water

Article
An In-Depth Analysis of Physical Blue and Green Water
Scarcity in Agriculture in Terms of Causes and Events and
Perceived Amenability to Economic Interpretation
Kalomoira Zisopoulou 1 and Dionysia Panagoulia 2, *

1 Travaux Publics, Becket House, London SE1 7EU, UK; [Link]@[Link]

2 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 157 80 Athens, Greece
* Correspondence: dpanag@[Link]

Abstract: An analytical review of physical blue and green water scarcity in terms of agricultural use,
and its amenability to economic interpretation, is presented, employing more than 600 references.
The main definitions and classifications involved and information about reserves and resources are
critically analyzed, blue and green water scarcity are examined along with their interchange, while
their causal connection with climate in general is analyzed along with the particular instances of
Europe, Africa, Asia and the WANA region. The role of teleconnections and evaporation/moisture
import-export is examined as forms of action at a distance. The human intervention scarcity driver
is examined extensively in terms of land use land cover change (LULCC), as well as population
increase. The discussion deals with following critical problems: green and blue water availability,





 inadequate accessibility, blue water loss, unevenly distributed precipitation, climate uncertainty and
country level over global level precedence. The conclusion singles out, among others, problems
Citation: Zisopoulou, K.; Panagoulia,
emerging from the inter-relationship of physical variables and the difficulty to translate them into
D. An In-Depth Analysis of Physical
Blue and Green Water Scarcity in
economic instrumental variables, as well as the lack of imbedding uncertainty in the underlying
Agriculture in Terms of Causes and physical theory due to the fact that country level measurements are not methodically assumed to be
Events and Perceived Amenability to the basic building block of regional and global water scarcity.
Economic Interpretation. Water 2021,
13, 1693. [Link] Keywords: blue water; green water; scarcity; climate; water availability; inadequate water accessibil-
w13121693 ity; climate uncertainty; land use land cover change; population

Academic Editor: Luis Garrote

Received: 21 May 2021 1. Introduction

Accepted: 4 June 2021
Water, an economic good [1,2] and “total social fact” [3], is a critical resource [4] as it is a
Published: 18 June 2021
component of human life and ecosystem support and it lies at the base of Maslow’s pyramid
of human needs [5], while quantitatively/qualitatively is one of the three components of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
water security [6]. The water scarcity case, expressed in terms of water supply crises, is
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
the number one global societal risk in terms of impact, even greater that the spreading of
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
infectious diseases, and is expected to grow by 43% in 2025 according to the 2015 World
Economic Forum [7]. In addition, it will impact >56.2% of the global population by 2080 [8]
in terms of societal risks, with both high impact and high likelihood, as seen in Figure 1.
Water scarcity is considered to be the result of a complex interaction of social, eco-
nomic, and environmental factors, and is seldom caused solely by a lack of precipitation [9];
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
people may be moved to water resources [10,11] (case studies in [12]) or water resources
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
may be moved to people as, e.g., in the economic development of the Western USA [13] or
This article is an open access article
by reinforcing green water by allowing water surplus to infiltrate into the root zone [14].
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Added to these, water consumption is dependent on population growth [14] and climate
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
change [15,16], which intensify scarcity, shocks, and access inequalities and induce physical,
[Link]/licenses/by/ financial, regulatory, and reputational risks to businesses [9]. At the same time, water dis-
4.0/). tribution does not match population concentrations, groundwater supplies are dwindling,

Water 2021, 13, 1693. [Link] [Link]

 Water 2021, 13, 1693 2 of 51

Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2

and the water multiplier effect [17] does not work in underdeveloped countries, which
have no extensive recycling facilities, if at all.

Figure 1. Impact-Likelihood diagram of water crises (modified from [7]).

Figure 1. Impact-Likelihood diagram of water crises (modified from [7]).
Alternatively, the demand and supply [18] aspect of overpopulation [19], agricul-
Water
ture [20], scarcity
pollution is considered
of water to be the
[21], and improper result ofpolicies
government a complex interaction
[22], the of social,
last of which
potentially leading to a case of the “Green Paradox” [23], are important
nomic, and environmental factors, and is seldom caused solely by a lack of precipita reasons for water
scarcity, while land use and land cover change, encompassing crops, livestock, fisheries,
[9]; people may be moved to water resources [10,11] (case studies in [12]) or water
aquaculture and forestry, are causes and a victims of water scarcity [16,24,25]. The Compre-
sources may be moved to people as, e.g., in the economic development of the Wes
hensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture which is influenced by demand
USA [13] orinby
and supply reinforcing
[18], concludes green water
that water by allowing
scarcity is a majorwater
globalsurplus to infiltrate
constraint to agricul-into the
zone [14].
ture [26] Added
as well to these,risk
as a growing water consumption
to business is dependent
and investors [27]. on population growth
and There
climatearechange
two types of water
[15,16], scarcity:
which physical
intensify scarcity shocks,
scarcity, and economic scarcityinequalities
and access [18].
Physical scarcity is said to occur when water cannot satisfy all
induce physical, financial, regulatory, and reputational risks to businesses [9].demands (including en-At the s
vironmental flows) [28], either despite or because of the fact that the global system is
time, water distribution does not match population concentrations, groundwater supp
interconnected hydro-climatically [29]. Economic scarcity is described as a situation where
are dwindling, and
the socio-economic systemthe iswater
unablemultiplier effect [17]
to utilize existing does
water not work
in order in all
to satisfy underdevelo
de-
countries,
mands [30],whichlacking, have no extensive
in essence, recycling development
the infrastructure facilities, if at [Link] of storage
that
Alternatively,
and timely distribution the demand
and andalternatively
access [31], supply [18]if aspect
human,of overpopulation
institutional [19], agricul
and financial
capital
[20], limit access
pollution of to water[21],
water [32,33].
andPhysical
improperand government
economic scarcity are shown
policies [22],in Figure
the last 2.
of which
tentially leading to a case of the “Green Paradox” [23], are important reasons for w
scarcity, while land use and land cover change, encompassing crops, livestock, fishe
aquaculture and forestry, are causes and a victims of water scarcity [16,24,25]. The C
prehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture which is influenced by
mand and supply in [18], concludes that water scarcity is a major global constraint to
riculture [26] as well as a growing risk to business and investors [27].
There are two types of water scarcity: physical scarcity and economic scarcity
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 50

Water 2021, 13, 1693 3 of 51

distribution and access [31], alternatively if human, institutional and financial capital limit
access to water [32,33]. Physical and economic scarcity are shown in Figure 2.

Figure Global map

Figure 2. Global mapof
ofregions
regionswith
withPhysical
Physicaloror
Economic scarcity
Economic (modified
scarcity fromfrom
(modified [34]).[34]).

Physical water
Physical waterscarcity, thethe
scarcity, major
major global management
global managementproblem of the 21st
problem century
of the 21st [35],
century
causes, among other problems, environmental degradation [36], a decline
[35], causes, among other problems, environmental degradation [36], a decline in ground- in groundwater
(including subsurface water occurring beneath the water table in soils and geologic forma-
water (including subsurface water occurring beneath the water table in soils and geologic
tions that are fully saturated [37,38]), and inequitable water distribution [39]. Imposing
formations that are fully saturated [37,38]), and inequitable water distribution [39]. Impos-
blue water limitations for agriculture and relying increasingly on rain fed green water
ing blue water limitations for agriculture and relying increasingly on rain fed green water
has consequences, e.g., these limitations, if imposed on the Western U.S., China and West,
has consequences,
South, e.g., these
and Central Asia, wouldlimitations,
shift 20–60 if imposed
Mha on thetoWestern
of cropland U.S., Chinaatand
rainfed agriculture, West,
a loss
South, and Central Asia, would shift 20–60 Mha of cropland
of 600–2900 Pcal in food production, by the end of this century [40]. to rainfed agriculture, at a
loss of 600–2900 Pcaldrought
Socio-economic in food production, by the end
definitions associate the of this century
supply and demand[40]. of some eco-
nomic Socio-economic droughtofdefinitions
goods with elements meteorological,associate the supply
hydrological, and and demand of
agricultural some eco-
drought,
nomic goods when
which occurs with elements
the demand of meteorological,
for an economic hydrological,
good exceeds and supply agricultural
as a resultdrought,
of a
which occurs when the demand for an economic good exceeds supply as a result of a
weather-related shortfall in the water supply [41]. Water scarcity is measured by a variety
of indicators/metrics,
weather-related reviewed
shortfall in theinwater
[42,43], which[41].
supply are quantified in [26]isand
Water scarcity criticized
measured byina[44].
variety
Ofindicators/metrics,
of these, the indicatorreviewed
of the blue inwater sustainability
[42,43], index (BlWSI)
which are quantified [45] and
in [26] is ofcriticized
particu- in
lar interest
[44]. as, the
Of these, beyond consumptive
indicator of the blue blue watersustainability
water use (CBWU),indexit includes
(BlWSI) non-renewable
[45] is of partic-
groundwater abstraction (NRGW
ular interest as, beyond consumptive A ) and non-satisfied environmental streamflow.
blue water use (CBWU), it includes non-renewable
The purpose
groundwater of this analytical
abstraction (NRGWAreview is to establishenvironmental
) and non-satisfied a platform of physical blue and
streamflow.
green water scarcity characteristics with respect to agriculture, classified according to
The purpose of this analytical review is to establish a platform of physical blue and
their causes and impact by employing concrete examples indicative of the characteristic’s
green water scarcity characteristics with respect to agriculture, classified according to
spatio-temporal spectrum, which are useful in analyzing the economics of water scarcity
their causes
for blue andand
greenimpact
water,byfocusing
employing concrete examples
on agriculture. Sectionindicative
3.1 describes of the
thecharacteristic’s
variety of
spatio-temporal
existing pertinent definitions and classifications; Section 3.2 analyzes blue andofgreen
spectrum, which are useful in analyzing the economics waterwater
scarcity
for blue and green water, focusing on agriculture. Section 3.1 describes
scarcity; Section 3.2. examines blue and green water interactions with climate, including the variety of ex-
isting pertinentofdefinitions
short analyses and classifications;
Europe, Africa, Asia, and theSectionWANA3.2 analyzes
region.; blue3.4
Section andaddresses
green water
scarcity; Section
the subject [Link]
of green examines blueimpact
blue water and green waterat
by actions interactions
a distance, with climate, including
teleconnections and
short analyses
evaporation andofmoisture
Europe,import/export.
Africa, Asia, and the 3.5
Section WANA region.;
Discusses Section
important 3.4 addresses
points regarding the
subject of green
the problems and blue water impact by actions at a distance, teleconnections and evap-
encountered.
oration and moisture import/export. Section 3.5 Discusses important points regarding the
2. Methodology
problems encountered.
The objective of this paper is to present blue and green water scarcity, both in general
case and examples in terms such that a manifest relation can be established between defini-
2. Methodology
tions and aspects of the physical causes and impacts of scarcity with respect to agriculture
The objective of this paper is to present blue and green water scarcity, both in general
on the one hand, and instrumental economic variables that may lead to economic results
case and
and modelsexamples in terms
on the other. such that
In Figure a manifestprocess
3, a simplified relation
of acan be established
country between
level physical eventdef-
initions and aspects
is presented, of the
where the physical
main sequence causes and climate
is global impactstooflocal
scarcity with
climate torespect
scarcityto agricul-
event,
ture on the one hand, and instrumental economic variables that may
and in the end to water stakeholders. As intermediaries between global and local climatelead to economic
results and teleconnections,
are climate models on the other. In Figure
evaporation 3, a simplified
moisture process
import–export, of aiscountry
which level phys-
in bidirectional
ical eventmode,
feedback is presented,
and directwhere the mainbetween
intervention; sequence theisscarcity
globalevent
climate
andtowater
localstakeholders
climate to scar-
city event, and
are physical and in the endscarcity
economic to water stakeholders.
processes. As contributors,
One of the intermediaries between
human global and
intervention,
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 50

local climate are climate teleconnections, evaporation moisture import–export, which is

in bidirectional feedback mode, and direct intervention; between the scarcity event and
Water 2021, 13, 1693 localstakeholders
water climate are climate teleconnections,
are physical and economicevaporation moistureOne
scarcity processes. import–export, 4 which
of 51
of the contributors, is
in bidirectional
human feedback
intervention, mode,
is broken intoand
twodirect
parts, intervention; between
global and local, the scarcity
connected event and
by bidirectional
water stakeholders are physical and economic scarcity processes. One
feedback. The curved arrows show the connections this paper aims to facilitate. of the contributors,
human intervention, is broken into two parts, global and local, connected by bidirectional
is broken into two parts, global and local, connected by bidirectional feedback. The curved
feedback.
arrows The
show thecurved arrows
connections show
this theaims
paper connections this paper aims to facilitate.
to facilitate.

Figure 3. A simplified process of country level water scarcity event.

[Link]
Figure simplifiedprocess
processofof
country level
country water
level scarcity
water event.
scarcity event.
Despite the simplicity of the diagram, it is easy to see that the causes and effects of
physical waterthe
Despite scarcity form in effect a multifaceted toconstruct, thewhere localized country
physical Despite thesimplicity
conditions simplicity
may
ofof
lead
the
tothediagram,
diagram,
either
it is
similar it easy
is
or easy see thatthat
to see
different results
causes
the
for
and and
causes
the
effects
same
of of
effects
physical
physical water scarcity form in effect a multifaceted construct, where localized country
physical water
phenomenon, scarcity
hence form in effectofareferences.
the large multifaceted construct, where localized country
physical conditions may lead number
to either similar or different results for the same physical
physical conditions
The stages shown may leadexpose to either similaroforthe different results forofthe same physical
phenomenon, hence thebelow
large number of asreferences.
many multiple aspects this scarcity as
phenomenon,
possibleTheandstages hence
theirshown the
causal large
below number
interconnections
expose as many of references.
with of widely acceptable
the multiple aspectsmainline physical
of this scarcity as re-
sults Theand
possible
using stages
theirshown
concrete causal
eventsbelow exposeinas
interconnections
described withmany
the widely of the
relevant multiple
acceptable
literature. aspects
mainline
The use of
ofthis
physical
these scarcity
eventsas
results
possible
using
also serves and
concrete their
events
the purpose causal interconnections
described
of opening in an
theavenue
relevant with
that widely
literature. acceptable mainline
The use ofwho
serves researcher these physical
events
wishes toalso
assessre-
andsults
serves using
evaluate, concrete
the purpose events
of opening
in economic described
terms,an avenue
the class in the
that relevant
of serves
eventsresearcher literature.
to which awho The use
wishes to
particular of these
assess
event andevents
belongs.
alsoThe
serves
evaluate, in the purpose
economic of
terms, opening
the class an
of avenue
events tothat serves
which a researcher
particular
first column in Figure 4 refers to the general case of physical phenomena judged who
event wishes
belongs. to assess
toand evaluate,
The
be pertinent in economic
first column
on the in Figure
basis terms,
of the to
4 refers
normative class
the of events
general
decision and to
itswhich
case of a particular
physical
row phenomena
expansions event
refer belongs.
judged
to particu-
The first
to be pertinent column in
on the basis Figure 4
of normative refers to the
decision
lar influential phenomena while their content includes special cases. general
and its rowcase of physical
expansions phenomena
refer to particular judged
influential phenomena while their content includes special cases.
to be pertinent on the basis of normative decision and its row expansions refer to particu-
lar influential phenomena while their content includes special cases.

Figure 4. The stages of Methodology.

Figure 4. The stages of Methodology.

Figure 4. The stages of Methodology.

Water 2021, 13, 1693 5 of 51

3. Results
3.1. Definitions and Classifications
3.1.1. Blue and Green Water Definitions
A variety of definitions for both blue and green water exist [46]. Falkemark’s original
definition was that incoming rainfall is partitioned into vertical upward flow and horizontal
flow, leading to aquifers and rivers, which constitutes “blue water” while “green water” is
the water in the root zone, the part of the upper vadose zone instrumental in partitioning
rain and irrigation water into evaporation, transpiration, runoff, and deep drainage [47],
which is the source of plant nutrition [48]. A later, more precise definition [49], was given
in terms of resource supply: blue water is the water in aquifers, lakes, and dams, and green
water is the moisture in the soil which are related to the liquid blue water flowing through
rivers and aquifers and the green water vapor flowing back to the atmosphere. Green water
is divided into two parts [49–51], one part is stored in the soil as moisture and another part
is in motion via the evapotranspiration process.
Blue water can be classified according to its state: in liquid flow form, stocked as
runoff, rivers, reservoirs, wetlands, lakes, snowpack, aquifers for the consumptive pathway
of household or industrial uses, drinking water and product integration, and in vapour
flow form, stocked as surface water or groundwater for the consumptive pathway of
evapotranspiration from irrigation [49,52]. Green water can be classified in the same way:
in vapour flow, as productive green water is stocked as soil moisture for the consumptive
pathway of plant transpiration, and in vapour flow as unproductive green water stocked
as soil moisture and intercepted rainfall for the consumptive pathway of evaporation (soil,
surface, snow) [49,52].

