that propose to compare the biophysical conditions of the new land use(soybean) with those of the potential natural vegetation (forest in theAmazon and Cerrado biomes) to quantify impacts. Here, potential im-pacts are quantified considering the differences in the landscape’sability to regenerate groundwater and regional precipitation betweensoybean and potential natural vegetation (land occupation impact), andconsidering a regeneration time when potential natural vegetation isrestored (land transformation impact). We also consider the effect of90mm of irrigation applied for the early planting of soybean as a po-tential irrigation option (Lathuillière et al., 2018b) and determine theeffect of such blue water consumption through a Water Scarcity Foot-print obtained following the AWARE method (Boulay et al., 2018).

In 2010, one tonne of soybean produced in the Amazon biome couldpotentially increase groundwater recharge by 438m3 (land occupationimpact) and 1740m3 (land transformation impact), respectively, whilepotentially decreasing regional precipitation in the biome by 704m3

and 2798m3 as a result of reduced water vapour transfers to the at-mosphere (Lathuillière et al., 2017, 2016a). These potential impactsaccompany a series of impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services inLCA that have also been used for comparison of soybean productionconsidering different land uses. Total impacts to ecosystems services(which include groundwater recharge) were greater in the Amazon thanin the Cerrado biome with the greatest impacts calculated in the Cli-mate Regulation Potential, Mechanical Water Purification Potential,and Biotic Production Potential impact categories which respectivelydescribe the amount of above and below ground carbon lost to the at-mosphere, and the soil’s ability to filter water and sustain biomass(Lathuillière et al., 2017). Land transformation impacts were also sig-nificantly reduced when considering soybean as produced on landconverted to crops from pasture both in the Amazon and Cerradobiomes of Mato Grosso, although it is unknown exactly how these im-pacts might be transferred to the beef production system (Lathuillièreet al., 2017). The use of irrigation considering a water scarcity index of1.1 for irrigated land in the region (Boulay et al., 2018) led to a WaterScarcity Footprint of 323m3 ton−1 in the case of potential dry seasonirrigation of soybean.

4.3. Volumetric water footprint sustainability assessment

The green VWF derived for soybean is added to all other VWF of

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

257

production activities in Mato Grosso and compared to green wateravailability to determine green water scarcity (Hoekstra et al., 2011).We define green water scarcity following Hoekstra et al. (2011) as theratio of total green VWF allocated to agriculture (as cropland andpasture) divided by the total available green water. We define totalavailable green water as the difference between total evapotranspira-tion (ET) in Mato Grosso and total ET reserved for natural vegetation(which also demonstrates the close link between green water and landuse). In 2009, the state of Mato Grosso’s total ET was approximately1220 km3 y−1, broken down into 490 km3 y−1 for tropical forest(Amazon), 220 km3 y−1 for agriculture and 512 km3 y−1 of residualland uses which include the Cerrado vegetation (Lathuillière et al.,2012). From this information, we derive a green water scarcity index of0.33, which assumes that all land in Mato Grosso is productive and thatland reserved for natural vegetation cover is constrained to 80% (or489 km3 y−1) and 20% (or 80 km3 y−1) of natural vegetation land coverin the year 2000. These constraints are based on the restrictions fromthe Brazilian Federal Forest Code, respectively for the Amazon andCerrado biomes (Presidência da República, 2012).

A green water scarcity index of 0.33 is considered within sustain-able limits and is similar to results of> 90% of a 42,353 km2 study areain the heart of the Amazon biome (Tapajós National Forest) (MiguelAyala et al., 2016), but is much lower than the Xingu River Basin whichshowed an index of 0.84 considering that 80% of natural vegetationwas protected (Lathuillière et al., 2018a). These results suggest thatadditional green water could be allocated to agriculture in Mato Grossobefore reaching the sustainable limit thereby rendering agriculturalextensification as a viable option considering this index alone. Asagriculture expands, the green water scarcity index increases and ap-proaches more unstainable levels as shown by Miguel Ayala et al.(2016) who estimated a shift of 25% in green water scarcity indexestowards more unsustainable limits, considering land use change sce-narios for 2050. In Mato Grosso, we expect the sustainable limit ex-pressed by the green water scarcity index to be reached more rapidlyshould future soybean production rely exclusively on previously con-verted natural vegetation. Since 2010, the state of Mato Grosso hasdeforested a total of 6563 km2 of tropical forest (not including Cerradosavanna) (INPE, 2017) which are expected to be put towards agri-cultural use, thereby pushing the green water scarcity index closer to0.5, a limit above which activities are considered to be unsustainable(Miguel Ayala et al., 2016). Similarly, green water scarcity indexeswent beyond 1 in 2050 in the Xingu River Basin in 2050, even in arestrictive deforestation scenario (Lathuillière et al., 2018a).

The above sustainability index should also be interpreted within thecontext of blue water scarcity and virtual water trade as products areimported into and exported out of Mato Grosso. Brazil’s total VWF ofproduction represent 41% of all of Latin America and the Caribbeanregion’s VWF of national production (1162 km3 y−1) (Mekonnen et al.,2015). Brazil is a net virtual water exporter (54.8 km3 y−1) with con-centration on Europe (as 41% of gross exports) and Asia (32% of grossexports) (da Silva et al., 2016). Mato Grosso is a net exporter of virtualwater mostly concentrated on crops and livestock, with 10.2 km3 ex-ported to China and 4.0 km3 exported to Europe through the soybeancrop in 2010 (Lathuillière et al., 2014). The blue water scarcity indexfor Central-Western Brazil, which includes Mato Grosso, was 0.28 (daSilva et al., 2016), suggesting that current use of blue water is withinsustainable limits. Similarly, the Xingu River Basin showed annual bluewater scarcity values < 0.10, with interannual values increasing to0.65 under intensive blue water use (e.g. soybean irrigation and in-creased cattle population) (Lathuillière et al., 2018a).