3.1.2. Blue Water Stakeholders

Water use, referring usually to blue water, is defined as its removal from its source and
is distinguished into “withdrawal” where water returns to the water system by return flows
or leakage, and as “consumption” [53], termed as “irretrievable or irrecoverable loss” [54]
to signify that it may be transformed to a form not immediately returnable to its initial state,
measuring the amount that is removed from rivers, lakes, or groundwater sources and
evaporated to the atmosphere [55,56]. In [57], withdrawals and consumption are considered
to be the maximum and minimum levels of scarcity. For the case of agriculture, water use
may be defined to be the quantity of water which is in the process of evapotranspiration [58],
two-thirds of which are supplied by plant transpiration [59,60] re-enforcing the role of
green water. It should be noted that one of the end results of evapotranspiration, net
precipitation on land (40,700 km3 /year), suffers a great deal of waste: 50% becomes floods
and 20% is in areas that are too remote to be of immediate use [61].
According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [62],
in the case of water, “Stakeholders are herein defined as persons or groups who are di-
rectly or indirectly affected by water policy, as well as those who may have interests in it
and/or the ability to influence its outcome, either positively or negatively” which includes
“ businesses depending on water for their process, those profiting from the water chain and
those selling water dependent products” [62]. This is very close to Freeman’s stakeholder
definition of corporate stakeholder being “any group or individual who can affect, or
is affected by, the achievement of a corporation’s purpose” which includes employees,
stockholders and customers [63] (p. vi, EXHIBIT 1.5 p. 25) and, most importantly, allows
the OECD definition to be separated into immediate or primary and secondary stakehold-
ers extending the secondary “potential users” by Newcombe [64] in terms of Freeman’s
definition to actual secondary stakeholders, seen also in [65] and in a similar way to a
modernized version of [66] (p. 941, Table 1).
In Figure 5 the circular stakeholder diagram found in [54] is broken down into levels
of impact, according to the nature of the stakeholders, from primary to tertiary, distributed
according to normative decision. The immediate (primary) stakeholders are seen to be
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 50

Water2021,
Water 13, x1693
2021, 13, FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 516 of 50

be agriculture, industry, and municipal water provision (which include household uses),
while the whole population is a tertiary stakeholder.
agriculture, industry,
be agriculture, and municipal
industry, water provision
and municipal (which include
water provision (whichhousehold uses), whileuses),
include household
the whole
while the population is a tertiary
whole population is a stakeholder.
tertiary stakeholder.

Figure 5. Major stakeholders (modified from [62]).

[Link]
Figure Majorstakeholders
stakeholders (modified
(modified from
from [62]).
[62]).
In Figure 6, agriculture is seen to be the dominant stakeholder due to the continuous
In
InFigure
pressure Figure6,6,agriculture
exerted agriculture is is
by the increaseseen to to
seen
in bebethethe
dominant
population and stakeholder
dominant duedue
stakeholder
total to the
consumption ofcontinuous
to the continuous
food and the cor-
pressure exerted
pressure exerted
responding by the
by the
increase increase
increase
in land in
usein population
population
land and
and total consumption of food and the
cover [Link] consumption of food and the cor-
corresponding increaseininland
responding increase landuse
useland
landcover
cover change.
change.

Figure [Link]
Figure6.
Figure Globalwater
Global waterwithdrawal
water withdrawal
withdrawal1900–2010 (modified
1900–2010
1900–2010 from
(modified
(modified [67]).
from
from [67]).
[67]).

Withdrawal division by continent for primary stakeholders in Figure 7 shows disparate

Withdrawal
Withdrawal division by continent
division by continentfor forprimary
primarystakeholders
stakeholders in in Figure
Figure 7 shows
7 shows dis-dis-
distribution for agriculture. This is due to population increases in Asia and Africa, which
parate
parate distribution
distribution for agriculture.
agriculture. This
This is
is due
due toto population
population increases
increases
are not commensurate with those in Europe or the USA and Canada population component
in in Asia
Asia andand Africa,
Africa,
which
which
in are
are not
not commensurate
the Americas. commensurate with
with
In addition, the fact those
those
that ininEurope
inferior Europeororthe
technology isthe
USAUSA
employed and
and Canada
inCanada
Africa, population
population
leading
component
component in
in the Americas.
Americas. In
In addition,
addition, the
the
to low yields per ha, should be taken into [Link] that
fact inferior
that inferior technology
technology is employed
is employedin in
Africa,leading
Africa, leading to low yields
yields per
perha,
ha,should
shouldbebetaken
takeninto consideration.
into consideration.
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 50
Water 2021, 13, 1693 7 of 51
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 50

Figure 7. Water Withdrawal ratios by continent (modified from [67]).

Figure 7. Water Withdrawal ratios by continent (modified from [67]).
Figure 7. Water Withdrawal ratios by continent (modified from [67]).
Water withdrawal by country economic grouping (OECD, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, In-
Water and
dia, China withdrawal by country
South Africa), economic
ROW (Rest of thegrouping (OECD,
World)) are BRICS
as below (Brazil,
in Figure Russia,
8 and the
Water
India, withdrawal
China and South by country
Africa), ROWeconomic
(Rest of grouping
the World)) (OECD,
are as BRICS
below in (Brazil,
Figure 8 Russia,
and the In-
differences between the OECD and the other two groups can be ascribed to the fact that
dia,BRICS’
Chinaeconomic
and
differences South
between Africa),
the
growth OECD ROW (Rest
and in
is sought the of the
a other
more two World))
groups
pressing and are
can beasrule-bound
less below in
ascribed to Figure
the
wayfact 8that
than and
in the
BRICS’countries.
differences
OECD economic
betweengrowth is sought
the OECD andin a more
the otherpressing and less
two groups canrule-bound
be ascribed way
to than in that
the fact
OECDeconomic
BRICS’ [Link] is sought in a more pressing and less rule-bound way than in
OECD countries.

Figure 8. Water withdrawals by country economic grouping (modified from [68]).

Figure 8. Water withdrawals by country economic grouping (modified from [68]).

Figure 8. Water withdrawals by country economic grouping (modified from [68]).

Water 2021, 13, 1693 8 of 51

3.1.3. Scarcity Definitions

Scarcity is an acceptable property of water as it is an irreplaceable input to goods
that satisfy economic wants [69] and is, by its nature, a finite resource and essential good
according to the Dublin Water First Principle “Water is a finite, vulnerable and essential
resource which should be managed in an integrated manner” [1]. An initial institutional
definition of water scarcity was given by Winpenny as “In popular usage, “scarcity” is a
situation where there is insufficient water to satisfy normal requirements. However, this
common-sense definition is of little use to policy-makers and planners. There are degrees
of scarcity: absolute, life-threatening, seasonal, temporary, cyclical, etc. Populations with
normally high levels of consumption may experience temporary scarcity more keenly
than other societies accustomed to using much less water. Scarcity often arises because of
socio-economic trends having little to do with basic needs. Defining scarcity for policy-
making purposes is very difficult.” [70] in FAO [71]. Using this as a basis, the 2007 U.N.
definition, which stresses the relative nature of water scarcity, followed “The point at
which the aggregate impact of all users impinges on the supply or quality of water under
prevailing institutional arrangements to the extent that the demand by all sectors, including
the environment, cannot be satisfied fully [...], a relative concept [that] can occur at any
level of supply or demand. Scarcity may be a social construct (a product of affluence,
expectations and customary behaviour) or the consequence of altered supply patterns
stemming from climate change. Scarcity has various causes, most of which are capable of
being remedied or alleviated.” [72]. The exception to alleviation is defined by “absolute
water scarcity” which is “wor to satisfy total demand after all feasible options to enhance
supply and manage demand have been implemented” [73] usually set to less than <500 m3
per capita of renewable water [74]. In addition, “chronic water shortage” exists when
renewable water resources per capita are in the region 500–1000 m3 and “regular water
stress” in the region between 1000–1700 m3 per capita [74]. It should be pointed out that
the environmental flow requirement is predetermined as a mandatory 30% of the available
sum of blue and green water [75] which reduces availability. However, water scarcity is
claimed to be a “governance crisis, not a [water] resource crisis” [76].
Falkenmark distinguishes four modes of water scarcity [77]:
A. Short-term growing season aridity
B. Recurrent drought year intermittent droughts
C. Soil degradation-induced landscape desiccation (man-made draught)
D. Water stress induced by an exorbitant population number per unit of water cy-
cle available.
According to the EU, water scarcity is interpreted as the case where “water demand
exceeds the water resources exploitable under sustainable conditions” [78]
In modern settings, water scarcity may be defined in general as in [41]:
a. an imbalance of supply and demand under prevailing institutional arrangements
and/or prices [79,80]
b. an excess of demand over available supply [81]
c. a high rate of utilization compared to available supply, especially if the remaining
supply potentials are difficult or costly to tap [82].
Simpler definitions are the case of where water resource availability is less hence
the means of water availability and accessibility to the concerned population become
restrained [83], when available resources are insufficient to meet the sum of total demand
and minimum environmental flow [84] or the one where water is scarce for any reason [55].
Another definition of scarcity is based on the imbalance between supply and demand
created by intra-annual and inter-annual fluxes which are manifested due to lack of freshwa-
ter natural or constructed storage, a fact that makes inadequate storage, i.e., storage scarcity,
an equivalent definition to the classical definitions of water scarcity as it is operationally
equal in terms of volume, location and timing to the supply-demand difference [85,86].
The theory stresses the point that all calculations should be based on physical parameter
Water 2021, 13, 1693 9 of 51

quantification of supply and demand, and that, based on these results, decision making
regarding additional storage should be a result of synergy between national and local
authorities. Insufficient water storage exists in Canada (694 MAF), THE U.S.A. (1420 MAF),
China (2280 MAF), India (245 MAF), and Pakistan (13.20 MAF) [87].

3.2. Blue and Green Water Scarcity

Water used in agriculture amounts to 70% of withdrawals [88] and 92 % of global
fresh water consumption [89] which occupies 40 % of total available land divided into
1/3 for crop cultivation and 2/3 for livestock grazing [90]. The average annual blue
water consumption is 1000–1700 km3 /year [91] while annual green water consumption on
rainfed and irrigated cropland is in the order of 5000 km3 /year; to this should be added
around 20,000 km3 /year for perceived to be managed grassland/grazing land and around
49,000–56,500 km3 /year for the support of non-agricultural ecosystems [52]. Irrigated
agriculture (blue water) amounts to 20% of total cultivated land but yields 40% of total
global produce [92], but 60% of total cultivated land is rainfed [55]. In year 2000 global
cropland was 15 × 103 km2 and pasture area was 34 × 103 km2 [93]; while agricultural
land was 46.8 × 103 km2 in 1992, 36.763% of total land, and 48.6 × 103 km2 in 2015, 38.177%
of total land, an increase of less than 2% [94].
In general, virtual water, commodities, usually water moved in international trade in
cereals [95,96], which by a wide interpretation of the Heckscher-Ohlin model are, in reality
bundles of factors [97], including a sizeable amount of water, is exported by countries
which do not suffer from either blue or green water scarcity, however, despite the fact that
exports are mainly rainfed, there is a substantial increase in associated irrigation water
expenditure, which beyond creating a depletion [98,99], is estimated to be a global increase
of 17% in a 25-year period [100]. It is quantified as an “irretrievable or irrecoverable loss”
in the sense of [59] for the exporting country and it should be taken into consideration that
scarce water may be exported via virtual water trade, despite the fact that this increases
scarcity at the exporting country [101].

3.2.1. Blue Water Scarcity

In the case of blue water, of which availability depends on climate (precipitation,
temperature, radiation) and its variability, river flow directions, and the spatio-temporal
distribution of lakes and reservoirs [102], upstream water consumption scarcity is attributed
to shortage, the low availability of water per capita i.e., population driven scarcity. Stress
is defined as high water use relative to water availability [103,104] as in the projected
reduction of river inflows in the Tonle Sap Lake Basin, Cambodia [105], reductions in
flow because of increasing temperatures in the upper Colorado River basin (UCRB) [106],
multi-model global assessment [107], regional impact in Tangshan city, Hebei Province,
China [108] and on the EU drinking water [109]. Blue water scarcity may be due to the
competition over limited runoff and is usually measured as the ratio of blue water use
to available blue water [43], a restrictive variant of the Water Resources Vulnerability
Index [110], or the ratio of blue water use footprint to available blue water footprint [111].
According to Falkenmark, blue water shortage occurs on the basis of the number of
people competing for a limited water resources, a Malthusian view based on a limited
resource divided among an ever growing population, in which case “water crowding” is
high when per capita water availability is less than the “principal water requirements”
of 1700 m3 cap−1 yr−1 [112] while below 1000 m3 cap−1 yr−1 chronic water shortage
could occur under certain conditions which may “be the single greatest and most urgent
development constraint” [113] impacting 2.3 bn people [104]. In addition, South and
Southeast Asia, under pressure of increasing agricultural production, have increased blue
water withdrawals amounting to >60% of agricultural water use [114].
According to the planetary boundaries theory [115–120], where green water has
not as of yet been incorporated [121], each main control variable is divided quantita-
tively at a global level into a safe operating space and a dangerously uncertain one
Water 2021, 13, 1693 10 of 51

regarding withdrawals of any kind. While blue water available resources amount to
12,500–15,000 km3 year−1 [122,123], in total, the water withdrawal control variable has a
safe operating space of 4000 km3 year−1 , which, including a region of uncertainty, reaches
to 6000 km3 year−1 [115]. In the case of blue water withdrawal as % of mean monthly river
flow the total operating space, where the low bound is the safe part, is for low-flow months
25–55%, for intermediate flow months 30–60% and for high-flow months 55–85% [124].
It should be mentioned that water influences decisively all the basic control variables of
this theory [125], hence global limitations on water may impose on the rest of the main
control variables unnatural constraints and that in regional cases the limits imposed may
be exceeded due to justified necessity [126].
Atmospheric evaporation recycling within drainage basins can reduce blue water
consumption volumes by up to 32% [127]. A multi-dimensional diagnosis model (MDDM)
assesses blue water at a regional level so that scarcity can be detected [128] and a review of
the methodological challenges remaining for this assessment via footprint is in [129]. It
may be that shifts toward highly resource-efficient cropping lead to increased demands of
blue water if they are dependent on irrigation as is the case in China’s Huang-Huai-Hai
region [130], a manifestation of the Green Paradox [23].
In [131], the five elements of terrestrial water storage (TWS), among which are the
constituents of blue water, groundwater and surface waters, are shown to be range bounded
dynamic quantities trending below past ranges, in particular where groundwater is being
withdrawn at an unsustainable rate while groundwater stress levels are defined and
quantified using GRACE in [132].

3.2.2. Green Water Scarcity

Green water has three functions: regulatory (soil moisture, evaporation and transpira-
tion flows which regulate via carbon sequestration and water as a component of greenhouse
gas the planetary energy balance and climate system), productive (food, biomass and bioen-
ergy production sustaining evapotranspiration) and overland water cycle regulation via
moisture feedback evaporation [133]. It should be noted that green water flow is comprised
of 59% transpiration, 21% plant interception, 10% floor interception, and 6% soil moisture
evaporation [134], of whose partly contrasting roles are analysed in [135]. Green water
is replenished by land precipitation or capillary rise from groundwater lying blow its
zone [136]. Extreme precipitation redistributes its land impact by reducing the resultant
green water and increasing soil erosion in comparison to regular precipitation [137]. Green
water scarcity, measured by its fluxes as being approximated by its actual evapotranspi-
ration [45], which is important in problematic regions e.g., >95% of sub-Saharan Africa
is rainfed [114], where green water availability depends on agricultural area and its ex-
pansion [138], climate, in terms of rainwater partitioning, as in climate change effects on
groundwater recharge [139], in recent advances in groundwater and climate change [140],
in changes in mean and extreme precipitation in general [141] and over India [142] and
Africa [143,144], in projected climate change for groundwater recharge in the Western
United States [145], crop type as in the relationship of water scarcity with food produc-
tion [102], is defined indirectly via the fraction of irrigation water required over crop
water intake, a form of “green water deficit” [146], while alternative scarcity indicators
are defined in [147], and the existence of scarcity is justified as there is a limit to green
water resources in [148], where a supplement [149] is included, depicting numerical results
for all countries. Assessment methods are e.g., in a case study in the Hai River Basin,
China [150], by partitioning evapotranspiration into green and blue water sources [151],
using GABI [152] and others. Green water scarcity, by calculating green water scarcity
characterisation factors (CFs), occurs in Portugal and will get worse during the period 2046
to 2065 [153], the rapid development of urbanization may cause serious shortage of both
blue and green water resources as is the case in rapidly-developing Xiangjiang River Basin
in China [154]. Green water scarcity is induced in higher altimetry vegetation during a
Water 2021, 13, 1693 11 of 51

temperature rise in lower altitudes as evapotranspiration in large areas over the Alps was
above average despite low rainfall [155].

3.2.3. Blue and Green Water Interchange

Although blue and green water definitions might imply some form of definition-wise
physical non-intersection between them i.e., the fact that that there is a flow path distinction
and a location distinction [55], there exists physical interchange interaction between blue
and green water in the ground where blue water moves downward into the ground ac-
cording to the Dahl hierarchy (sediment scale(<1 m), reach scale (1–1000 m) and catchment
scale (>1000 m)) [156], a form of percolation ending either in phreatic zone groundwater
pockets, also seen in shallow unconfined aquifers [157], or flowing to create blue water
flows [158], although, depending on the existence of semi-aridity conditions, there is tran-
sient resistivity to downward interaction as in the 200 km2 Wailepalle watershed in the
high Deccan plateau in India [159]. This interaction extends to the fact that terrestrial
precipitation, which includes the blue water renewability package, has 65% of its source
in terrestrial evaporation flows to the atmosphere [160], whose soil moisture component,
like interception [161], is ephemeral (as seen in a simple model of the Budyko curve [162]).
Additionally, there is interaction between blue and green water in terms of trade-offs, as
seen in the Amazon [163] and via green-blue water accounting in soil water balance in [164].
Interlinkages also exist in the case of an arid endorheic river basin where hydrological
cycling is heavily altered by human activities as is the case of an arid catchment in North-
west China [165]. Hence, they are not contiguously distinct either in situ or in composition,
which poses a problem in measuring the two quantities unless the bilateral transference is
explicitly assessed quantitatively.

3.3. Blue and Green Water Climate Interactions

3.3.1. General Climate Interaction
Climate, which is subject to global short term [166] and long term [167] changes [168]
and variability (which can assessed on a millennial-scale, spanning 800,000 years and its
influence on climate change [169] is due to the alteration of a large number of conditions)
is depicted using the Köppen-Geiger classification [170]. The consequences are far ranging
e.g., climate influences cleaner production [171].
Climate change is a statistically determinable change in the state of the climate which
has a long-term duration due to natural (internal or natural variability)/anthropogenic
causes [172]; climate variability, on the other hand, is the occurrence of annual distancing
of main parameters from the long term mean as seen in Figure 3. At the global scale, in
global climate models (GCMs), anthropogenically induced change overcomes internal
variability at the decadal time scale [173] but, at regional and local scales they tend to be
equally important, even during 50-year periods [174]. Natural variability, which at the
regional level is distinguishable from anthropogenic forcing regarding precipitation [175],
may be used in the detection of anthropogenic climate change as a cause or both regional
and local precipitation [176] and in the case of Pakistan using the 1951–2015 APHRODITE
dataset, a quantitative estimate of induced climate change variation in precipitation was
deduced [177]. Climate models suffer from structural model uncertainty and parameter
uncertainty [178]. As a general rule in ensemble forecasting (ensemble prediction systems
(EPS)) [179], where ensemble spread is considered to be a proxy for prediction uncertainty,
reliable predictions are described by the case where the time-mean ensemble spread about
the ensemble–mean prediction equals the time-mean RMSE of the ensemble–mean fore-
cast [180]. Hence, the more the forecasting systems used the less the resulting uncertainty,
as in seasonal forecasting using the DEMETER data set [181], in flood forecasting using the
TIGGE system [182] and the encouraging results shown in precipitation at sub-monthly
time scales in [183]. Predictions at global and regional scale vary, as in [184], globally at
1.75 (1.65–1.85) ◦ C increase over preindustrial temperature e.g., it is expected to have a
global increase of heatwave frequency chance by 73 (67.2–77.9)% compared to 33% in the
Water 2021, 13, 1693 12 of 51

1981–2010 period, global hydrological drought frequency chance will have an increase
by 8.3 (6.1–9.9)% compared to 6.1% in the same period while global agricultural drought
(SPEI) frequency chance will reach 23.6 (16.1–29.5)% compared to 9.4% in the same period.
As global mean temperature increases to 4 ◦ C, all positive or negative climate impacts
become worse, while, at a continental level, these predictions vary. Regional climate mod-
els (RCMs) depend on global models by “regionalization” as in the review in [185], or by
selection, as in [186], adding data to global models [187], perform better in EPS [188], and
in weighted EPS [189] Regarding seasonal mean rainfall, coarse and high-resolution RCMs
are in agreement if they are convection-permitting and the GCM is reliable [190].
Climate is a major water scarcity driver through its influence of global and regional
interannual variabilities of precipitation as in the vulnerability of global water resources
from climate change [191], climate change and water [192], climate change and changes
in global precipitation patterns [193], regional and impact-related climate targets [194],
the relationship between climate forcing and impact [195], and climate change at different
levels of global temperature increase [184]. Short term variations are connected to long
term ones [196] and in [197] regarding connection with seasonality. In terms of extreme
rainfall, there is a link between these and temperature in tropical climates, where there is an
increase in warm periods and a decrease in cold periods [198]. Additionally, climate-driven
interannual variability of water scarcity impacts food production [199], in [107] regarding
climate change on renewable water resources at the global scale in combination with
population increase, in [200] regarding drought creating anthropogenic climate change,
in [201] global assessment of the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
It should be pointed out that, in the case of precipitation models, including precipita-
tion extremes, grid refinement plays a major role and general circulation models (GCMs)
have been substituted by high resolution Regional Climate Models (RCMs) which labour
under two problems, that of the requirement of specification of lateral boundary condi-
tions as they impede self-consistent interactions between global and regional scales of
motion [202] and that of the fact that simple resolution increases lead to very limited im-
provements in the long forecast range without model improvements, i.e., reconsideration
of the physics picture [203]. Notably, high-resolution models perform better for East Asia
than for India [204]. Blue water sources such as lakes influence climate through the carbon
cycle [205,206] and modify the climates of their surrounding areas up to synoptic scale [207].
At the same time there is a definite trend of rapid and highly variable warming of lake
surface waters [208], and a study of 20 Danish lakes showed for the period 1989–2006 where
a surface water warming of ∼2 ◦ C and a cooling of deep water of ∼1 ◦ C were found [209].
The effect of the climate changes can be seen in [210] with respect to the Amazon and
La Plata basins and in [211] regarding the Yarlung Tsangpo-Brahmaputra River (YBR)
impacting assessed in China, India, Bhutan and Bangladesh, where in terms of RCP8.5
conditions, by 2035, the flow will increase by 12.9% (Bahadurabad, Bangladesh), 13.1%
(upper Brahmaputra outlet) and 19.9% (Nuxia, China) relatively to the 1980–2001 period.
In terms of precipitation trend due to climate change, the general guiding principle that, in
the subtropics dry areas become drier and in the mid to high latitudes wet areas become
wetter holds true [212], as seen in the transition to a more arid climate in Southwestern
North America and in the trend of wet seasons becoming wetter and dry seasons becoming
drier [213], and, in [16], climate caused changes in precipitation patterns have influenced
total amounts of rainfall and extreme events (droughts and floods). In a warm climate,
the anthropogenically caused increase in atmospheric water subject to precipitation leads
to an enhancement of either moisture convergence or divergence increasing variability
of precipitation water in a warmer climate enhances moisture convergence or divergence
during wet or dry years, consequently increasing precipitation variability [214,215].
Additionally, in [216] adverse climate change will lead to reduced water availability
in the countries that are already water scarce and to an increase in the variability with
which the water is delivered. Climate variability impacts are found for both blue and
green water and human water use affects regional climate [217], blue and green water
Water 2021, 13, 1693 13 of 51

resources under CMIP3 and CMIP5 models [218], blue water in the Athabasca River Basin,
Canada [219], groundwater [220], groundwater storage [221], river basins in the Western
USA [222], impacts on hydrology and water resources in the Blue Mountains, Oregon,
USA [223], in the making water resources in Phoenix, Arizona, vulnerable [224], and
observed streamflow, evaporation, drought trends and water resources in the USA [225].
Impact of soil moisture-climate feedbacks on CMIP5 projections are shown in [226] and
there is model agreement on forced response pattern of precipitation and temperature
extremes [227]. In addition, 25% of exorheic river basins run dry without reaching the
sea [228], and some are periodically dry, e.g., the Yellow river, the Colorado River, and
the Ganges river [61], this being usually attributable to irrigation water withdrawals and
associated evapotranspiration (ET) increases [229] due to aridity and semi-aridity [230].
As can be seen in [231], the most common climate type by land area is (14.2%, Hot
desert) followed by (11.5%, Tropical savannah) and in the Köppen-Geiger Maps for the
periods 1980–2016 and 2071–2100 there is a marked change in climate. At the same time
some regions are chronically more sensitive to water withdrawals and availability than
others [232], e.g., India, northern China, north and sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East,
and parts of Eastern Europe [233].
Besides flowing water, groundwater is climate influenced, as seen in [140] and in [234],
in the central high plains aquifer, in strategic mid-latitude aquifers (such as in the Central
Valley in California) and the aquifer beneath the upstream regions of the Indus River and
Ganges River in Northwestern India, among others [235], as well as in climate-induced
increase in pumping [236].
A closer look at some the world’s more indicative regions follows.

3.3.2. Europe
In the EU (2012), with a total area of 4.3 M km2 , river basins make up an area of
987,914.5 km2 (23% of total area) and suffer summer water stress. River basins with
an area of 460,521.9 km2 (10.7% of total area) suffer year-round water stress, while the
corresponding projections for 2030 are 1,934,998 km2 (45% of total area) and 1,288,885 km2
(30% of total area), respectively [237].
While climate variability impacts blue and green water fluxes in Europe [238], in terms
of RCM models, or otherwise, a rise in mean and extreme precipitation is projected for
Northern Europe, as seen in a climate change simulation for Europe [239]; this attributing
precipitation to changes in synoptic circulation [240], in an intercomparison of scenarios
from regional climate models [241], in an ensemble of regional climate simulations [242],
to an exploration of regional climate model projections [243], to human contribution and
precipitation extremes [244], while the 20th century showed a precipitation increase in
Northern Europe by 10–40% [245], and in an analysis of a high-resolution climate change
scenario [246], as well as in a high atmospheric river (AR) contribution to precipitation [247].
In the Mediterranean region of Europe, the converse is projected, a reduction in mean
precipitation with an increase in extreme values, as seen in an increase of extreme daily
rainfall in the Mediterranean, but a decrease in total values [248], increase in precipitation
in northern Europe and decrease in southern Europe is attributed to a poleward shift of
the North Atlantic storm track [249], and there is low atmospheric river (AR) contribution
of atmospheric rivers to precipitation in Southern Europe [247], which is confirmed by
the fact that the first empirical orthogonal function (EOF) with S-PC 1, explaining 12.8%
of total variance reflects the North-South contrast, which implies that oscillations are not
“well-related” to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index [250]. In fact, that the contrast
between the trends in Northern and Southern Europe may depend on the choice of index,
e.g., it is more diffuse for S95pTOT than for R95pTOT [251], in simulation using a regional
climate model [252], in regional climate simulations for Europe and the Alpine Region [253],
while total precipitation will decrease over most of the considered domain from a high
resolution double nested RCM simulation [254]. The effects of climate change can be
seen in [255] regarding Portugal, while, in Northern Europe, the picture of changes in
Water 2021, 13, 1693 14 of 51

extreme precipitation is approximately the same as that for the trend in total precipitation
amount, and in Southern Europe, the same happens in winter, albeit slightly wetter in other
seasons [256]. In [257], climate leads to a decrease in available water resources of >10 % in
Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. Climate variability alters partitioning between the
runoff sources and flow regimes in Swiss Rivers [258] and causes warmer summers to have
more green and less blue water in the Alps [259]. For the period of 1979–2009, monthly
precipitation trends of circulation changes seem to be of importance in Northern Europe in
February and December, explaining wetting trends in Northwestern Europe in July, while,
in the Mediterranean, February was dry relative to the rest of Europe [260].

3.3.3. Africa
Of particular interest is Africa in general, despite the fact that in Figure 6, water
scarcity is mainly attributed to economic scarcity, as precipitation is due to deep convection,
which is the result of a hydrodynamic instability in the troposphere [261], climate change
will amplify existing stress on water availability [262]. Its 2015 population of 1.19 billion has
a median projection of increasing to 1.68 billion people in 2030 (42% increase) [263], and the
problematic sub-Saharan region, in particular, with a 2015 population of 995.5 million [264]
and 2030 projection of 1.4 billion [265] (40% increase). In addition, climatic changes impact
river runoff, increase blue water demand. and increase the risk of shallow groundwater
contamination via intense rainfall [225]. Evaporative losses in the Zambezi are increas-
ing [266] and, in [257], climate leads to the decrease of available water resources by >10%
in Okavango and Limpopo in Southern Africa. In addition, the tropical mechanism is
such that if the air above the Indian Ocean boundary layer warms up it will impact Africa
by reducing the local precipitation, leading to hydrodynamic stability, which results in a
reduction in precipitation [267].
In general, the variability of interannual rainfall is high, as shown in [268], where the
Africa Rainfall and Temperature Evaluation System (ARTES) was employed, especially
in the Sahel region [269]; and a new concept had to be introduced, that of near-surface
storage, to address evaporation losses from rain falling on dry soil [270]. This was shown
in a study in Nigeria where, out of rainfall, only 12% becomes green water while 70%
evaporates without penetrating the soil to such a depth where it could become green
water [271]. Decreasing stream flows for rivers in Sudan and increasing discharge for those
in the Sahel were found in [272,273]. In terms of groundwater, the predictions are that
recharge will increase in Sahel and decrease in South-West Africa [274] and a review of
these estimations for the entire continent is presented in [275]. In [276], climatology, annual
cycle, and interannual variability of precipitation and temperature are simulated over West
Africa, and climate variability impacts are shown for west African rivers [277]. In [278],
Sahel, West Africa (WA) and Southern Africa (SA) are identified as CMIP5 type climate
change hotspots, and there is oceanic forcing of precipitation in the Sahel [279], as well as
that historical analysis predicts substantial drying over much of the Sahel and East Africa
during the primary growing season by the end of the century [264]. It should be noted that
there are about 80 river and lake basins in Africa, 21 of which are used by over 10 sovereign
states [280] and misuse of upstream water privileges could lead to an “water war”, a
conflict centered on water scarcity and trans-boundary water sources [280,281]. In general,
future trends lead to that Mediterranean Africa and the Northern Sahara will suffer a
decrease in annual rainfall, which will intensify at the Mediterranean coast and in southern
Africa’s winter rainfall region. It will increase in East Africa while the Sahel rainfall increase
will be balanced out by evaporation [282]. Regarding precipitation projections over the
Democratic Republic of Congo, changes in both frequency (RR1) and daily mean intensity
(SDII) lead to a tendency towards less frequent but more intense precipitation, while in
Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, RCMs project a robust decrease in both mean
precipitation and frequency (RR1), with a consequent increase in the number of consecutive
dry days (CDD), up to more than 12 days/season. In Somalia there will be an increase in
Water 2021, 13, 1693 15 of 51

annual and SON mean precipitation, together with an increase in both maximum daily
intensity (RX1 day) and frequency of extreme events (R10 mm) [283].

3.3.4. Asia
In [222], projected precipitation changes over the south Asian region for every 0.5 ◦ C
increase in global warming are shown. In [257], it is shown that climate leads to a decrease
in available water resources by >10 % in the Zhu Jiang catchment in southern China,
in [284], future rainfall events are likely to be more intense, leading to run-off water losses
and rivers in South Asia are likely to exhibit decreased summer flows (after an initial
increase) and increased winter flows, which leads to the necessity of increased storage
facilities. In [285], climate induced decrease in the summer monsoon rainfall in 2009
caused the most severe drought experienced in Southeast Asia since 1875, and exceptions
from normal years in terms of drier and wetter years, and records for the highest and
lowest temperature were observed around the globe during the 2000s. Climate variability
impacts on both blue and green water in the Upper Ganjiang river basin in China [286], the
Erhai Lake Basin of Southwest China [287], the Taihang Mountain Region, China, over the
past 60 years [288]. Flows under natural conditions in inland river basins in Northwest
China are covered in [289], blue water in India in [290], green and blue water over Asian
Monsoon Region in [291], and blue water from snow and glacial melt for Asian river basin
hydrology in [292]. In South Asia rainfall intensity has increased but the number of wet
days has been reduced [293]; thus, increasing blue water consumption. Under RCP4.5
and RCP8.5 scenarios, using an increase of 1.5–2.5◦ C, daily precipitation extremes could
increase by 4 to 6 times over India, while annual mean precipitation would be insignificant
at the 1.5 ◦ C level. Regarding Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka,
by the end of the twenty-first century the country-averaged annual mean precipitation
is projected to increase by 17.1% (2.2–49.1%), 18.9% (−4.9 to 72%), 27.3% (5.3–160.5%),
19.5% (−5.9 to 95.6%), 26.4% (6.4–159.7%), and 25.1% (−8.5 to 61.0%), correspondingly by
the end of the twenty-first century under the SSP5-8.5 scenario (uncertainties in parentheses
whose size speaks volumes) [294]. From the 50s to the early 2000s, Southern Vietnam,
the northern part of Myanmar and the Visayas and Luzon Islands in the Philippines see
heavy precipitation increases and northern Vietnam sees decreases [295]. Over South Asia,
extreme precipitation occurs mainly during the summer and autumn, accounting for more
than 40% of the total precipitation in winter over India and it occurs during all seasons
over Southeast Asia, exhibiting a decline in the autumn and a maximum in winter [296].
Aridity is expected to increase in Central Asia, along with high temperatures in summer
and fall, and decreased precipitation, particularly in the western regions of Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan [297]. A comparison of Asian precipitation between 1920’s
and 1990’s is shown bellow.