However, additional pressure on water resources are expected asdemand for soybean increases. Already, production of soybean in Braziland Argentina for export represent large water savings through inter-national trade which has been increasing since the 1990s (Dalin et al.,2012). This reliance on imports can increase risks to the supply chaindue to water dependency from other countries. Between 2006 and

2015, 27% of the total virtual water flow into Europe was due to soy-bean with “very high dependency” on imports and external water re-sources, but with low vulnerability with respect to Central-WesternBrazil (Ercin et al., 2016). While green and blue water resources inMato Grosso are apparently being used within sustainable limits, otherfootprints need to be considered such as the carbon, land and nutrientfootprints. These additional footprints have been reported for soybeanproduced in 2010 (Lathuillière et al., 2014): deforestation for soybeanwas estimated at 97m2 ton−1 for the 2006–2010 period while totalgreenhouse gas emissions were 1.55 ton CO2-eq ton−1 and the amountof nutrients remaining in Mato Grosso fields were 3.8–5.8 kg P ton−1

and 0.9 kg K ton−1. While water scarcity is within sustainable limits,other indicators such as deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions,are to be considered in decision-making with respect to future soybeanproduction and its sustainability in the region.

5. Discussion

5.1. Policy decisions resulting from the harmonized water footprintassessment

A summary of the harmonized WF assessment applied to soybeangrown in Mato Grosso in 2010 is shown in Fig. 3 and Table 3 for multi-dimensional decision-making at both micro- and macro-levels. Whilesoybean production has relied exclusively on green water resources,these resources are within sustainable limits, but could reach un-sustainable limits if further agricultural expansion for soybean tookplace in the region. Already, this expansion has contributed to green-house gas emissions from land use change, as well as impacts to bio-diversity and ecosystem services related to climate regulation and theability of soil to sustain biomass and filter water. While several on-farmdecisions have been taken in order to maintain carbon stocks belowground following land use change (e.g. through the Low Carbon Agri-culture Credit program (MAPA, 2012)), additional impacts to the watercycle are expected with growing production. Despite greater ground-water recharge, reduced precipitation from deforestation can furtheraffect the Amazon biome as well as agricultural production therebyincreasing drought vulnerability of both natural and agroecosystems(Oliveira et al., 2013). Moreover, low blue scarcity in the region sug-gests a large potential of future blue water consumption and degrada-tion through irrigation as a means to anticipate the soybean plantingseason and potentially give farmers the opportunity to grow three cropsper year (Lathuillière et al., 2018b).

At the state and Federal government levels, the solutions proposedby the harmonized WF assessment echo previously proposed solutions,such as continuous enforcement of the Federal Forest Code and landconservation through protective areas which have both evolved since2000 (Nepstad et al., 2014). Given the very high dependency of Europeto soybean imports from the region, supply chain decisions have a roleto play in reducing environmental impacts of production and have al-ready been implemented through various initiatives such as the Soy-bean Moratorium (Gibbs et al., 2015), but also incentives to intensifyproduction. At the field level, water decisions relate to the possibleimplementation of irrigation technology to raise farm income through amore favourable double cropping system with greater yields attainedthrough additional inputs. Additional research on practices is required,however, to understand the trade-off in the costs and benefits to suchinitiatives. Additional initiatives to provide value to protected forestson private land should be considered such as payments for ecosystemservices (Soares-Filho et al., 2016), increases in production of highvalue products coming from tropical forests (Nobre et al., 2016), as wellas the ability of forests to recycle ET into regional precipitation (Ellisonet al., 2012), of which Brazil is a main source in the South Americancontinent (Keys et al., 2017).

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

258

5.2. Implications of the harmonized water footprint assessment

The development of the WF field has included important academicdebates mainly focused on how to consider water scarcity (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009; Hoekstra, 2016; Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012b;

Pfister et al., 2017; Vanham et al., 2018). Different WF assessmentsexpress different perspectives based on whether the assessment is watermanagement- or product-focused (Table 4), and thus combining theseperspectives into one harmonized WF assessment reveals their re-lationship. First, the VWF assessment as well as the WFIA are

Fig. 3. Results of the harmonized water footprint (WF) assessment for 1 t of soybean produced in Mato Grosso, Brazil, in 2010: a. The WF inventory, b. volumetric WFassessment, c. WF impact assessment following the frameworks of Koellner et al. (2013) (groundwater recharge and precipitation reduction), and Boulay et al. (2018)(Water Scarcity Footprint), d. volumetric WF sustainability assessment showing water scarcity values below 0.5 in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Blue and green coloured boxesrepresent both blue and green water resources and their respective impacts as assessed in the WF impact assessment phase (For interpretation of the references tocolour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

Table 3The harmonized water footprint (WF) assessment of soybean produced in 2010 in Mato Grosso, Brazil.