3.3.5. WANA Region and the “Arc of Crisis”

The Western Asia and North Africa (WANA) region (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Turkey, Cyprus, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran
and all countries in the Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan and Afghanistan), which is, in essence,
the IMF MENAP region [298], has the lowest per capita renewable water resources [299]
and includes, in part the “Arc of Crisis” (Somalia, Sudan and Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan
and Afghanistan) [300]. Leading to 2025 (base year 1995), the WANA region is expected
to continue over-pumping, with SMAWW (surface maximum allowed maximum water
withdrawal) and GMAWW (groundwater maximum allowed water withdrawal) increasing
at annual rates of 0.66% and 0.12% respectively, while population will increase by 66.1%,
GDP/capita by 88%, irrigated area by 18.4% and livestock production by 87%, all of which
influence water supply and demand [301]. Algeria has an estimated 30% rain deficit,
impacting watercourse flow regimes, siltation reduced dam storage capacity by 2 to 3%
per year and groundwater level dropped below 20 m [302]. Due to climate variability
the country’s center, west and some province of the east are the most vulnerable to the
Water 2021, 13, 1693 16 of 51

upcoming (2027) water resources deficit [303] while acute climate sensitivity is expressed
with a hydrological water stress index (HWSI) of 33.5 and a reversed water poverty index
(RWPI) of 47.9. The semiquantitative evaluation of temperature changes in absolute terms
(∆T ) are in the bracket 0.5 ◦ C < ∆T < 1 ◦ C [304] and all model simulations predict
expansion of the desert climate zone at the expense of both temperate and steppe climate
zones [305]. Somalia, taking into account annual average rainfall pattern, has a sub-humid
to desert climate, two rainy seasons and two dry seasons, and the climate is influenced
by an inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) and the Somali jet [306]. It has an estimated
available water of 14.7 km3 with an annual withdrawal rate of 3.3 km3 and water ownership
belongs to the private sector, where high prices are imposed [307]; there is a state of
perpetual armed conflict, and half the primary water sources are serviceable and 2.7 million
people are in need of humanitarian aid, which includes the need for water [280]. Yemen’s
water supply was about 1100 m3 /capita/year in the 1960’s, near the water poverty line;
by 1990 it dropped to 460 m3 /capita/year. Water gathering using standard fog collectors
(SFC) was tested in Hajja in 1989 and found to be promising [308]. By 2012, water supply
dropped further to 120 m3 /capita/year while the current national population growth
rate is about 3.5% annually and over two million Somali immigrants have been accepted
as refugees [309]. In Sana’a, Yemeni farmers increased water well depth by 50 m over a
12-year period, but despite this, the extracted water was diminished by 66.6% [300]; the
water table is declining in average by about 6–7 m annually due to groundwater over-
abstraction [310] and fresh water withdrawal/available freshwater resources was 170% in
2014. Egypt suffers from explosive population increase, from 90 million in 2015, going on
to 140 million in 2037 and 170 million in 2050 which correspond in Nile water/capita/year,
to 611 m3 /capita/year, 392 m3 /capita/year and 324 m3 /capita/year respectively [311].
The incoming volume of Nile water is constrained by treaties with Soudan [312] and by
the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), where filling the dam will disrupt the
flow into the Egyptian part of the Nile and the post-filling period might include a severe
multi-year drought [313]. Pollution is highly problematic [314] but the main long-term
dangers arise from climate interaction, seawater rise threatening the Nile Delta [315],
climate variations and change to the Nile in terms of climate and hydrology of the Upper
Blue Nile River [316], as well as impacts from climate change on Blue Nile flows [317], sea-
level rise and climate change impacts on the lower Nile delta [318], and, in the future, hot
and dry years will worsen Nile Basin water scarcity [319]. Increased water requirement due
to higher temperatures will occur as evaporation from the High Aswan Dam is over 10% of
the Nile flow [320]; an increase by 3–3.5 ◦ C may be manifested by 2060 [321,322]. Climate
change affects Arab countries [323] and the work in [257] shows that climate leads to the
decrease of available water resources by >10% in the catchments of the Euphrates/Tigris
in the Middle East, a decrease in Syrian precipitation from a combination of natural
variability and a long-term drying trend [324], while climate variability will impacts the
water resources of the Greater Zab River, Iraq [325]. In the cities of Riyadh, Jeddah, Mecca,
Medina, Al-Ahsa, Ta’if, Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Karaj, Tabriz, Shiraz, Qom, Ahvaz and
Baghdad a baseline water stress >80% is expected [326].

3.4. Action at a Distance

3.4.1. Climate Teleconnections
However, teleconnections, “statistically correlated climate-related patterns between
remote geographical regions of the globe” [327] or “a cause-and-effect chain that oper-
ates through several intermediate steps and leads to a linkage between two parts of a
system” [29], influence precipitation, as in the case of the upper Medjerda Basin [328],
the modulation of ENSO-precipitation teleconnection by the interdecadal pacific oscilla-
tion [329], across the combined North American, monsoon Asia, and Old World drought
atlases [330], predictability of winter precipitation in Southwestern US via interhemispheric
teleconnection [331], the case of water level regime of selected Polish lakes [332], the global
influence of the ENSO-Indian monsoon [333], and, therefore, it may be considered that
Water 2021, 13, 1693 17 of 51

part of local precipitation is indirectly “imported” or “curtailed” as a result of the imported

change of the conditions influencing its quantity. Precipitation-shed algorithms [334] lead
to the computation of teleconnectional spatial dependence for any specified rainfall portion
over any specified area. The most well-known case of influence via teleconnection across
the globe impacting at a regional scale is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) via
temperature on precipitation [335] and a quantification of the probability of the occurrence
below normal, near normal, and above normal values of precipitation and near-surface
temperature in relation to ENSO is presented in [336].
The distance of teleconnection influence may rise to thousands of kilometres e.g., Up-
per Blue Nile Basin rainfall and flows are influenced by the El Niño Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) as in link to the Blue Nile River Basin hydrology [337], climate teleconnections and
water management [338], summer rainfall over the source region of the Blue Nile [339],
influence on the natural variability of the Nile River [340], and on precipitation and surface
temperature over the Upper Blue Nile Region [341]. Influences extend to Caspian Sea level
variability [342], as well as the west and northwest of Iran, west coasts of the Caspian Sea
and the Southern Alborz Mountains [343]. They also extend to seasonal precipitation [344]
and summer climate in China [345], to Mediterranean precipitation variability [346], Euro-
pean winter precipitation anomalies [347]. The North Atlantic Oscillation Index (NAOI)
extends to Lake Windermere [348]. Additionally, the warming of the Indian Ocean is
expected to disrupt rainfall in Eastern and Southern Africa, increasing undernourishment
by 50% by 2030 [349]. Groundwater is subject to teleconnection influence such as in non-
stationary groundwater level response [350], groundwater level response in U.S. principal
aquifers [351], as well as climate forcings on groundwater resources of the USA’s West
Coast [352]. ENSO is also influenced by drought as in projections of future groundwater
drought [353], drought and climate teleconnection [354], in Iran [355], China [345], as well
as a series of droughts in the USA in 1988 [356], Further works address the turn of the
century [357], droughts in general [358], in mainland Southeast Asia [359], in Northern
Chile [360] and East African drought during rainy seasons [361]. Flood occurrence is influ-
enced as well shown by the 2010 Pakistan flood and the Russian heat wave [362], as well
as in Iran’s Kan River basin [363], in the Southern Great Plains [364], the Missouri River
Basin [365], the Yangtze River [366] and on a global level [367]. There is also extreme precip-
itation in North America [368], Central-Eastern China [369], over China in general [370], as
part of the ENSO asymmetric effect [371], and in Northern South America [372]. Extreme
precipitation relationships in the Mediterranean region exist [373], as well as variability of
extreme precipitation over Europe [374] and on variability analysis of extreme precipitation
in Turkey [375].

3.4.2. Evaporation and Moisture Import/Export

Based on work in [376,377] on the recycling ratio (RR) of the two-dimensional exten-
sion of the Budyko model [378], and its variants/extensions (also in [379] and a review of
models in [380]), the fraction of precipitation over a defined region that originated as evap-
oration from that same region led to an assay at the national level of evaporative sources
and sinks [381,382]. This was an estimation of how much precipitation was due to local and
non-local evaporation and the determination of the nationality of non-local evaporation
based on the classical equation, P = PL + PA , where the left side (P) is total precipitation
and the right side is the sum of precipitation originating from local evaporation (PL ) and
on advected evaporation (PA ). The method used was a quasi-isentropic back-trajectory
(QIBT) scheme [383,384] which was performed on global gridded precipitation data found
in [385] employing multiple tracers of atmospheric moisture [386], of which the paths
were calculated using reanalysed fields of winds and temperature from [387]. A list of
countries and their import-export properties are presented in [382] and a connection is
shown by the result that, under certain conditions, water vapor is exported from less humid
countries to more humid ones. Similar work was compiled for Central Europe, the Balkans
and Spain [388], Colombia [389], atmospheric rivers over the West Coast of the United
Water 2021, 13, 1693 18 of 51

States [390], for summer rainfall in the Southwest United States [391], in China [392], in the
connection of water sources and precipitation recycling in the MacKenzie, Mississippi, and
Amazon River basins [393], and in the Orinoco basin in Equatorial South America [394].
Terrestrial evaporation import/export, where in the case of import, advective pre-
cipitation is produced [395], is based on the notion of ‘precipitationshed’, “the upwind
atmosphere and upwind terrestrial land surface that contributes evaporation to a specific
location’s precipitation (e.g., rainfall)” [396]. This is a form of teleconnection which may
go down to smaller distances under particular conditions, which in essence is a land–sea
area, enclosing the source of terrestrial evaporation surrounding the sink which receives
the precipitation. Physically it is moisture recycling which returns via the atmosphere
as downwind precipitation [397]. Western Sahel, Northern China, and La Plata are con-
sidered to be sink regions dependent on land moisture imports [334]. Forty percent of
precipitation in certain Eastern Africa arid regions are connected to irrigation agriculture
in Asia [398] and influences precipitation in the Amazon Xingu Basin [399]. In addition,
19 out of a total of 29 megacities were found to be dependent, in excess of 33%, on the
precipitation shed mechanism for water, four megacities were already suffering from a
series of problems [400]. Karachi (also suffering from supply problem, contamination,
revenue recovery, industrial pollution and climate change), Shanghai (also suffering from
pollution, salt water intrusion, the influence of major hydraulic projects and flooding),
Wuhan and Chongqing (also suffering from pollution and wastewater treatment), were
found to be highly vulnerable to the land change of the source component [401].

3.5. The Direct Human Intervention Scarcity Driver

Another major water scarcity driver is direct human intervention (HI) (land use and
land cover change (LULCC) [402,403], man-made reservoirs for electricity generation, in-
crease of wealth and human water use due to population increase [404]), which increases
water scarcity for 8.8% (7.4–16.5%) of the global population, which is downstream but
decreases it for 8.3% (6.4–15.8%) of the global population which is upstream [405]. Human
intervention in terms of dams, due in part to increased surface evaporation [404], and water
withdrawals, is seen to be have a more powerful impact than the climate [406]. LULCC
also is directly related to population growth [407]. The anthropogenic greenhouse era
may have begun thousands of years in the past, and not 150 to 200 years ago during the
Industrial Revolution, as is the going hypothesis [408], and, in terms of net photosynthetic
accumulation of carbon by plants, which is defined as net primary production (NPP) con-
sumption, this has doubled in the 20th century [409]. This has led to a 31–32% consumption
of the total amount of NPP generated on land [410,411]. Also, in [412] for total 2009 NPP
prediction of 50.05 Pg C, an increase of +0.14 Pg C during the period 2000–2009. In [413],
human activity induced climate caused temperature increase, leading to water resource
reduction, which was the same in [414] and consequences are analysed in [415]. In 2016,
human water use via the consuming (producing) of primary and manufactured goods and
services from “primary crops and livestock”, “primary energy and minerals”, “processed
food and beverages”, “non-food manufactured products”, “electricity”, “commercial and
public services”, and “households” sectors accounted for 33% (91%), ∼0% (1%), 37% (<1%),
13% (1%), 1% (2%), 15% (3%), and 2% (2%) respectively, of the world’s total blue water
consumption [416]. In addition, according to the planet boundary theory, human impact is
amplified by its interaction with the Earth system [417].

3.5.1. Land Use and Land Cover Change

During the period 1700–1990, cropland increased from 2.6 × 106 km2 to 14.71 × 106 km2
(565% ↑) and pasture land increased from 5.24 × 106 km2 to 34.51 × 106 km2 (658% ↑ );
the world population went from 605.4 million to 5301.8 million (875% ↑) [418]. During
the period of 1700–1989, irrigated cropland went up from 0.08 × 106 km2 to 2 × 106 km2
(2500% ↑), grassland/pasture remained approximately the same, and during 1700–1983
forest/woodland dropped from 61.51 × 106 km2 to 52.37 × 106 km2 (14.86% ↓) [407].
Water 2021, 13, 1693 19 of 51

It should be pointed out that the availability of land resources and local natural con-
ditions [419] impose a nominal limit of a total cropland availability, in the range of
2.7 × 109 –3 × 109 ha [420,421], half of which is already cultivated [422]. Cropland ex-
pansion is virtually impossible without deforestation [423], a climate driven calculation
which places it in the region of 300 × 106 ha to 2050 [424].
Land use land cover change (LULCC) reshapes water provision [425], the resulting
deforestation raises the water table and, if the underlying layer is problematic, e.g., salty
as in the case of Australia, it results in soil destruction and, in general, it mediates the
trade-off of ecosystem services depictable in the three dimensional framework of (space,
time, reversibility) [426], in particular of freshwater ecosystem services (FES) as in the case
of Bangladesh, where long term reduction is traced to LULLC [427]. Moreover, deforesta-
tion reduces the flow of green water to the atmosphere, which increases the time needed
for moisture recycling. However this is balanced out by evaporation from compensating
increased irrigation demand [428]. LULCC is caused by biophysical constraints and poten-
tials, economic factors, social factors, irreversibility and uncertainty, spatial interaction and
neighbourhood characteristics and spatial policies at national and subnational level [429].
At a global scale, proximate LULCC drivers are agricultural expansion, urban growth, in-
frastructure development and mining, which are responsible for 80% of deforestation [430],
while, in another study for the period 1990–2008, 46% went for livestock pasture, 11% for
crops for animal feed, and the remaining 43% for agriculture [431]; at the global-continental
scale climate, freshwater availability and soil are the drivers behind land use patterns [432].
In addition, “land-grabbing” type investments are a cause of LULLC e.g., in Africa
there were 84 deals of 100,000 ha or more, out of 190 at a global scale, of which 2 deals in
Sudan and the Congo Republic exceeded 1,000,000 ha [433]. These diminish the availability
of blue water to others, since 18% of these (91,000 ha) require more than 50% of water
from blue water sources [434]. In the tropics, agriculture is the main driver [435], while
in developing countries commercial agriculture accounts for 40%, subsidence farming
for 33%, mining for 7%, urban expansion for 10%, and infrastructure for 10% [436]. Ad-
ditionally, the main drivers for deforestation in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea, in the
period of 2000–2009, were beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products [431]. LULCC affects
the climate via regional energy fluxes, impacting precipitation trends [437] and temper-
ature [438] and, hence, intervenes actively in the hydrological cycle [439]. Its impact on
climate is on local [440,441], regional [442] and global scale [443,444], may dampen or
enhance the impacts of increasing CO2 [445] with temperature consequences, is a main
cause of soil degradation [446], which may lead to increased LULLC, alters the plane-
tary boundary layer (PBL) structure by enhancing the vertical movement of air [447] and,
if the area is large enough, it affects remote areas’ rainfall via teleconnection. This is
shown in an assay of the influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the
climate system in [448], in hydro-climatological teleconnections resulting from tropical
deforestation [449] and the impacts river flows as well [450], reductions in run-off as in the
Guishui River Basin, China (where a 5% reduction was found) [451]. Land–atmosphere
coupling induces climate change in Europe [452]. In [453] during the 1953–2001 period,
expansion exceeding 5% significance in the areas of arid (4.2 × 105 km2 decade−1 ) and
continental climate (2.3 × 105 km2 decade−1 ) north of 55◦ N and shrinkage of polar climate
(−2.9 × 105 km2 decade−1 ) and continental climate (−3.2 × 105 km2 decade−1 ) south of
55◦ N was found. In non-Amazonian South America, where the environment is semi-arid
and the population is around 200 million, LULCC is already causing water stress and
reduced agricultural productivity as more than 3.6 million km2 (58% of their potential
natural vegetation) has been lost and may impact the Central Andes and Chilean Matorral
where a weaker hydrological cycle is projected along with increased risk of lower water
availability [454]. Similarly, in the Brahmaputra Basin, using a SWAT model with calibra-
tion parameters, such as surface runoff, groundwater, snow, ET, and the routing process for
the basin’s hydrology, it was found that a LULCC to agriculture scenario of 72% by 2070
Water 2021, 13, 1693 20 of 51