Step 2. Volumetric WF Assessment 3. WF Impact Assessment 4. Volumetric WF Sustainability Assessment

Results 1590m3 ton−1 (green water)298m3 ton−1 (blue water if dry seasonirrigation applied)

438m3 ton−1 and 1740m3 ton−1 of groundwaterrecharge, and 704m3 ton−1 and 2798m3 ton−1 ofreduced regional precipitation for potential impacts ofland occupation and transformation; Water ScarcityFootprint of 323m3 ton−1 if dry season irrigationapplied

Blue water scarcity for Central Western Brazil was 0.28;green water scarcity for Mato Grosso was 0.33,assuming that all land was productive and consideringFederal Forest Code constraints to natural vegetationcover in 2000

Comparativeassertion

Global benchmark 1553m3 ton−1 ofbest 10% volumetric WF

Total potential impacts to biodiversity and ecosystemservices are greater in the Amazon than in the Cerradobiome, and lowest when soybean replaced pastureland

Blue and green water scarcity are expressed in absoluteterms; water resources have been used so far withinsustainable limits

Actors in the watercycle

Farmers Farmers, state and Federal governments, supply chaininitiatives

State and Federal governments, supply chain initiatives

Short-term actions Additional inputs (e.g. fertilizer) couldimprove yields

Promotion of cropland intensification (including withirrigation) and extensification on current pastureland

Trade-offs between agricultural green water use forcropland and pasture

Long-term actions Shorten the crop cycle throughtechnology, invest in irrigation forearlier soybean planting (e.g.,September)

Reduce deforestation in both Amazon and Cerradobiomes

Reduce deforestation in both Amazon and Cerradobiomes to keep the green water scarcity index atcurrent levels

Uncertainty Costs of additional inputs compared toimprovements in yield

Effects of intensification on the beef production systemon water quantity and quality; irrigation trade-off onprecipitation recycling

Effects of intensification on the beef production systemon water quantity and quality; increasing demand ofsoybean from trade partners puts additional pressure onsupply

References Lathuillière et al., (2014); Mekonnenand Hoekstra (2014)

Lathuillière et al. (2017, 2016a) da Silva et al. (2016); Miguel Ayala et al. (2016);Lathuillière et al. (2012)

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

259

exclusively connected to individual actions on the product system(micro- level decisions-making) and depend on the definition of thefunctional unit. The information revealed by each assessment relates toindividual process improvements in water consumption and degrada-tion or a reduction in potential impacts, meaning that solutions areinherently focused on the unit process. Quantified results obtained fromthe VWF assessment or WFIA are typically compared to results obtainedfor the same functional unit produced in a different context (e.g., soyproduced in one system compared to another) in order to highlightpotential improvements in environmental performance to the productsystem (Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014; Hoekstra, 2015). Whenseeking to scale up VWF assessment or WFIA results to larger produc-tion quantities, values increase proportionally with the amount of ac-tivity or process under study (e.g., a volume or impact per tonne ofproduct is 1000 times larger than for 1 kg of product), and do notconsider other activities or processes with different functional units inthe analysis.

The VWFSA requires a scale-up of the unit processes or activitieswithin a defined boundary (e.g., river basin, country, business, etc.) toprovide information on water consumption and degradation at a greaterscale (macro-level decision-making) and considering other processes(Hoekstra, 2015). In this context, the VWFSA parallels other assess-ments as part of the emerging Environmental Footprint Assessment, orConsumption-Based-Accounting (Wiedmann and Lenzen, 2018) fieldsthat are concerned with the human appropriation of resources trans-lated into quantified resource indicators (e.g., m3 of water, CO2

emitted, m2 of land) to assess environmental pressure from humanactivities (Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014). Sustainability limits havebeen expressed in terms of Planetary Boundaries (Rockström et al.,2009), which for water represents 4000‒6000 km3 y−1 (Rockströmet al., 2014) with a limit of 1100–4500 km3 y−1 for blue water based onenvironmental flow requirement considerations (Gerten et al., 2013).Current levels of green and gray VWF have been estimated at6700 km3 y−1 and 1400 km3 y−1 respectively, without however beingassociated with a sustainable limit (Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014).

At least two main issues need to be mentioned regarding the har-monized WF assessment: the normalization of language, and the con-sideration of water scarcity. As it stands today, WF practitioners usedifferent language based on whether their work focuses primarily onwater management or on products (Table 4), reflecting the main fieldsassociated with each approach (Table 1). The most common difference,which has led to miscommunication between the WF communities,relates to the use of the term “flow”. In a VWF or VWFSA, this term issynonymous to what is used in hydrology and water resources man-agement as a transfer of water between hydrological stocks (Table 1).

For instance, the consumption of soil moisture through ET for theagricultural production of soybean represents a flow of water from thebiosphere to the atmosphere. However, in WFIA, a “flow” refers to in-puts to and outputs from a product system. Water resources are seentherefore as an “input from nature” entering the product system with an“output to nature” represented by a reduction in water availability (oran amount of water released at a different quality than that whichentered the product system), with potential consequences on humanhealth and the environment. Following the soybean example above, soilmoisture therefore represents a flow into the soybean product system,with a release to the atmosphere. Knowledge of such differences andterms are important to improve communication between WF commu-nities when combining assessments into one harmonized WF assess-ment.

Secondly, the debate about water scarcity and how to represent it ineither absolute or relative terms is a major point of disagreement be-tween the WF Network and LCA communities, and whether waterscarcity should be “weighted” (Hoekstra, 2016; Pfister et al., 2017),which also reflects the focus of each assessment (product vs. watermanagement) in the respective analyses. The “weight” of water scarcityemerged with the premise that water availability should reflect localhydro-geographic realities of water stress in order to quantify differentenvironmental impacts with production activities. Pfister et al. (2009)used a water scarcity index (spanning from 0, or no stress, to 1, fullstress) as a weighting factor to estimate end-point impacts to humanhealth, ecosystem quality and natural resources. Similarly, the morerecent water stress indicator for Available WAter REmaining (AWARE)(Boulay et al., 2018) presents an updated version of this index byproviding a quantification for the amount of water remaining in a basin(or a country) after human and ecosystem demands have been met. Infact, these so-called “stress indicators” or “weighting factors” are ana-logous to characterization factors in a WFIA. This approach is thereforereliant on the assessment of water scarcity through different versions ofa VWFSA relating water consumption and availability in different ways(as described here by Hoekstra et al. (2011), but also expressed throughdifferent methods such as in Berger et al., (2014), Boulay et al. (2018),Pfister et al. (2009) and others with a focus is on the sustainable limitswithin the hydro-geographic boundary with no reference to any func-tional unit).