would shift precipitation from the monsoon months towards the winter, thus increasing
drought risk during early monsoon months [455]. In the case of the Jedeb mesoscale
catchment, Abay/Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia LULCC during 1973–2010 caused the
soil moisture condition parameters to follow a gradual decreasing trend, increasing surface
runoff in terms of high flow by 45% in the 1990–2000 decade while low flows decreased
by 15% in 1970–1980, 39% in 1980–1990, and up to 71% in 1990–2000 [456]. A study on
annual surface runoff and evapotranspiration was done, in the same general region, for
the drought prone watersheds of Kasiry (highland), Kecha (midland), and Sahi (lowland)
for 1982–2016/17, which showed runoff increases from 4% in Kecha to 28.7% in Kasiry
and evapotranspiration ranged from 15.8% in Kasiry to 32.8% in Kecha despite climate
variability induced evapotranspiration increase, ranging from 33.6% in Kecha to 42.1% in
Kasiry [457]. Global land cover annual maps for the period 1992–2015 are in [458].
Sub-Saharan Africa, during the period 1975–2000, showed (using a stratified sampling
strategy) a 57% increase in agriculture area, from 200 Mha to 340 Mha, at the cost of a 21%
loss of forest and non-forest natural vegetation per year; in total, 131 Mha and an increase
in barren land by 15% (6.5 Mha) [459].
However, climate (temperature) and precipitation sensitivity are an issue in LULLC
e.g., the southern provinces of Canada, northwestern and northcentral states of the the
United States, Northern Europe, the Southern Former Soviet Union and the Manchurian
plains of China, are temperature-sensitive while the Great Plains region of the United
States and Northeastern China are precipitation sensitive [460]. A strong relationship is
observed between temperature and LULLC in general and between rainfall and LULLC in
Southeast Asia in particular [461], where under RCP4.5 LULCC accounts for <10% of the
projected temperature rise, averaged over sub-regions, but at the local scale may account
for up to about 30% [462]. In South America, local impact of LULLC changes mesoscale
circulation patterns, increasing natural vegetation productivity by 10% in the northwest
and decreasing it in the southeast [463]. Sensitivities of surface temperature to LULLC,
which induce biophysical changes, are scale-dependent due to atmospheric feedbacks [464].

3.5.2. Population Growth

Water scarcity is also caused by high-population pressure under the conditions of
limited water availability [465], as according to the interpretation of the Ehrlich-Holdren
equation, I = PAT, where I is the negative impact on our life-support systems caused by
our species, P is the population size, A is consumption per capita and T is the measure
of the technology servicing and driving consumption [466] (p. 58) and holds true only
for a homogeneous country-wide study [467]. An increase in population is bound to
increase water consumption, and increasing demand for water in this way outbalances
the effects of global warming and is directly related to population growth [191]. In [6] it
is pointed out that population growth is responsible for the increase of both water and
agricultural production. Further, population is directly connected to climate, such as under
the condition of constant productivity and technology. In the long run, global temperature
is logarithmically related to population, if population growth is constant then temperature
may be linearly related to it [468], as well as to land human carrying capacity, defined
as “the maximum population that can be supported at a given living standard by the
interaction of any given human-ecological system” [469] (p. 121). A modern theory of
population dynamics takes into consideration agricultural production, the crop prod. Index,
and access to water, as seen in [470]. Notably, renewable internal freshwater resources
per capita (cubic meters) went from 13,403 in 1962 to 5933 in 2014 [471], a 55.73% drop,
while world population went from 3.125 billion in 1962 to 7.254 billion in 2014 [472], a
56.92% increase and water consumption went up from 1840 billion cubic meters in 1962 to
3990 billion cubic meters in 2014, a 53.7 % increase. This demonstrates a more or less linear
type relationship between renewable internal freshwater resources, which are shown to be
relatively constant, population and water consumption, which are demonstrably increasing.
MENA population went up from 138.47 million in 1962 to 417.9 million in 2014 [473], an
 bic meters) went from 13,403 in 1962 to 5933 in 2014 [471], a 55.73% drop, while world
population went from 3.125 billion in 1962 to 7.254 billion in 2014 [472], a 56.92% increase
and water consumption went up from 1840 billion cubic meters in 1962 to 3990 billion
cubic meters in 2014, a 53,7 % increase. This demonstrates a more or less linear type rela-
Water 2021, 13, 1693 tionship between renewable internal freshwater resources, which are shown to be 21 ofrela-
51
tively constant, population and water consumption, which are demonstrably increasing.
MENA population went up from 138.47 million in 1962 to 417.9 million in 2014 [473], an
increase
increaseofof201.7%,
201.7%,which
which is is expected
expected toto reach
reach 692
692 million
millionby by2050
2050[474].
[474].Water
Waterdemand
demand
will go up by 500% from 2010 levels [475], and this country set has
will go up by 500% from 2010 levels [475], and this country set has the highest regional the highest regional
deviation
deviationfrom
fromaverage
average annual
annual surface water availability
surface water availability(70%)(70%)and andwater
waterwithdrawals
withdrawalsasas
share
shareof
ofsurface
surfacewater
water availability (>80%), with
availability (>80%), with >80%
>80% of of total
totalwater
waterwithdrawals
withdrawalsgoing
goingtoto
agriculture
agriculture[476].
[476].Future
Futureprojections
projections are 9.2 billion
billion by
by 2050
2050[477],
[477],9.7
9.7billion
billionby
by2050
2050and and
10.9 billion by 2100 [478].
10.9 billion by 2100 [478]. It It should be pointed out that climate-induced migration
pointed out that climate-induced migration with with
major
majortriggers
triggersdrought
drought and
and desertification [479], e.g.,
desertification [479], e.g.,asasin
inthe
thecases
casesof ofBangladesh,
Bangladesh,Ghana,
Ghana,
Ethiopiaand
Ethiopia andSudan
Sudan[480],
[480], and
and also
also conflict, e.g.,
e.g., migrations
migrationsto toand
andfrom
fromSomalia
Somalia[481,482]
[481,482]
playsaarole
plays rolein
inpopulation
population distribution outside
outside the
thebirth-death
birth-deathactuarial
actuarialprojections.
projections.
Indicatively, from 1950 to 2010 the relationship between global populationand
Indicatively, from 1950 to 2010 the relationship between global population andwater
water
withdrawal is manifest, the difference in water for agriculture growth being ascribedtoto
withdrawal is manifest, the difference in water for agriculture growth being ascribed
intertemporallyincreased
intertemporally increased productivity,
productivity, as asseen
seenin inFigure
Figure9.9.

Figure 9. Global Population and Water Withdrawal 1900–2010 (modified from [483]).
Figure 9. Global Population and Water Withdrawal 1900–2010 (modified from [483]).
Regarding population statistics to date, Africa seems to be moving towards some
Regarding
hybrid form of population statistics to date,
Shared Socio-Economic Africa
Pathways seems
(SSPs) [3]to(p.be19),
moving towards
scenario some
SSP3 in hy-
terms
brid form of Shared
of population Socio-Economic
(comparatively Pathways (SSPs)
high population [3] to
growth), ([Link]
19),extent
scenario SSP3
that, in terms
by 2100, 40%of
of the world’s population will be in Africa [478] while the other continents are in a slow
variability mode or declining, e.g., Europe and Asia.
The relationship between water and population has been discussed and analyzed
extensively, e.g., by Falkenmark et al. The interconnection with inadequate amounts of
available water, deteriorating water quality, failures in food security, and land degradation,
as well as population exclusion due to climate, geography, soil type, latitude, and native
vegetation [465], water deficits that would remain in water scarce regions aiming at food
self- sufficiency, how those water deficits may be met by food imports and the cropland
expansion required in low income countries without the needed purchasing power for
such imports have been discussed in [484] and in [14,229]. More recent approaches are in
Wada [485], the U.N. 2018 Water Report [486] and its assessment by Boretti et al. [487] and
the 2019 U.N. Water Report [488].
As things stand and looking to the future, India and China, the main population
components of BRICs, which have stable and organized regimes and economies, may move
into the future somewhere between hybrid forms of SSP2 (moderate population growth)
Water 2021, 13, 1693 22 of 51

and SSP1 (low population growth) but Africa and MENA, do not seem to be destined to
continue on their present trajectories. Of great interest is the future of the ROW (Rest of the
World) countries, which are those that do not belong either to OECD or BRICs, as in 1962
they had a population of 579.6 million which grew by 2010 to 1290 million at an average
growth rate of 2.55% per year and have yet to be examined on a country-by-country basis
to start drawing conclusions.

4. Discussion
4.1. Problems with Definitions
Water is an economic good [1,2] and so are its main components, blue and green
water, and therefore, in any “supply–demand” definitions, as in the 2007 U.N. definition in
Section 3.1.3, the economic interpretation is on equal footing with any physical one as water
allocation, which may induce scarcity for agricultural use, is within the purview of central
economic policy, e.g., via use-dependent price discrimination. All definitions should be
explicitly limited to available water resources, as unavailability is usually accompanied by
incurring the cost of making water available, in terms of money, time and the environmental
impact of materials employed via their water footprint, which differentiates it from already
available water. The supply–demand approach, as in [47,72], where imbalance happens at
“prevailing prices” [79–81], is a bit nebulous as the automatic reaction of an open market
in the case of stakeholders (Figure 5) is to seek equilibrium at a higher product price,
traversing the stakeholder layers horizontally and/or in the market for alternative uses.
In fact, if after a bad season due to water scarcity agriculture adopts a growth pattern to
return to previous levels and is henceforth subject to uneven water scarcity, then prices
will rise in Baumol’s model [489].
In fact, the definition of water in the Dublin Water First Principle, “Water is a finite,
vulnerable and essential resource which should be managed in an integrated manner” leads
indirectly to that of a Global Public Good defined as “issues that are broadly conceived
as important to the international community, that for the most part cannot or will not be
adequately addressed by individual countries acting alone and that are defined through a
broad international consensus or a legitimate process of decision-making” [490]. Yet, this
broad international consensus is contrary to water rich sovereign country’s interests and
hence its materialization is highly improbable without counterbalancing conditions being
imposed to importers.
As Winpenny points out “There are degrees of scarcity” among which “need” is
included, the lower bound of the scarcity bandwidth, which has a dual interpretation,
that of actual physical need, which represents the closing of the gap between “what is”
and “what ought to be” from an objective point of view and that of “felt need”, which is
based on people’s subjective opinions and perceived trends and outlooks [491]. More to
the point is Beatty’s definition of need “the measurable discrepancy existing between a
present state of affairs and a desired state of affairs as asserted either by an “owner” of
need (“motivational need”) or an “authority” on need (“prescriptive need”) [492] while,
regarding consumers, Samuelson distinguishes between what people “really want and
need” [493] (p. 4) and particular attention should be paid to Thaler’s economic theory of
the consumer [494] and his position on perception of consumer utility maximization [495].
However, ‘need’ for humans, the water end users, then requires per capita quantification to
be defined, on a short-term basis, a medium-term basis and a long-term basis, where crops
production is included, as seen below and in [496], as well as in the case of disasters [497]
while Gleick et al [498] recommend 50 L/capita/day but include studies where the bare
minimum for survival is 1.8–5.0 L/capita/day. As can be seen below in Figure 10 short-,
medium- and long-term levels start from high quality drinking and cooking and end in
decreased quality crops production livestock and recreational use in gardens.
 defined, on a short-term basis, a medium-term basis and a long-term basis, where crops
production is included, as seen below and in [496], as well as in the case of disasters [497]
while Gleick et al [498] recommend 50 L/capita/day but include studies where the bare
minimum for survival is 1.8–5.0 L/capita/day. As can be seen below in Figure 10 short-,
Water 2021, 13, 1693 medium- and long-term levels start from high quality drinking and cooking and end in51
23 of
decreased quality crops production livestock and recreational use in gardens.

Figure
Figure 10.10. Short,
Short, medium
medium and
and long
long term
term levels
levels (modified
(modified from
from [499]).
[499]).

Morenarrow
More narrowtypes
typesofof water
water scarcity
scarcityexist
existe.g.,
e.g.,“managerial
“managerial scarcity” due
scarcity” to inadequate
due to inade-
management and maintenance of water resources leading to
quate management and maintenance of water resources leading to water scarcity water scarcity [500,501], “in-
stitutional scarcity” caused by lack of institutional capacity to maintain and
[500,501], “institutional scarcity” caused by lack of institutional capacity to maintain and manage water
resources
manage [502],
water or institutional
resources [502], or setting not flexible
institutional settingenough to accommodate
not flexible changes [503],
enough to accommodate
again leading
changes to water
[503], again scarcity
leading and “political
to water scarcity andscarcity” where
“political exclusion
scarcity” is politically
where exclusion isim-
posed or economic policies that lead to scarcity are politically motivated
politically imposed or economic policies that lead to scarcity are politically motivated [504].
[504]. Water use in terms of agriculture has peaks of demand during the growing season
andWater
is therefore
use in aterms
time of
dependent
agriculture event
has which
peaks ofin turn forces
demand demand
during and supply
the growing to be
season
time dependent as well and not static or averaged as most of the
and is therefore a time dependent event which in turn forces demand and supply to be scarcity definitions
indirectly imply.
time dependent as well and not static or averaged as most of the scarcity definitions indi-
Blue water is not separated into water available for use (70%) and water reserved for
rectly imply.
supporting ecology sustainability (30%), which, if taken as separate entities, would face
Blue water is not separated into water available for use (70%) and water reserved for
scarcity conditions separately without complementarity related balancing, but are treated
supporting ecology sustainability (30%), which, if taken as separate entities, would face
as one entity leading to the assumption that they have the exact same impact, which they
scarcity conditions separately without complementarity related balancing, but are treated
obviously do not. Moreover, there is no concept of a hierarchy of demand, set according to
as one entity leading to the assumption that they have the exact same impact, which they
globally recognized dangers, e.g., by setting the present and upcoming challenge of food
obviously do not. Moreover, there is no concept of a hierarchy of demand, set according
as a priority in terms of water scarcity.
to globally recognized dangers, e.g., by setting the present and upcoming challenge of
The 2007 U.N. definition does not cover the case where water scarcity may occur in
food as a priority in terms of water scarcity.
countries with the comparative advantage of low agricultural wages which are usually
The 2007 U.N. definition does not cover the case where water scarcity may occur in
facing an export-import/balance-of-payments problem and increased food imports, most
countries
of whichwith
withthe comparative
high virtual wateradvantage
content, of low agricultural
redeemable only bywages which of
the increase arecultivated
usually
facing an export-import/balance-of-payments problem
land and the corresponding increase in water consumption. and increased food imports, most
of which with high virtual water content, redeemable only by the increase
The existence of limits such as not using non-renewable water resources, or extending of cultivated
land and the corresponding
withdrawals increase inpart
beyond the renewable water consumption.
of those that are renewable, and the percentage
allocated to supporting ecology sustainability [505], while being physically correct are
within the purview of the economic policy of sovereign states, which, according to their
perception of need based primary objectives of their economic policy, may choose to directly
or indirectly ignore them.

4.2. Inequitable Availability

Resource availability is important and there exist methods, e.g., entropy-based assess-
ment [506] and indices [147], for its measurement, while in [507] blue water availability is
defined as total natural runoff net of 20% assigned to environmental flow requirements and
in [60] it is defined as total natural runoff plus groundwater, while in [55] the previous sum
is considered net of 30% assigned to environmental flow requirements. Green water avail-
ability is defined in [55] as total rainfall infiltration in agricultural land minus runoff from
this area multiplied by a reduction factor for minimum evaporation losses in agriculture
of 0.85. Further, there is a large number of applicative papers on blue and green water re-
sources availability as in Iran [508], in Africa [509], water resources availability is estimated
at HRU, river catchment and city/region scales in the Wei River basin, China [510], in an
Iranian data scarce watershed using SWAT [511], in the quantitative analysis of provision
Water 2021, 13, 1693 24 of 51

probability [152], county-based green water availability for the entire U.S. [512], under
climate change in the Beninese Basin of the Niger River Basin, West Africa [513], availability
under climate change scenarios in the Mékrou Basin, Benin [514] and blue water estimates
of current and future availability in Europe [515]. Availability indices for both blue and
green water are listed in [516]. Groundwater availability is difficult to determine as there
is bilateral flow connecting groundwater with blue water and the question of economic
feasibility comes into play [517], e.g., there is groundwater in North Africa that is expensive
to withdrawal from 150–200 m. boreholes, as pumps may be prohibitive for the prime
user group of smallholders, and cost 100,000 USD plus upkeep costs [518]. A regional
project may exceed 15 billion USD at 2012 purchasing power parity and levels [519] (while
the 2019 national debt/GDP ratio for Tunisia is 72.33%, Morocco 65.77%, Algeria 46.28%
and Libya is, in effect, a failed state), in the U.S. however, with a much healthier economy,
the average well depth, where well water accounts for >50% of farm irrigation and all of
it is pump extracted, is 72 m. [520]. Future projections for a 2 ◦ C global climate lead to
the conclusion that blue water will show increasingly uneven runoff distribution, which,
unless water storage infrastructure is increased, will turn into floods [521].