5.3. Strengths and limitations of individual water footprint assessments

Perhaps the most important contribution of the WF literature hasbeen the application of life cycle thinking to water resources which hasshed greater light on the role of indirect water uses on production and

Table 4Summary of considerations of the main stages in the harmonized water footprint (WF) assessment (Table 2).

Stage 2. Volumetric WF assessment 3. WF impact assessment 4. Volumetric WF sustainability assessment

Guiding approach in this paper None specified ISO 14046 (ISO, 2015) WF Network manual (Hoekstra et al., 2011)Basis for analysis Unit process or activity Unit process or activity Sum of unit processes and activities within a

boundary defined in the “Goal and Scope definition”stage

Consideration for analysis ofwater consumed

Efficient use of water in the process oractivity

Effects of water consumption anddegradation on human health and theenvironment

Comparison of total water use compared tosustainable limits expressed by water availability

Primary focus Product Product Water managementMain objective Improve global or local water efficiency

per unit process or functional unitReduce local environmental impacts per unitprocess or functional unit

Ensure sustainable and equitable use of water withinglobal limits

Policy directives Identify water use efficiencies in productsystems based on comparative assertions

Identify environmental impact hotspotsbased on local water scarcity and quality

Identify water resource use efficiencies, improvesustainable water resources management, reducewater scarcity

Comparative assessment Benchmarks of water use per unit processor functional unit

Comparison of environmental performanceper unit process or functional unit

Comparison of water consumption with wateravailability

Language Related to systems analysis and thedescription and modelling of productsystems

Related to systems analysis and thedescription and modelling of productsystems

Related to hydrology and the description andmeasurement of natural processes

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

260

consumption processes. This consideration remains an important chal-lenge to the implementation of policy responses for producers andconsumers, particularly considering today’s complex global supplychains (Clift et al., 2017). This challenge is highlighted in our case studywith a focus on Mato Grosso as a production center with decisionsmostly centered on farmers, state and Federal governments, and onlyloose directives with respect to supply chain interventions based onother studies focused on consumption centers (e.g., Europe as describedin Ercin et al. (2016)).

The harmonized WF assessment has shown great value in combiningmicro- and macro-level decisions with strengths and limitations iden-tified at each individual phase of the harmonized WF assessment(Table 5). The VWF assessment is focused on micro-, or field decisionsbased on the volume of freshwater used in agricultural production andoffered responses that could potentially improve efficiency of water usein the production system. The actors on water resources are those thatinteract with the product system either directly (producers) or in-directly (suppliers or consumers). A clear connection about action be-tween producers and consumers needs to be made as a means tohighlight additional steps that can improve water efficiency. For in-stance, a European dairy farmer importing feed made from the soybeangrown in Mato Grosso could favour conditions that reduce indirect VWFprovided precise information is available on water use at the field level.Such initiatives would need to be based on large databases combiningtrade information with water use on individual farms (e.g., as detailedby Godar et al. (2015)). Finally, responses are linked to a functionalunit that is generally directly linked to a freshwater volume and mightpromote a decision that could be contradicted by others related to re-sources and emissions (Clift et al., 2017).

The WFIA, and more generally water use in LCA, is still in its infancywith a number of impact pathways that remain to be developed, par-ticularly in the impact categories affecting ecosystems and natural re-sources. In itself, LCA allows for a comprehensive assessment that caninclude a wide variety of impacts linked to the Planetary Boundaries(climate change, impacts of chemical pollution, etc.) (Rockström et al.,2009). However, decisions that may result from LCA are only as good asthe comparisons that are tested in the study. For instance, the com-parison of production systems in Amazon and Cerrado biomes mightmislead decision-makers to favour production in the Cerrado over theAmazon biome (Lathuillière et al., 2017). To this effect, for a study tobe comprehensive, it should be able to analyze all available options inthe product system, including potential effects of indirect land usechange within Brazil, or across international borders (e.g. as in Africaaccording to Arvor et al. (2017)). Similar to the VWF assessment, LCA isinfluenced by “the efficiency mindset” (Garnett, 2014) which con-sistently promotes the use of fewer resources as a means to reduceenvironmental impacts (i.e., by reducing the WF inventory). Further-more, impacts are linked to a specific functional unit which may notonly influence decisions, but whose connections to sustainable limitsare difficult to express in one single functional unit. The application ofLCA goes beyond products and may include organizations or lifestyles

(Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014), but there are still limited studiesthat have applied LCA to a territory, and this discrepancy is likely dueto the challenge of translating a multifunctional system into one singlefunctional unit (Loiseau et al., 2012).

Finally, the VWFSA has the merit to compare water consumption tolocal boundaries defined from the basin’s hydrological cycle. The typeof scaling up of these studies often suffer uncertainty based on whether“bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches were used (Chenoweth et al.,2014). These differences, particularly in regions with limited data suchas Mato Grosso, can prove to be an important caveat in carrying outsuch assessments. Making the clear link between producers (MatoGrosso) and consumers (e.g., Europe) complicates the potential policydecisions apart from the evaluation of the dependency of a consumer onforeign resources (Ercin et al., 2016). While some supply chain in-itiatives have shown some level of success in Mato Grosso in the case ofdeforestation (Nepstad et al., 2014), a similar case for water resourcesalone might be more difficult to make and therefore should likely beseen as a land use issue with multiple benefits (e.g., CO2 emissions,biodiversity, ecosystem services, etc.) (Ellison et al., 2017).

WF assessments can greatly benefit from the combined analysisproposed by the harmonized WF assessment as each individual phase ofthe assessment can potentially be limited in scope, and has specificstrengths and limitations (Table 5). Aside from increasing the numberof pilot studies applying individual components of the harmonized WFassessment, greater emphasis should be placed on linking producersand consumers to make apparent the decisions that affect the globalsupply chain in relation to water resources as well as for other im-portant resources and emissions linked to the Planetary Boundaries(Rockström et al., 2009).

6. Conclusions

This paper presents a means towards greater integration of distinctWF approaches that have been either water management- for product-focused in the context of water consumption and degradation. Ourharmonized WF assessment allows for a better integration of micro- andmacro-level water decisions, thereby reducing potential conflictingdecisions and limitations of individual assessments. In a product-fo-cused WF appraach, benchmark information based on environmentalconditions and technology can help identify improvements in the pro-duct system. The VWF assessment can identify efficiencies of water usein the product system based on volumes and/or economic value ofproduction, while the WFIA can highlight important areas of concern ofenvironmental impacts in the product’s life cycle. Finally, the VWFSAprovides a macro-level view of water use to highlight how close tosustainable limits green and blue water resources are being consumed.

In applying this proposed harmonized method to soybean produc-tion in Mato Grosso, Brazil, we emphasized the role of different actorsin the water cycle and linked them to short- and long-term actions.These actions were connected to the product system itself with a focuson land and water use expressed through green and blue water

Table 5Strengths and limitations identified in the individual steps of the harmonized water footprint (WF) assessment: the volumetric WF (VWF) assessment, the WF impactassessment (WFIA), and the VWF sustainability assessment (VWFSA).

Stage Strengths Limitations

VWF assessment • Micro-level decisions are identified

• Decisions are made at the producer level with potential influence fromconsumers

• Resources other than water influence decision-making

• Findings are based on comparative assertions mostly focused on watervolumes

WFIA • Assessments are typically comprehensive (water quantity and quality)

• Impact assessment fully integrated into the production system

• Decisions are made at the producer level with potential influence fromconsumers

• Methodological advances are still needed to integrate changes in waterflows

• Decisions may be affected by the defined functional unit

• Findings are based on comparative assertions which carry value choicesVWFSA • Assessment considers physical boundaries with local data

• Information is provided on all unit processes• Top-down and bottom-up approaches carry different results

• Resources other than water influence decision-making

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

261

resources, but also the environmental impacts as expressed throughpotential changes to the water cycle. Moreover, we identified watermanagement options considering soybean production and other agri-cultural and industrial activities within the context of water availabilityin Mato Grosso. Despite the insight gained through the harmonizedmethod, we warn of the importance of including non-water relatedinformation in policy decisions that result from the WF assessment toavoid unintended consequences with respect to other important re-sources and impacts such as climate change, biodiversity conservationand soil productivity. In addition, the proposed harmonized assessmenthas focused mostly on environmental sustainability with some attemptsto include economic aspects in the policy decisions. We stress that ul-timately, such an assessment should consider the equitable use of waterin the VWFSA such that all levels of sustainability are addressed withthe objective to improve water security.

Declaration of interest

None.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the Vanier CanadaGraduate Scholarship through the Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council (NSERC)(#201411DVC-347484-257696) to MJL.Additional support was provided by the Belmont Forum and the G8Research Councils Freshwater Security Grant G8PJ-437376-2012through NSERC to MSJ for the project entitled “Integrating land useplanning and water governance in Amazonia: Towards improvingfreshwater security in the agricultural frontier of Mato Grosso”. Wethank Trent Biggs as well as three anonymous reviewers for their con-structive comments that helped significantly improve the quality of thispaper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in theonline version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.004.

References

Arvor, D., Tritsch, I., Barcellos, C., Jégou, N., Dubreuil, V., 2017. Land use sustainabilityon the South-Eastern Amazon agricultural frontier: recent progress and the challengesahead. Appl. Geogr. 80, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.02.003.

Bakker, K., Morinville, C., 2013. The governance dimensions of water security: a review.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 371https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0116. 20130116–20130116.

Bayart, J.-B., Bulle, C., Deschênes, L., Margni, M., Pfister, S., Vince, F., Koehler, A., 2010.A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.15, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0172-7.

Berger, M., van der Ent, R., Eisner, S., Bach, V., Finkbeiner, M., 2014. Water Accountingand Vulnerability Evaluation (WAVE): considering atmospheric evaporation re-cycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water footprinting. Environ. Sci.Technol. 48, 4521–4528. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404994t.

Boulay, A.-M., Hoekstra, A.Y., Vionnet, S., 2013. Complementarities of water-focused lifecycle assessment and water footprint assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47,11926–11927. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403928f.

Boulay, A., Bare, J., Benini, L., Berger, M., Lathuillière, M.J., Manzardo, A., Margni, M.,Motoshita, M., Núñez, M., Pastor, A.V., Ridoutt, B., Oki, T., Worbe, S., Pfister, S.,2018. The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints:assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining(AWARE). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8.

Boulay, A., Bulle, C., Deschênes, L., Margni, M., 2011. Regional characterisation offreshwater use on human health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 8948–8957. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1030883.

Chenoweth, J., Hadjikakou, M., Zoumides, C., 2014. Quantifying the human impact onwater resources: a critical review of the water footprint concept. Hydrol. Earth Syst.Sci. 18, 2325–2342. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2325-2014.