4.3. Inequitable Accessibility

One of the current key problems is inequitable accessibility to water stocks and flows,
as many flowing supply sources are sequestered from general dissemination for use due
to their adverse location, in terms of population or/and productive land distribution and
industry e.g., the Amazon, amounting to 16–20% of global runoff [522], has a 95% globally
inaccessible flow. The local population to which the water is available does not exceed
35 mil. and Zaire-Congo has 50%, both being exoreic rivers [523]. The adverse localization
of water resources extends to whole countries suffering from water deficit [524]; early
studies did not include in-country variations [32], while it seems to be centred in the belt
around 10◦ to 40◦ northern latitude [525] and, in addition, water availability is generally
considered to be highly variable over space and time [526]. This uneven spatial distribution
of water is manifest in the fact that South and Central Europe has 24–30% withdrawals,
while in Northern Europe it may be less than 3% [53]. By defining arid zones (hyperarid,
arid, semiarid and dry) as those where the rate of evaporation is greater than the rate of
precipitation, which have a long geographical history [527], it is found that they cover
41% of world landmass with a third of the world’s population [528], where 50% of the
world’s livestock is raised and 44% of the world’s food is cultivated, exclusive of water
demanding agricultural produce [529]. On the other hand, 60% of freshwater is located in
nine countries, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, India,
Indonesia, Russia (which owns, along with Mongolia, Lake Baikal containing 20% of global
unfrozen water [530,531]) and the U.S. [532], and these countries additively constitute
44% of world landmass with 50% of the world population [472]. Renewable resources
are concentrated in Brazil (8233 km3 ), Canada (2902 km3 ), China (2840 km3 ), Colombia
(2132 km3 ), India (1911 km3 ), Indonesia (2019 km3 ), Peru (1913 km3 ), Venezuela (1320 km3 ),
Russia (4508 km3 ) and the US (3069 km3 ) [533]. Still, these countries have internal arid
zones e.g., the Southwestern U.S. arid regions [534] and desert southwest [535]. Total
inaccessibility of rivers, including the Amazon, the Zaire-Congo and remote rivers of North
America and Eurasia which have no dams at all [536] lead to a totally inaccessible remote
flow of 7774 km3 /year, amounting to 19% of total global annual runoff [537]. Inadequate
accessibility can happen even in countries with plentiful available water as in the case of
Nepal [538].

4.4. Blue Water Loss

If blue water discharges from exoreic rivers into the ocean, control of its re-entry into
the land system is removed from the region it came from and passes on to the ocean water
evaporation system, which may redistribute it, in part or in whole, to other regions. Thus,
this may be considered to be a loss of blue water in the regional sense, only but not globally.
Water 2021, 13, 1693 25 of 51

In terms of coastal regions without any exoreic river input to the sea, land precipitation as
a function of distance drops at 300 km from the coast to 750 mm yr−1 from 1300 mm yr-1 at
the coast line [539], in a recent study, the numbers differed, by taking 1931–2010 average,
the decline is from a 50 km land coastal zone at 911.5 mm yr−1 to 727.2 mm yr−1 in the
100 to 150 km off-coast zone [540]. On the other hand, in the almost unique case of the
Amazon river, a simulation with and without Amazon discharge into the Atlantic leads
to the generation of an impact via teleconnections on the North American and European
climates by inducing a NAO phase change [541]. This verifies the initial statement of this
section but with an additional proviso. The 2010 Amazon drought was caused in part by
increasing Pacific Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of which the increase was triggered by
the low salinity Amazon plume itself, created by the river’s discharge into the ocean [542],
which may intensify El Niño Southern Oscillation events and, most importantly, associated
periodic Amazon droughts [543]. This last impact, in effect, describes a partially self-
reaction process caused by the discharge to sea, which is detrimental to the river flow,
itself enhancing the regional loss from the discharge. It should be noted that according
to an initial estimate, globally 37,288 ± 662 km3 /year of water amounting to 35% of
terrestrial rain are discharged from exorheic rivers into the sea [544] and in a latter one
45,500 km3 /year [545]. For the global ocean, minus the Arctic, this discharge shows small
or downward trends for the largest 200 rivers [546] while a study of the 50 top rivers shows
that 57.5% has a downward trend and 42.5% an upward trend, mainly due to climatic
conditions [547]. Average annual discharge of freshwater from six of the largest Eurasian
rivers to the Arctic Ocean has increased by 7% from 1936 to 1999 [548]. Additionally,
uncaptured floodwater amounts to 20,426 km3 /year [537,549] and extreme precipitation
leads to increased flood frequency [550]. Flood frequency is analysed by various, including
model analysis [551] which are compared in [552], estimation methods were applied in
Europe [553], uncertainties were examined in Norway [554] and in China [555], sensitivity
for data record, statistical model, and parameter estimation methods in the U.S. [556]
and at regional level for Mediterranean basins [557]. Climate change influences flood
frequency [558] and is accounted for quantitatively in flood frequency analysis [559]. This
is seen in, among others cases, Iran [560], the U.K. [561], the Yangtze basin, China [562]
and in the case of extreme floods in Finland [563].

4.5. Unevenly Distributed Precipitation

In addition, annual precipitation is unevenly spatially distributed and across seasons
leading to green water distortions, impacting agricultural production, as in smallholder
and subsistence agriculture [564], where atmospheric warming leads to the amplification of
precipitation extremes [198,565], as seen in trends in research on global climate change [566],
in changing climate inducing time-varying extreme rainfall intensity-duration-frequency
curves [567]. Also in China as Minjiang River annual and seasonal precipitation varia-
tion [568], in annual and daily extreme precipitation distribution trends over 1960–2010
in urban areas [569], in changes in precipitation patterns over Beijing over 1960–2012
(which is a 21.54 million ‘thermal island’) [570], annual/seasonal precipitation variation
in a mountain area [571], in Serbia as annual and seasonal variability of precipitation in
Vojvodina [572], 1961–1990 mapping of annual precipitation [573], in the impact of climatic
factors on maize yields [574]. Further, in Iran as in 1950–2000 rainfall trends [575], using
1950–2000 spatial and temporal variability of precipitation [576], annual and seasonal
distribution pattern of rainfall including neighbouring regions [577], in India as in trends
in the rainfall pattern over the whole country [578], uneven distributions overturn benefits
of higher precipitation for crop yields [579], changes in rainfall seasonality pattern over
the whole country [580], in Africa in 19th through the 21st century rainfall over the con-
tinent [581], and in Mexico as in disruptions in the timing and intensity of precipitation
in Calakmul [582]. This will extend to highly populated centres in one form or another,
e.g., in the U.S. such as in quantification of changes in future intensity-duration-frequency
curves [583]. Uneven precipitation, such as the one projected in India, in terms of fluctua-
Water 2021, 13, 1693 26 of 51

tions in water flows and changing monsoon patterns, leading to blue water waste due to
low levels of water storage capacity per capita [584].

4.6. Climate Uncertainty

Climate is defined in terms of the physics of its change and variability as “a forced,
dissipative, chaotic system that is out of equilibrium and whose complex natural variability
arises from the interplay of positive and negative feedbacks, instabilities and saturation
mechanisms” [585]. Climate change and variability uncertainty is a subject which has
not been attributed sufficient importance [586] in applicative studies and this uncertainty
is directly related to existing [587] hydrological uncertainty [588], such as in impacts on
the hydrological cycle over France with uncertainties taken into consideration [589] and
has a direct impact on water resources [590]. Those uncertainties are associated with
internal climate system variability and the hydrologic modelling itself [591], while climate
forcing uncertainty impacts on the variations of global and continental water balance com-
ponents [592] extending even into environmental flows e.g., for the Mekong River [593].
They are of great importance as the existence and size of uncertainty, distinguished into
uncertainty due to lack of knowledge regarding the changes and uncertainty due to vari-
ability [594], which is critically associated with risk assessments connected to instrumental
economic variables to which physical uncertainties must be transmitted in some way and
therefore their detailed and credible knowledge will enable at first instance to imbed some
flexibility in water infrastructure programs [595]. One opinion is that this transmission
can be manifested by changing decision rules and evaluation principles used for water
infrastructure project justification so that they are compatible with climate uncertainty [596].
However, climate uncertainly, along with all other main variables, is incorporated into
wider scenarios with distinctly different impacts, which are deterministically manifested
during lengthy periods, a fact that more or less precludes decision-making regarding
proactive long-term projects. Perhaps a promising approach is dynamic adaptive policy
pathways (DAPP) [597].
There are methods leading to the separation of deterministic and probabilistic com-
ponents of main variables [598] e.g., in the case of precipitation [599], in hydrologic time
series [600] and in general e.g., in the case of time series [601,602] but, in separate models,
they do not match the success of a hybrid model [602]. It should be noted that these
methods separate uncertainty from determinism, but they do not cause any reduction to it.
Added to the above is the case of for climate applicable [586,603–605] Knightian un-
certainties, “true uncertainties” indetectable under hindsight which are not reducible to
an “objective, quantitatively determined probability” [606] (p. 321). These are manifestly
transmitted through to any economic assessment process, in addition to entropic prefer-
ences [607], leading to the adoption of one-parameter Atkinson preference functions [608]
which may be problematic to the classic style Georgescu–Roegen entropy, linking climate
to economy [609].

4.7. Country Scale More Pertinent Than Global

At a global scale, resource economics is considered to be a thermodynamically closed
system where entropy increases or energy degrades [609,610] and so is the hydrological
cycle [611,612]. As seen in Section 3.5.2 3990 billion cubic meters of water were consumed
globally in 2014, a quantity which approaches the lower limit of the 4000–6000 billion cubic
m/year danger zone according to the planetary boundaries framework [613]. However,
this picture, taking into consideration that world population in 2014 was 7.2 billion [614],
yields an average per capita consumption correspondence which would have meaning if
population distribution and the subjects addressed in Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4,
Section 4.5 were equitably distributed, which is not the case.
Renewable freshwater resources per capita differ according to regions as can be seen
in Figure 11.
 bic m/year danger zone according to the planetary boundaries framework [613]. However,
this picture, taking into consideration that world population in 2014 was 7.2 billion [614],
yields an average per capita consumption correspondence which would have meaning if
population distribution and the subjects addressed in sections 4.2–4.5 were equitably dis-
tributed, which is not the case.
Water 2021, 13, 1693 27 of 51
Renewable freshwater resources per capita differ according to regions as can be seen
in Figure 11.

Figure 11.
Figure Renewable freshwater
11. Renewable freshwater per
per region
region 2015
2015 (modified
(modified from
from [615]).
[615]).

On the other hand, both resource economics, dictated by the sovereign state’s economic
On the other hand, both resource economics, dictated by the sovereign state’s eco-
policy, and the hydrological cycle are open systems at country level and consequently the
nomic policy, and the hydrological cycle are open systems at country level and conse-
degrees of water scarcity differ as well. In this case, as can be seen at country level in
quently the degrees of water scarcity differ as well. In this case, as can be seen at country
Figure 19 below, the notion of relative scarcity pioneered by Faber [616], defined in terms
level in Fig. 19 below, the notion of relative scarcity pioneered by Faber [616], defined in
of quantity over available water resources as “a good is scarce in relation to other scarce
terms of quantity over available water resources as “a good is scarce in relation to other
goods” [617], plays a role which cannot manifest itself in a credible way at a global scale
scarce goods” [617], plays a role which cannot manifest itself in a credible way at a global
due to inequitable availability of resources. In the case of transnationally shared resources
scale due to inequitable availability of resources. In the case of transnationally shared re-
a case study of the Aral Sea [618] shows equal probability of conflict and cooperation, a
sources a case study of the Aral Sea [618] shows equal probability of conflict and cooper-
matter not taken into account at global scale statistics and as a general problem it is still in
ation,
the phasea matter not takenainto
of suggesting account
viable at global
solution scale statistics and as a general problem it
[619–621].
is stillThe
in the phase of suggesting a viable solution [619–621].
summary legal construct of international treaties and U.N. decisions regarding the
prevention of water scarcity have no “teeth” as transgressor countries are not penalized in
any meaningful way while supervision has only a fact-finding mandate. In reality there is
no global organization with the power to enforce any of the above and assume responsibility
for the results of these decisions which in essence means that in the applicative phase in
the immortal words of U.K. Supreme Court Judge Thurlow, “ . . . has no soul to be damned
and no body to be kicked” just like a corporation [622] hold true.
Increased population and low GDP lead to a tipping point, regardless of perceived
estimation water resources being ample [623] while conversely the water footprint expands
with higher GDP [624]. The point of view where microscale precedes mesoscale is also
supported by Falkenmark [77]. A list of country rankings regarding water risk is found at
Aqueduct [625].
In Figure 12 it is shown that most countries belonging to the set with available data
are in states ranging from low-to-medium stress to extremely high stress.
At the country level, in the common case of a water market subject to “institutional
arrangements”, we enter into the realm of state economic policy where restrictions are
imposed while the central government budget might cover, at least in part, the reallocation
cost as the economy will suffer from the trade deficit incurred by virtual water imports, as
seen in an 160 country study over the period 1982–2007, where drought events increase net
global virtual water flows by 5 × 109 m3 yr−1 to 6.34 × 109 m3 yr−1 while each additional
square kilometer of agricultural land area reduces net virtual water import by 10,620 to
18,419 m3 [626], a 2010 estimate leads to that international trade reduces global water use
in agriculture by 5% [627], while in some Mediterranean countries, a reduction of 1% of
agricultural productivity corresponds to imports of 233 million cubic meters of virtual
 The summary legal construct of international treaties and U.N. decisions regarding
the prevention of water scarcity have no “teeth” as transgressor countries are not penal-
ized in any meaningful way while supervision has only a fact-finding mandate. In reality
there is no global organization with the power to enforce any of the above and assume
Water 2021, 13, 1693 responsibility for the results of these decisions which in essence means that in the applic- 28 of 51
ative phase in the immortal words of U.K. Supreme Court Judge Thurlow, “…has no soul
to be damned and no body to be kicked” just like a corporation [622] hold true.
water Increased population
[628]. However, andwater
virtual low GDP lead to a tipping
import/export balancepoint, regardless
may not of perceived
correspond to water
estimation water resources being ample [623] while conversely the water footprint
scarcity only, case in point being the grain import-export balance in Spain in the 1997–2005 ex-
pands with higher GDP [624]. The point of view where microscale precedes
period [629], a country whose south-eastern part is semi-arid [630] and water scarcity mesoscale is
also supported by Falkenmark [77]. A list of country rankings regarding
appears every 5–6 years [631]. Quite importantly, virtual water introduces a hitherto water risk is
found
unknownat Aqueduct
and hence[625].
Knightian type variable [606], the “virtual water cycle” variable [632].
All these quantifiable shown
In Figure 12 it is that
additions onmost countrieseconomic
instrumental belongingvariables
to the set with pass
would available
unseendataat
are in states ranging from
a position over country [Link]-to-medium stress to extremely high stress.

Figure 12.
Figure Freshwater withdrawals
12. Freshwater withdrawals as
as aa share
share of
of internal
internal resources
resources (modified
(modified from
from [615]).
[615]).

Thus, the country-by-country depiction which shows anisotropy allows for direct
At the country level, in the common case of a water market subject to “institutional
economic assessment in the spirit described in the Methodology section while the global
arrangements”, we enter into the realm of state economic policy where restrictions are
statistical picture does not.
imposed while the central government budget might cover, at least in part, the realloca-
tion cost as the economy will suffer from the trade deficit incurred by virtual water im-
5. Conclusions
ports, as seen in an 160 country study over the period 1982–2007, where drought events
The objective of this paper was analysed in seven stages, using a substantial number
increase net global virtual water flows by 5 × 109 m3 yr−1 to 6.34 × 109 m3 yr−1 while each
of references which enabled the decomposition of general and theoretical definitions and
additional square kilometer of agricultural land area reduces net virtual water import by
physical variables into their economically important facets, which were firmly anchored
10,620 to18,419
temporally, m3 [626],
spatially, and ain2010
terms estimate
of scale,leads to that
through international
the use trade reduces
of a large number global
of referenced
water use in agriculture by 5% [627], while in some Mediterranean countries,
incidents. Particular care was demonstrated in focusing on present and future problems a reduction
of 1% of agricultural
stemming either fromproductivity corresponds
external conditions to imports
or from of 233structures
the internal million cubic
of themeters of
theories
virtual water [628]. However, virtual water import/export balance may not
which must be carried over to a faithful economic assessment of the scarcity phenomenon. correspond to
waterDifficulties
scarcity only,
emergecaseininthe
point being
matter the grain import-export
of associating physical blue andbalance
greeninwater
Spainscarcity
in the
1997–2005 period [629], a country whose south-eastern part is semi-arid
to the instrumental variables causing it. The first is the set of definitions describing[630] and water
the
scarcity
physicalappears every 5–6
phenomenon years [631].
of scarcity whichQuite
wasimportantly,
analysed invirtual waterThe
this paper. introduces a hith-
definitions are
erto unknown
too broad to beand hence Knightian
meaningfully type
carried overvariable [606], the
to a realistic “virtualmodel
economic water and
cycle”
thevariable
lack of
distinction between “want” and “need” causes problems of economic interpretation. The
second one is that these variables are interdependent to some degree via the physical theory
of which they are part without a clear formal and theoretical quantitative and qualitive
analysis of this interdependence, which causes problems in the economic depiction of
scarcity in a process of economic reverse engineering seeking causal connection i.e., the
case where one seeks to depict in economic terms any form of relational correspondence
between a set of scarcity causing variables in the process of triggering scarcity and scarcity
itself. This difficulty is quite important as it presents impediments to any economic theory
Water 2021, 13, 1693 29 of 51

from going down to the basic platform underlying this type of scarcity and linking global
variables to scaled down instances in a seamless unified form as scaling down introduces
new variables which operate at the particular level of scale and have no global existence,
which perhaps has a solution by assuming the existence of a set of variables which at global
level may appear as noise or Knightian variables but as downscaling occurs they acquire a
concrete form allowing for a hybrid deterministic/uncertainty depiction. The third is the
fact that country level climate uncertainty or causality has no clear picture which impedes
correspondence between physical and economic uncertainly, the latter leading to economic
risk, which was analysed extensively in this paper.
From the physical point of view the emerging picture is bleak but then the incident
instances reported and the interrelationship of the main variables are commensurate with
this point of view, and if one digs deeper there is a chain of too many beneficial constraints
assumed to be viable with a high degree of certainty and as many uncertainties not taken
into consideration.
However, by assuming the country level water scarcity to be the dominant building
block more targeted measurements at country level leading to a structured component
picture at regional level will allow for statistical analysis, including maximum application
of causality tests, which will clarify the empirical interdependence of physical scarcity
causing variables and allow for establishing a clear-cut correspondence with economic
instrumental variables.

6. Future Work
The next steps are the examination of economic scarcity in the way adopted in this
paper and an economic model which ties both physical and economic scarcity with the
main instrumental variables of a national economy.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.Z. and D.P.; methodology, K.Z. and D.P.; validation,
K.Z. and D.P.; formal analysis, K.Z. and D.P.; investigation, K.Z. and D.P.; resources, K.Z. and D.P.;
data curation, K.Z. and D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.Z. and D.P.; writing—review
and editing, K.Z. and D.P.; visualization, K.Z. and D.P.; supervision, D.P.; All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. ICWE. The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the ICWE (International Conference on
Water and the Environment), Dublin, Ireland, 26–31 January 1992; p. 55.
2. U.N. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. In Proceedings of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992; Volume l, p. 492.
3. Mauss, M. Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. In Sociologie et Anthropologie; Mauss, M.,
Ed.; Quadrige/Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 1950; pp. 145–279.
4. Schellens, M.K.; Gisladottir, J. Critical natural resources: Challenging the current discourse and proposal for a holistic definition.
Resources 2018, 7, 79. [CrossRef]
5. Mancini, L.; Benini, L.; Sala, S. Characterization of raw materials based on supply risk indicators for Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 2018, 23, 726–738. [CrossRef]
6. PBL. The Geography of Future Water Challenges; Dutch Government: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2018.
7. World Economic Forum. Global Risks 2015, 10th ed.; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
8. Veldkamp, T.I.E.; Wada, Y.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Ward, P.J. Towards a global water scarcity risk assessment framework: Incorporation of
probability distributions and hydro-climatic variability. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 024006. [CrossRef]
9. Orr, S.; Cartwright, A.; Tickner, D. Understanding Water Risks; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2009.
10. Hillel, D. Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Soil; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1992.
Water 2021, 13, 1693 30 of 51

11. Wrathall, D.J.; Van Den Hoek, J.; Walters, A.; Devenish, A. Water Stress and Human Migration: A Global, Georeferenced Review of
Empirical Research; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018.
12. Nagabhatla, N.; Pouramin, P.; Brahmbhatt, R.; Fioret, C.; Glickman, T.; Newbold, K.B.; Smakhtin, V. Water and Migration: A Global
Overview; United Nations University, Institute for Environmrnt, Water and Health: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2020.
13. Reisner, M. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water; Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
14. Falkenmark, M. Meeting water requirements of an expanding world population. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 1997, 352,
929–936. [CrossRef]
15. Portmann, F.T.; Döll, P.; Eisner, S.; Flörke, M. Impact of climate change on renewable groundwater resources: Assessing the
benefits of avoided greenhouse gas emissions using selected CMIP5 climate projections. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 024023.
[CrossRef]
16. Jiménez Cisneros, B.E.; Oki, T.; Arnell, N.W.; Benito, G.; Cogley, J.G.; Döll, P.; Jiang, T.; Mwakalila, S.S. “Freshwater resources,” in
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J.,
Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 229–269.
17. Garrick, D.E.; Hanemann, M.; Hepburn, C. Rethinking the economics of water: An assessment. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2020, 36,
1–23. [CrossRef]
18. Seckler, D.; Amarasinghe, U.; Molden, D.; de Silva, R.; Barker, R. World Water Demand And Supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and
Issues; In-ternational Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI): Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1998.
19. Postel, S.L. Water and world population growth. Am. Water Work. Assoc. 2000, 92, 131–138. [CrossRef]
20. Falkenmark, M. Growing water scarcity in agriculture: Future challenge to global water security. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci. 2013, 371, 20120410. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Ma, T.; Sun, S.; Fu, G.; Hall, J.W.; Ni, Y.; He, L.; Yi, J.; Zhao, N.; Du, Y.; Pei, T.; et al. Pollution exacerbates China’s water scarcity
and its regional inequality. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–9. [CrossRef]
22. Walker, G. Water scarcity in England and Wales as a failure of (meta) governance. Water Altern. 2014, 7, 388–413.
23. Partain, R.A. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy Is a Green Paradox Spectre Haunting International Climate Change
Laws and Conventions? UCLA J. Environ. Law Policy 2015, 33, 62–131.
24. Chakkaravarthy, D.N.; Balakrishnan, T. Water Scarcity- Challenging the Future. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 2019, 12, 1–9.
[CrossRef]
25. Kaushal, S.S.; Gold, A.J.; Mayer, P.M. Land use, climate, and water resources-global stages of interaction. Water 2017, 9, 815.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Rijsberman, F.R. Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 5–22. [CrossRef]
27. Morrison, J.; Morikawa, M.; Murphy, M.; Schulte, P. Water Scarcity & Climate Change: Growing Risks for Businesses and Investors;
Pacific Institute: Oakland, CA, USA, 2009.
28. FAO. Understanding Water Scarcity FAO. 2020. Physical Water Scarcity Occurs When Water to Meet All Demands. Economic
Water Scarcity Is Caused, Places where Water Is Abundant. Available online: [Link]
infographics-details/en/c/218939/# (accessed on 21 February 2021).
29. Alcamo, J.M.; Vörösmarty, C.J.; Naiman, R.J.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Pahl-Wostl, C. A grand challenge for freshwater research:
Understanding the global water system. Environ. Res. Lett. 2008, 3, 010202. [CrossRef]
30. Ahopelto, L.; Veijalainen, N.; Guillaume, J.; Keskinen, M.; Marttunen, M.; Varis, O. Can There be Water Scarcity with Abundance
of Water? Analyzing Water Stress during a Severe Drought in Finland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1548. [CrossRef]
31. Nairizi, S. (Ed.) Irrigated Agriculture Development under Drought and Water Scarcity. 2017. Available online: [Link]
org/drought_pub2017.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2021).
32. Seckler, D.; Barker, R.; Amarasinghe, U. Water scarcity in the twenty-first century. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1999, 15, 29–42.
[CrossRef]
33. Molden, D. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; Earthscan/International
Water Management Institute: London, UK, 2007.
34. Comprehensive Management in Agriculture, FAO: Land and Water 2007. Available online: [Link]
resources/graphs-and-maps/en/ (accessed on 21 February 2021).
35. Jury, W.A.; Vaux, H. The role ofscience in solving the world’s emerging water problems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102,
15715–15720. [CrossRef]
36. Salameh, E. Water Shortages and Environmental Degradation. In Living with Water Scarcity; Baban, J.M.J., Al-Ansani, N.A., Eds.;
Al al-Bayt University Publications: Mafraq, Jordan, 2001; pp. 1–17.
37. Freeze, A.R.; Cherry, J.A. Groundwater; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1979; Volume 5.
38. USGS. What Is Groundwater? USGS: Reston, Virginia, 2019.
39. Watkins, K. Human Development Report 2005–2006 beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis; Palgrave Mac-Millan:
London, UK, 2006.
Water 2021, 13, 1693 31 of 51

40. Elliott, J.; Deryng, D.; Müller, C.; Frieler, K.; Konzmann, M.; Gerten, D.; Glotter, M.; Flörke, M.; Wada, Y.; Best, N. Constraints and
po-tentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2014, 111, 3239–3244. [CrossRef]
41. Water Scarcity Drafting Group. Water Scarcity Management in the Context of WFD 2006; Water Scarcity Drafting Group: Brussels,
Belgium, 2006.
42. Brown, A.; Matlock, M.D. A Review of Water Scarcity Indices and Methodologies; The Sustainability Consortium: Scottsdale, Arizona,
2011; p. 106.
43. Liu, J.; Hong, J.; Gosling, S.; Kummu, M.; Flörke, M.; Pfister, S.; Hanasaki, N.; Wada, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, C.; et al. Water scarcity
assessments in the past, present, and future. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 545–559. [CrossRef]
44. Muller, M. Water accounting, corporate sustainability and the public interest. In Water Accounting International Approaches to Policy
and Decision-Making, 1st ed.; Monograph Book; Godfrey, J.M., Chalmers, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK,
2012; pp. 203–220.
45. Wada, Y.; Bierkens, M.F.P. Sustainability of global water use: Past reconstruction and future projections. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014,
9, 104003. [CrossRef]
46. Sood, A.; Prathapar, S.; Smakhtin, V. Green and Blue Water. In Key Concepts in Water Resource Management: A Review and Critical
Evaluation; Lautze, J., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.
47. Lazarovitch, N.; Vanderborght, J.; Jin, Y. The Root Zone: Soil Physics and Beyond. Vadose Zone J. 2018, 17, 1–7. [CrossRef]
48. Falkenmark, M. Land-water linkages: A synopsis. Land and Water Integration and River Basin Management. FAO Land Water
Bull. 1995, 1, 15–16.
49. Falkenmark, M.; Rockström, J. The new blue and green water paradigm: Breaking new ground for water resources planning and
management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2006, 132, 129–132. [CrossRef]
50. Mohtar, R.H.; Assi, A.T.; Daher, B.T. Bridging the Water and Food Gap: The Role of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus. Unu-Flores
2015, 5, 1–31.
51. Wu, H.T. Research on Assessment and Management of Green Water. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2008, 18, 61–67.
52. Falkenmark, M.; Rockstrom, J. Balancing Water for Humans and Nature: The New Approach in Ecohydrology; Routledge: London,
UK, 2004.
53. Gleick, P.H. Water use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2003, 28, 275–314. [CrossRef]
54. Shiklomanov, I.A. World fresh water resources. In Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources; Gleick, P.H., Ed.;
Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 13–24.
55. Rockström, J.; Falkenmark, M.; Karlberg, L.; Hoff, H.; Rost, S.; Gerten, D. Future water availability for global food production:
The potential of green water for increasing resilience to global change. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, 1–16. [CrossRef]
56. Halstead, M.; Kober, T.; Zwaan, B.C.C. Understanding the Energy-Water Nexus; Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands: Petten,
The Netherlands, 2014.
57. Munia, H.; Guillaume, J.H.A.; Mirumachi, N.; Porkka, M.; Wada, Y.; Kummu, M. Water stress in global transboundary river
basins: Significance of upstream water use on downstream stress. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 014002. [CrossRef]
58. Rosa, L.; Chiarelli, D.D.; Rulli, M.C.; Dell’Angelo, J.; D’Odorico, P. Global agricultural economic water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6,
1–11. [CrossRef]
59. Gerten, D.; Hoff, H.; Bondeau, A.; Lucht, W.; Smith, P.; Zaehle, S. Contemporary ‘green’ water flows: Simulations with a dynamic
global vegetation and water balance model. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A B C 2005, 30, 334–338. [CrossRef]
60. Rost, S.; Gerten, D.; Bondeau, A.; Lucht, W.; Rohwer, J.; Schaphoff, S. Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its
influence on the global water system. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 1–17. [CrossRef]
61. Postel, S.L. Entering an Era of Water Scarcity: The Challenges Ahead. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 941–948. [CrossRef]
62. OECD. Thematic Working Group 1: Stakeholder Engagement for Effective Water Governance; OECD: Paris, France, 2014.
63. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Approach—A Stakeholder Approach; Pittman Publishing: London, UK, 1984.
64. Newcombe, R. From client to project stakeholders: A stakeholder mapping approach. A Festschrift for Professor Syd Urry. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 2003, 21, 841–848, 1925–1999. [CrossRef]
65. Cleland, D.I.; Ireland, L.R. Project Management Strategic Design and Implementation, 4th ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
66. Howe, C.W. The Effects of Water Resource Development on Economic Growth: The Conditions for Success. Nat. Resour. J. 1976,
16, 939–955.
67. AQUASTAT. Water Use: Thematic Structure FAO’s Global Information System on Water and Agriculture. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 22 February 2021).
68. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Water Use and Stress, Our World in Data. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 22 February 2021).
69. Feige, E.L.; Blau, D.M. The Economics of Natural Resource Scarcity and Implications for Development Policy and International
Cooperation. In Resources and Development: Natural Resource Polices and Economic Development in an Interdependent World; Dorner, P.,
El-Shafie, M.A., Eds.; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1980.
70. Winpenny, J.T. Managing Water Scarcity for Water Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1997.
Water 2021, 13, 1693 32 of 51