Clift, R., Sim, S., King, H., Chenoweth, J., Christie, I., Clavreul, J., Mueller, C., Posthuma,L., Boulay, A.-M., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Chatterton, J., DeClerck, F., Druckman, A.,France, C., Franco, A., Gerten, D., Goedkoop, M., Hauschild, M., Huijbregts, M.,Koellner, T., Lambin, E., Lee, J., Mair, S., Marshall, S., McLachlan, M., Milà i Canals,

L., Mitchell, C., Price, E., Rockström, J., Suckling, J., Murphy, R., 2017. The chal-lenges of applying planetary boundaries as a basis for strategic decision-making incompanies with global supply chains. Sustainability 9, 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020279.

da Silva, V., de Oliveira, S., Hoekstra, A., Dantas Neto, J., Campos, J., Braga, C., deAraújo, L., Aleixo, D., de Brito, J., de Souza, M., de Holanda, R., 2016. Water foot-print and virtual water trade of Brazil. Water 8, 517. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110517.

Dalin, C., Hanasaki, N., Qiu, H., Mauzerall, D.L., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2014. Water re-sources transfers through Chinese interprovincial and foreign food trade. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. 111, 9774–9779. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404749111.

Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2012. Evolution ofthe global virtual water trade network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 5989–5994.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203176109.

Ellison, D., Futter, M.N., Bishop, K., 2012. On the forest cover-water yield debate: fromdemand- to supply-side thinking. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x.

Ellison, D., Morris, C.E., Locatelli, B., Sheil, D., Cohen, J., Murdiyarso, D., Gutierrez, V.,van Noordwijk, M., Creed, I.F., Pokorny, J., Gaveau, D., Spracklen, D.V., Tobella,A.B., Ilstedt, U., Teuling, A.J., Gebrehiwot, S.G., Sands, D.C., Muys, B., Verbist, B.,Springgay, E., Sugandi, Y., Sullivan, C.A., 2017. Trees, forests and water: cool insightsfor a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 43, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002.

Ercin, A.E., Chico, D., Chapagain, A.K., 2016. Dependencies of Europe’ s Economy onOther Parts of the World in Terms of Water Resources, Horizon2020 - IMPREXProject, Technical Report D12.1, Water Footprint Network.

Ercin, A.E., Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2013. Sustainability of national consump-tion from a water resources perspective: the case study for France. Ecol. Econ. 88,133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.015.

FAOSTAT, 2017. FAOSTAT. (Accessed May 1 2017). http://www.fao.org/faostat.Garnett, T., 2014. Three perspectives on sustainable food security: Efficiency, demand

restraint, food system transformation. What role for life cycle assessment? J. Clean.Prod. 73, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.045.

Gerbens-Leenes, W., Hoekstra, A.Y., van der Meer, T.H., 2009. The water footprint ofbioenergy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 10219–10223. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812619106.

Gerten, D., Hoff, H., Rockström, J., Jägermeyr, J., Kummu, M., Pastor, A.V., 2013.Towards a revised Planetary Boundary for consumptive freshwater use: role of en-vironmental flow requirements. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.001.

Gibbs, B.H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., Barreto, P.,Micol, L., Walker, N.F., 2015. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347 (6220), 377–378.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0181.

Giordano, M., Turral, H., Scheierling, S.M., Tréguer, D.O., McCornick, P.G., 2017. Beyond“More Crop Per Drop”: Evolving Thinking on Agricultural Water Productivity.International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://doi.org/10.5337/2017.202.

Godar, J., Persson, U.M., Tizado, E.J., Meyfroidt, P., 2015. Towards more accurate andpolicy relevant footprint analyses: tracing fine-scale socio-environmental impacts ofproduction to consumption. Ecol. Econ. 112, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.003.

GWP, 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management, TAC Background Papers No 4.Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden.

Hartmann, D.L., Klein Tank, A.M.G., Rusticucci, M., Alexander, L.V., Brönnigmann, S.,Charabi, Y., Dentener, F.J., Dlugokencky, E.J., Easterling, D.R., Kaplan, A., Soden,B.J., Thorne, P.W., Wild, M., Zhai, P.M., 2013. Observations: atmosphere and surface.Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I toFifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Hellweg, S., Milà i Canals, L., 2014. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunitiesin life cycle assessment. Science 344 (6188), 1109–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Hung, P.Q., 2002. Virtual Water Trade: A Quantification of Virtual WaterFlows Between Nations in Relation to International Crop Trade, Value of WaterResearch Report Series No.11. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

Hoekstra, A.Y., 2017. Water footprint assessment: evolvement of a new research field.Water Resour. Manag. 31, 3061–3081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1618-5.

Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA.Ecol. Indic. 66, 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.026.

Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. The sustainability of a single activity, production process or pro-duct. Ecol. Indic. 57, 82–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.022.

Hoekstra, A.Y., 2010. The Global Dimension of Water Governance: why the river basinapproach is no longer sufficient and why cooperative action at global level is needed.Water 3, 21–46. https://doi.org/10.3390/w3010021.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2011. The WaterFootprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London, UK.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., 2012a. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. 109, 3232–3237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109936109.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., 2012b. Reply to Ridoutt and Huang: From waterfootprint assessment to policy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205186109. E1425–E1425.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., Chapagain, A.K., Mathews, R.E., Richter, B.D., 2012.Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability.PLoS One 7, e32688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032688.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Wiedmann, T.O., 2014. Humanity’s unsustainable environmental foot-print. Science 344 (80), 1114–1117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248365.

IBGE, 2017. Banco De Dados Agregados. www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/.

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

262

IMEA, n.d. Custo De Produção Efectivo Da Soja – Safra 09/10. Instituto Matogrossense deEconomia e Agropecuária, Cuiabá MT, Brazil.

INPE, 2017. Taxas Anuais Do Desmatamento - 1988 Até 2016. http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2016n.htm.

ISO, 2015. ISO 14046:2014, Water Footprint: Principles, Requirements and Guidelines.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

ISO, 2006. ISO 14044:2006, Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization,Geneva, Switzerland.

Keys, P., Wang-Erlandsson, L., Gordon, L., Galaz, V., Ebbesson, J., 2017. Approachingmoisture recycling governance. Glob. Environ. Chang. 45, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.04.007.

Koehler, A., 2008. Water use in LCA: managing the planet’s freshwater resources. Int. J.Life Cycle Assess. 13, 451–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0028-6.

Koellner, T., de Baan, L., Beck, T., Brandão, M., Civit, B., Margni, M., i Canals, L.M., Saad,R., de Souza, D.M., Müller-Wenk, R., Geyer, R., 2013. Global land use impact as-sessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18,1185–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0579-z.

Lathuillière, M., Coe, M., Castanho, A., Graesser, J., Johnson, M., 2018a. Evaluating wateruse for agricultural intensification in southern amazonia using the water footprintsustainability assessment. Water 10, 349. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040349.

Lathuillière, M.J., Dalmagro, H.J., Black, T.A., de Arruda, P.H.Z., Hawthorne, I., Couto,E.G., Johnson, M.S., 2018b. Rain-fed and irrigated cropland-atmosphere water fluxesand their implications for agricultural production in Southern Amazonia. Agric. For.Meteorol. 256–257, 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.03.023.

Lathuillière, M.J., Miranda, E.J., Bulle, C., Couto, E.G., Johnson, M.S., 2017. Land oc-cupation and transformation impacts of soybean production in Southern Amazonia,Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 680–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.120.

Lathuillière, M.J., Bulle, C., Johnson, M.S., 2016a. Land use in LCA: including regionallyaltered precipitation to quantify ecosystem damage. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50,11769–11778. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02311.

Lathuillière, M.J., Coe, M.T., Johnson, M.S., 2016b. A review of green- and blue-waterresources and their trade-offs for future agricultural production in the Amazon Basin:what could irrigated agriculture mean for Amazonia? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20,2179–2194. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2179-2016.

Lathuillière, M.J., Johnson, M.S., Galford, G.L., Couto, E.G., 2014. Environmental foot-prints show China and Europe’s evolving resource appropriation for soybean pro-duction in Mato Grosso. Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 074001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074001.

Lathuillière, M.J., Johnson, M.S., Donner, S.D., 2012. Water use by terrestrial ecosystems:temporal variability in rainforest and agricultural contributions to evapotranspirationin Mato Grosso. Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024024.

Loiseau, E., Junqua, G., Roux, P., Bellon-Maurel, V., 2012. Environmental assessment of aterritory: an overview of existing tools and methods. J. Environ. Manage. 112,213–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.024.

Macedo, M.N., DeFries, R.S., Morton, D.C., Stickler, C.M., Galford, G.L., Shimabukuro,Y.E., 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazonduring the late 2000s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 1341–1346. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111374109.

MAPA, 2012. Plano Setorial de Mitigação e de Adaptação às Mudanças Climáticas para aConsolidação de uma Economia de Baixa Emissão de Carbono na Agricultura.Brasília, Brazil. .

Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity.Sci. Adv. 2https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323. e1500323–e1500323.

Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2014. Water footprint benchmarks for crop production:a first global assessment. Ecol. Indic. 46, 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.013.

Mekonnen, M.M., Pahlow, M., Aldaya, M.M., Zarate, E., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015.Sustainability, efficiency and equitability of water consumption and pollution in latinAmerica and the Caribbean. Sustainability 7, 2086–2112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7022086.

Miguel Ayala, L., van Eupen, M., Zhang, G., Pérez-Soba, M., Martorano, L.G., Lisboa, L.S.,Beltrao, N.E., 2016. Impact of agricultural expansion on water footprint in theAmazon under climate change scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 569–570, 1159–1173.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.191.

Motoshita, M., Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2011. Development of impact factors on damage tohealth by infectious diseases caused by domestic water scarcity. Int. J. Life CycleAssess. 16, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0236-8.

Neill, C., Coe, M.T., Riskin, S.H., Krusche, A.V., Elsenbeer, H., Macedo, M.N., McHorney,R., Lefebvre, P., Davidson, E.A., Scheffler, R., Figueira, A.M.A.S., Porder, S., Deegan,L.A., 2013. Watershed responses to Amazon soya bean cropland expansion and in-tensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 368, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0425.

Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T.,DiGiano, M., Shimada, J., Seroa da Motta, R., Armijo, E., Castello, L., Brando, P.,Hansen, M.C., McGrath-Horn, M., Carvalho, O., Hess, L., 2014. Slowing Amazondeforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains.Science 344 (6188), 1118–1123. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248525.

Nobre, C.A., Sampaio, G., Borma, L.S., Castilla-Rubio, J.C., Silva, J.S., Cardoso, M., 2016.Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a novel sustainabledevelopment paradigm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 10759–10768. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605516113.

Núñez, M., Bouchard, C.R., Bulle, C., Boulay, A.M., Margni, M., 2016. Critical analysis oflife cycle impact assessment methods addressing consequences of freshwater use onecosystems and recommendations for future method development. Int. J. Life Cycle

Assess. 21, 1799–1815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1127-4.Oliveira, L.J.C., Costa, M.H., Soares-Filho, B.S., Coe, M.T., 2013. Large-scale expansion of

agriculture in Amazonia may be a no-win scenario. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024021.https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024021.

Pfister, S., Boulay, A.-M., Berger, M., Hadjikakou, M., Motoshita, M., Hess, T., Ridoutt, B.,Weinzettel, J., Scherer, L., Döll, P., Manzardo, A., Núñez, M., Verones, F., Humbert,S., Buxmann, K., Harding, K., Benini, L., Oki, T., Finkbeiner, M., Henderson, A., 2017.Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: a response to Hoekstra (2016) “Acritique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA.”. Ecol. Indic. 72,352–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.051.

Pfister, S., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts offreshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 4098–4104. https://doi.org/10.1021/es802423e.

Pfister, S., Ridoutt, B.G., 2014. Water footprint: pitfalls on common ground. Environ. Sci.Technol. 48https://doi.org/10.1021/es405340a. 4–4.

Pfister, S., Vionnet, S., Levova, T., Humbert, S., 2016. Ecoinvent 3: assessing water use inLCA and facilitating water footprinting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1349–1360.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0937-0.

Quinteiro, P., Ridoutt, B.G., Arroja, L., Dias, A.C., 2017. Identification of methodologicalchallenges remaining in the assessment of a water scarcity footprint: a review. Int. J.Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1304-0.

Presidência da República, 2012. Presidência da República, Casa Civil, Subchefia paraAssuntos Jurídicos, 2012. Lei no 12.651, de 25 de Maio de 2012. Brasilia, Brazil. .

Ridoutt, B.G., Pfister, S., 2013. A new water footprint calculation method integratingconsumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 204–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0458-z.

Ridoutt, B.G., Pfister, S., 2010. Reducing humanity’s water footprint. Environ. Sci.Technol. 44, 6019–6021. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101907z.

Ridoutt, B.G., Sanguansri, P., Freer, M., Harper, G.S., 2012. Water footprint of livestock:comparison of six geographically defined beef production systems. Int. J. Life CycleAssess. 17, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0346-y.

Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Allan, T., Folke, C., Gordon, L., Jägerskog, A., Kummu,M., Lannerstad, M., Meybeck, M., Molden, D., Postel, S., Savenije, H., Svedin, U.,Turton, A., Varis, O., 2014. The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towardsa resilience based perspective on water for global sustainability. Ecohydrology 7 (5),1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1562.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton,T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T.,van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U.,Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B.,Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating spacefor humanity. Nature 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.

Roy, E.D., Richards, P.D., Martinelli, L.A., Coletta, L.Della, Lins, S.R.M., Vazquez, F.F.,Willig, E., Spera, S.A., VanWey, L.K., Porder, S., 2016. The phosphorus cost of agri-cultural intensification in the tropics. Nat. Plants 2, 16043. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.43.

Saad, R., Koellner, T., Margni, M., 2013. Land use impacts on freshwater regulation,erosion regulation, and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1253–1264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0577-1.

Savenije, H.H.G., Hoekstra, A.Y., van der Zaag, P., 2014. Evolving water science in theAnthropocene. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-319-2014.

Schyns, J.F., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2014. The added value of water footprint assessment fornational water policy: a case study for Morocco. PLoS One 9, e99705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099705.

Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Merry, F., Rodrigues, H., Davis, J., Lima, L., Macedo, M., Coe,M., Carneiro, A., Santiago, L., 2016. Brazil’s market for trading forest certificates.PLoS One 11, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152311.

Spera, S.A., Cohn, A.S., VanWey, L.K., Mustard, J.F., Rudorff, B.F., Risso, J., Adami, M.,2014. Recent cropping frequency, expansion, and abandonment in Mato Grosso,Brazil had selective land characteristics. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 064010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064010.

UN-Water/FAO, 2007. Coping with Water Scarcity: Challenge of the Twenty-FirstCentury. United Nationshttps://doi.org/10.3362/0262-8104.2005.038.

UN-Water, 2013. Water Security and the Global Water Agenda: a UN-Water AnalyticalBrief. United Nations University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(68)90080-2.

UN, 2017. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. (Accessed May 1 2017).https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org.

Vanham, D., Bidoglio, G., 2014. The water footprint of agricultural products in Europeanriver basins. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 064007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064007.

Vanham, D., Hoekstra, A.Y., Wada, Y., Bouraoui, F., de Roo, A., Mekonnen, M.M., van deBund, W.J., Batelaan, O., Pavelic, P., Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., Kummu, M., Rockström,J., Liu, J., Bisselink, B., Ronco, P., Pistocchi, A., Bidoglio, G., 2018. Physical waterscarcity metrics for monitoring progress towards SDG target 6.4: An evaluation ofindicator 6.4.2 “Level of water stress”. Sci. Total Environ. 613–614, 218–232.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.056.

Vanham, D., Mak, T.N., Gawlik, B.M., 2016. Urban food consumption and associatedwater resources: the example of Dutch cities. Sci. Total Environ. 565, 232–239.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.172.

Vanham, D., Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2013. The water footprint of the EU fordifferent diets. Ecol. Indic. 32, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.020.

Vörösmarty, C.J., Hoekstra, A.Y., Bunn, S.E., 2015. What scale for water governance?Science 349 (80), 478–479. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.349.6247.478-a.

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

263

Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., 2018. Environmental and social footprints of internationaltrade. Nat. Geosci. 11, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0113-9.

WWAP, 2015a. Facing the Challenges: Case Studies and Indicators. UNESCO, Paris,France.

WWAP, 2015b. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a

Sustainable World. UNESCO, Paris, France.Zeitoun, M., Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Conway, D., 2014. Introduction: a battle of ideas for

water security. In: Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M., Conwa, D. (Eds.), WaterSecurity: Principles, Perspectives and Practices, pp. 3–25 New-York, NY, USA.

M.J. Lathuillière et al. Global Environmental Change 53 (2018) 252–264

264