71. Applegreen, B. Appendix 3: Keynote paper—Management of water scarcity: National water policy reform in relation to
regional development cooperation. In Proceedings of the First FAO E-Mail Conference on Managing Water Scarcity, Rome, Italy,
4 March–9 April 1997.
72. U.N. Water, a Shared Responsibility: The United Nations World Water Development Report 2 (WWDR 2); U.N.: New York, NY,
USA, 2007.
73. FAO. Coping with Water Scarcity an Action Framework for Agriculture and Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012.
74. FAO. Review of World Water Resources by Country; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2003.
75. Xu, H.; Wu, M. Water Availability Indices—A Literature Review; Technical Report; Argonne National Laboratory: Illinois, IL,
USA, 2017.
76. Cosgrove, P. Water for Growth and Security. In Water Crisis: Myth or Reality? Marcelino Botin Water Forum 2004; Taylor & Francis:
Leyden, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 37–42.
77. Falkenmark, M.; Lundqvist, J.; Widstrand, C. Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale approaches: Aspects of vulnerability
in semi-arid development. Nat. Resour. Forum 1989, 13, 258–267. [CrossRef]
78. The Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Eur. Comm. DG Environ., Addressing the Challenge of Water Scarcity and
Droughts in the European Union; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2007; p. 14.
79. Postel, S. Pillar of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last? W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
80. Bruinsma, J. The resource outlook to 2050: By how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050? In Expert
Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Economic and Social Development
Department; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009; pp. 24–26.
81. Hoff, H.; Falkenmark, M.; Gerten, D.; Gordon, L.; Karlberg, L.; Rockström, J. Greening the global water system. J. Hydrol. 2010,
384, 177–186. [CrossRef]
82. Bhat, T.A. An Analysis of Demand and Supply of Water in India. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 4, 67–73.
83. Abhay, R.K. Measurement of Water Scarcity. In Spatial Diversity and Dynamics in Resources and Urban Development Volume 1:
Regional Resources; Dutt, A.K., Noble, A.G., Costa, F.J., Thakur, S.K., Thakur, R.R., Sharma, H.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2015; pp. 277–296.
84. LMehta, L.; Marshall, S.; Movik, S.; Stirling, A.; Shah, E.; Smith, A.; Thompson, J. Liquid Dynamics: Challenges for Sustainability in
Water and Sanitation; STEPS Centre: Brighton, UK, 2007; p. 6.
85. Keller, A.; Sakthivadivel, R.; Seckler, D. Water Scarcity and the Role of Storage in Development; International Water Management
Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2000.
86. Damkjaer, S.; Taylor, R. The measurement of water scarcity: Defining a meaningful indicator. Ambio 2017, 46, 513–531. [CrossRef]
87. Hussain, F.; Khoso, S. Water Shortage; Its Causes, Impacts and Remedial Measures. In Proceedings of the 6th International Civil
Engineering Congress, Karachi, Pakistan, 28 December 2013; pp. 1–6.
88. Molden, D.; Oweis, T.Y.; Pasquale, S.; Kijne, J.W.; Hanjra, M.A.; Bindraban, P.S.; Bouman, B.A.M.; Cook, S.; Erenstein, O.;
Farahani, H. et al. Pathways for increasing agricultural water productivity. In Water for Food, Water for Life. A Comprehensive
Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; Molden, D., Ed.; Earthscan-International Water Management Institute: London,
UK, 2007; pp. 279–310.
89. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 3232–3237. [CrossRef]
90. Ramankutty, N.; Evan, A.T.; Monfreda, C.; Foley, J.A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands
in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2008, 22, 1–19. [CrossRef]
91. Zhongwei, H.; Hejazi, M.; Tang, Q.; Vernon, C.; Liu, Y.; Chen, M.; Calvin, K. Global agricultural green and blue water consumption
under future climate and land use changes. J. Hydrol. 2019, 574, 242–256.
92. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E.; Raes, D. Crop Yield Response to Water; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; p. 66.
93. Goldewijk, K.K.; Beusen, A.; van Drecht, G.; de Vos, M. The HYDE 3. 1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global
land-use change over the past 12,000 years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2010, 20, 73–86. [CrossRef]
94. World Bank. Agricultural Land, Total 2015. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 21 April 2021).
95. Allan, J.A. Policy responses to the closure of water resources: Regional and global issues in Water policy: Allocation and
management in practice. In Proceedings of the International Conference, Bedford, UK, 23–24 September 1996; p. 384.
96. Aldaya, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Allan, J.A. Strategic Importance of Green Water in iinterntational Crop Trade; UNESCO-IHE: Delft, The
Netherlands, 2008.
97. Leamer, E.E. The Heckscher-Ohlin Model in Theory and Practice; Princeton Study No 77; Princeton University: Princeton, NJ,
USA, 1995.
98. Postel, S. Dividing the Waters: Food Security, Ecosystem Health, and the New Politics of Scarcity; Worldwatch Institute: Washington,
DC, USA, 1996; p. 132.
99. Gleick, P.H. Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science 2003, 302, 1524–1528. [CrossRef]
100. Rijsberman, F. Troubled water, water troubles: Overcoming an important constraint to food security. In Proceedings of the
Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020, An International Conference, Bonn, Germany, 4–6 September 2001; pp. 141–144.
101. Lenzen, M.; Moran, D.; Bhaduri, A.; Kanemoto, K.; Bekchanov, M.; Geschke, A.; Foran, B. International trade of scarce water. Ecol.
Econ. 2013, 94, 78–85. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 33 of 51

102. Porkka, M.; Gerten, D.; Schaphoff, S.; Siebert, S.; Kummu, M. Causes and trends of water scarcity in food production. Environ.
Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 015001. [CrossRef]
103. Kummu, M.; Guillaume, J.H.A.; De Moel, H.; Eisner, S.; Flörke, M.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Veldkamp, T.I.E.; Ward, P.J. The world’s
road to water scarcity: Shortage and stress in the 20th century and pathways towards sustainability. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38495.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. J. Rockström, J.; Falkenmark, M.; Allan, T.; Folke, C.; Gordon, L.; Jägerskog, A.; Kummu, M.;Lannerstad, M.; Meybeck, M.;
Molden, D. et al. The Unfolding Water Drama in the Anthropocene: Towards a resilience based perspective on water for global
sustainability. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2014, 7, 1249–1261.
105. Oeurng, C.; Cochrane, T.A.; Chung, S.; Kondolf, M.G.; Piman, T.; Arias, M.E. Assessing climate change impacts on river flows in
the Tonle Sap Lake Basin, Cambodia. Water 2019, 11, 618. [CrossRef]
106. McCabe, G.J.; Wolock, D.M.; Pederson, G.T.; Woodhouse, C.A.; McAfee, S. Evidence that recent warming is reducing upper
Colorado river flows. Earth Interact. 2017, 21, 1–14. [CrossRef]
107. Schewe, J.; Heinke, J.; Gerten, D.; Haddeland, I.; Arnell, N.; Clark, D.; Dankers, R.; Eisner, S.; Fekete, B.; Colón-González, F.; et al.
Mul-timodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3245–3250. [CrossRef]
108. Huang, H.; Han, Y.; Jia, D. Impact of climate change on the blue water footprint of agriculture on a regional scale. Water Sci.
Technol. Water Supply 2019, 19, 52–59. [CrossRef]
109. BIO Intelligence Service. Literature Review On The Potential Climate Change Effects on Drinking Water Resources Across the Eu and the
Identification of Priorities Among Different Types of Drinking Water Supplies; BIO Intelligence Service: Paris, France, 2012.
110. Raskin, P.; Gleick, P.; Kirshen, P.; Pontius, G.; Strzepek, K. Water Futures: Assessment of Long-Range Patterns and Problems Stockholm;
Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 1997.
111. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112. Falkenmark, M. The Massive Water Scarcity Now Threatening Africa: Why Isn’t It Being Addressed? Ambio 1989, 18, 112–118.
113. Scholes, R. Global Terrestrial Observing System: Regional Implementation Plan for Southern Africa; FAO: Rome; Italy, 2001.
114. Rockstrom, J.; Lannerstad, M.; Falkenmark, M. Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 6253–6260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
115. Rockström, J.; Barron, J.; Fox, P. Water productivity in rain-fed agriculture: Challenges and opportunities for smallholder
farmers in drought-prone tropical agroecosystems. In Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement;
International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2009; pp. 145–162.
116. Bogardi, J.J.; Fekete, B.M.; Vörösmarty, C.J. Planetary boundaries revisited: A view through the ‘water lens’. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 2013, 5, 581–589. [CrossRef]
117. Dearing, J.A.; Wang, R.; Zhang, K.; Dyke, J.G.; Haberl, H.; Hossain, S.; Langdon, P.G.; Lenton, T.M.; Raworth, K.; Brown, S.; et al.
Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 227–238. [CrossRef]
118. Nash, K.L.; Cvitanovic, C.; Fulton, E.A.; Halpern, B.S.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Watson, R.A.; Blanchard, J.L. Planetary boundaries
for a blue planet. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 1625–1634. [CrossRef]
119. Häyhä, T.; Lucas, P.L.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Cornell, S.E.; Hoff, H. From Planetary Boundaries to national fair shares of the global
safe operating space—How can the scales be bridged? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 40, 60–72. [CrossRef]
120. Steffen, W.; Persson, Å.; Deutsch, L.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Richardson, K.; Crumley, C.; Crutzen, P.; Folke, C.; Gordon, L.;
et al. The anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 2011, 40, 739–761. [CrossRef]
121. Zipper, S.C.; Jaramillo, F.; Wang-Erlandsson, L.; Cornell, S.E.; Gleeson, T.; Porkka, M.; Häyhä, T.; Crépin, A.; Fetzer, I.; Gerten, D.;
et al. Integrating the Water Planetary Boundary With Water Management From Local to Global Scales. Earth’s Future 2020, 8.
[CrossRef]
122. Postel, S.L. Water for Food Production: Will There Be Enough in 2025? Bioscience 1998, 48, 629–637. [CrossRef]
123. DeFraiture, C.; Molden, D.; Amarasinghe, U.; Makin, I. PODIUM: Projecting water supply and demand for food production in
2025. Phys. Chem. Earth, Part B Hydrol. Ocean. Atmos. 2001, 26, 869–876. [CrossRef]
124. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.; et al.
Planetary boundaries: Guiding changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125. Nordhaus, T.; Shellenberger, M.; Blomqvist, L. The Planetary Boundaries Hypothesis: Review of the Evidence; Breakthrough Institute:
Oakland, CA, USA, 2012.
126. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.I.; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.;
et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 32. [CrossRef]
127. Berger, M.; van der Ent, R.; Eisner, S.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Water Accounting and Vulnerability Evaluation (WAVE):
Considering Atmospheric Evaporation Recycling and the Risk of Freshwater Depletion in Water Footprinting. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2014, 48, 4521–4528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
128. He, C.; Huang, G.; Liuc, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xu, X. Multi-dimensional diagnosis model for the sustainable development of
regions facing water scarcity problem: A case study for Guangdong, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 734, 139394. [CrossRef]
129. Quinteiro, P.; Ridoutt, B.G.; Arroja, L.; Dias, A.C. Identification of methodological challenges remaining in the assessment of a
water scarcity footprint: A review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 164–180. [CrossRef]
130. Huang, J.; Ridoutt, B.G.; Thorp, K.R.; Wang, X.; Lan, K.; Liao, J.; Tao, X.; Wu, C.; Huang, J.; Chen, F.; et al. Water-scarcity footprints
and water productivities indicate unsustainable wheat production in China. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 224, 105744. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 34 of 51

131. Rodell, M.; Famiglietti, J.; Wiese, D.N.; Reager, J.T.; Beaudoing, H.K.; Landerer, F.W.; Lo, M.-H. Emerging Trends in Global
Freshwater Availability. Nature 2018, 557, 651–659. [CrossRef]
132. Richey, A.S.; Thomas, B.F.; Lo, M.-H.; Reager, J.T.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Voss, K.; Swenson, S.C.; Rodell, M. Quantifying renewable
groundwater stress with GRACE. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 5217–5237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133. Falkenmark, M. Water resilience and human life support—Global outlook for the next half century. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020,
36, 377–396. [CrossRef]
134. Wang-Erlandsson, L.; van der Ent, R.J.; Gordon, L.J.; Savenije, H.H.G. Contrasting roles of interception and transpiration in the
hydrological cycle—Part 1: Temporal characteristics over land. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2014, 5, 441–469. [CrossRef]
135. van der Ent, R.J.; Wang-Erlandsson, L.; Keys, P.W.; Savenije, H.H.G. Contrasting roles of interception and transpiration in the
hydrological cycle—Part 2: Moisture recycling. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. 2014, 5, 281–326.
136. Bunsri, T.; Sivakumar, M.; Hagare, D. Simulation of water movement through unsaturated infiltration-redistribution system.
J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 2009, 2, 45–53.
137. Eekhout, J.P.C.; Hunink, J.E.; Terink, W.; de Vente, J. Why increased extreme precipitation under climate change negatively affects
water security. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 5935–5946. [CrossRef]
138. Maeda, E.E.; Pellikka, P.K.E.; Clark, B.J.F.; Siljander, M. Prospective changes in irrigation water requirements caused by agricultural
expansion and climate changes in the eastern arc mountains of Kenya. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 982–993. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
139. Smerdon, B.D. A synopsis of climate change effects on groundwater recharge. J. Hydrol. 2017, 555, 125–128. [CrossRef]
140. Taylor, R.G.; Scanlon, B.; Döll, P.; Rodell, M.; Beek, R.; Van Longuevergne, L.; Leblanc, M.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Edmunds, M.
Groundwater and climate change: Recent advances and a look forward. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 322–329. [CrossRef]
141. Emori, S.; Brown, S.J. Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean and extreme precipitation under changed climate. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 2005, 32, 1–5. [CrossRef]
142. Rao, K.K.; Patwardhan, S.K.; Kulkarni, A.; Kamala, K.; Sabade, S.S.; Kumar, K.K. Projected changes in mean and extreme
precipitation indices over India using PRECIS. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2014, 113, 77–90. [CrossRef]
143. Shongwe, M.E.; van Oldenborgh, G.J.; van den Hurk, B.J.J.M.; de Boer, B.; Coelho, C.A.S.; van Aalst, M.K. Projected changes in
mean and extreme precipitation in Africa under global warming. Part I: Southern Africa. J. Clim. 2009, 22, 3819–3837. [CrossRef]
144. Shongwe, M.E.; van Oldenborgh, G.J.; van den Hurk, B.; van Aalst, M. Projected changes in mean and extreme precipitation in
Africa under global warming. Part II: East Africa. J. Clim. 2011, 24, 3718–3733. [CrossRef]
145. Meixner, T.; Manning, A.; Stonestrom, D.A.; Allen, D.M.; Ajami, H.; Blasch, K.W.; Brookfield, A.E.; Castro, C.L.; Clark, J.F.;
Gochis, D.J.; et al. Implications of projected climate change for groundwater recharge in the western United States. J. Hydrol.
2016, 534, 124–138. [CrossRef]
146. Rosa, L.; Rulli, M.C.; Davis, K.F.; Chiarelli, D.D.; Passera, C.; D’Odorico, P. Closing the yield gap while ensuring water
sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 1–13. [CrossRef]
147. Schyns, J.F.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Booij, M.J. Review and classification of indicators of green water availability and scarcity. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 4581–4608. [CrossRef]
148. Schyns, J.F.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Booij, M.J.; Hogeboom, R.J.; Mekonnen, M.M. Limits to the world’s green water resources for food,
feed, fiber, timber, and bioenergy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 4893–4898. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
149. Schyns, J.F.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Booij, M.J.; Hogeboom, R.J.; Mekonnen, M.M. Supplement: Limits to the world’s green water
resources for food, feed, fiber, timber, and bioenergy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 4893–4898. [CrossRef]
150. Zhu, K.; Xie, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Lu, F.; Song, X.; Li, L.; Song, X. The assessment of Green Water Based on the SWAT Model: A case study
in the Hai River Basin, China. Water 2018, 10, 798. [CrossRef]
151. Velpuri, N.M.; Senay, G.B. Partitioning Evapotranspiration into Green and Blue Water Sources in the Conterminous United States.
Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–12.
152. Pieper, M.; Kupfer, T.; Thylmann, D.; Bos, U. Introduction to Water Assessment in GaBi Version 2.2. 2018. Available on-
line: [Link] (accessed on
21 February 2021).
153. Quinteiro, P.; Rafael, S.; Vicente, B.; Marta-Almeida, M.; Rocha, A.; Arroja, L.; Dias, A.C. Mapping green water scarcity under
climate change: A case study of Portugal. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 696, 134024. [CrossRef]
154. Liang, J.; Liu, G.; Zhang, H.; Li, X.; Qian, Z.; Lei, M.; Li, X.; Peng, Y.; Li, S.; Zeng, G. Interactive effects of climate variability and
human activities on blue and green water scarcity in rapidly developing watershed. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121834. [CrossRef]
155. Herrnegger, M.; Nachtnebel, H.P.; Haiden, T. Evapotranspiration in high alpine catchments–an important part of the water
balance! Hydrol. Res. 2012, 43, 460–475. [CrossRef]
156. Dahl, M.; Nilsson, B.; Langhoff, J.H.; Refsgaard, J.C. Review of classification systems and new multi-scale typology of
groundwater–surface water interaction. J. Hydrol. 2007, 344, 1–16. [CrossRef]
157. Kong, J.; Xin, P.; Hua, G.-F.; Luo, Z.-Y.; Shen, C.-J.; Chen, D.; Li, L. Effects of vadose zone on groundwater table fluctuations in
unconfined aquifers. J. Hydrol. 2015, 528, 397–407. [CrossRef]
158. Ringersma, J.; Batjes, N.; Dent, D. Green Water: Definitions and Data for Assessment; ISRIC-World Soil Information: Wageningen,
The Netherlands, 2003.
159. Andrade, R.; Rangarajan, R. Transient resistivity response to infiltrating water front through vadose zone. HydroResearch 2019, 2,
12–20. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 35 of 51

160. Karlberg, L.; Rockström, J.; Falkenmark, M. Water resource implications of upgrading rainfed agriculture—Focus of green
and blue water trade-offs. In Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential; Wani, S.P., Rockström, J., Oweis, T., Eds.; CABI (CAB
International): Wallingford, UK, 2009; pp. 44–53.
161. Gerrits, A.M.J.; Savenije, H.H.G. Interception. In Treatise on Water Science; Wilderer, P., Ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2011;
Volume 2, pp. 89–101.
162. Gerrits, A.M.J.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Veling, E.J.M.; Pfister, L. Analytical derivation of the Budyko curve based on rainfall characteris-
tics and a simple evaporation model. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, 1–15. [CrossRef]
163. Lathuillière, M.J.; Coe, M.T.; Johnson, M.S. A review of green-and blue-water resources and their trade-offs for future agricultural
production in the Amazon Basin: What could irrigated agriculture mean for Amazonia? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 20,
2179–2194. [CrossRef]
164. Hoekstra, A.Y. Green-blue water accounting in a soil water balance. Adv. Water Resour. 2018, 129, 112–117. [CrossRef]
165. Mao, G.; Liu, J.; Zheng, Y.T.Á.Y.Z.Á.C. Assessing the interlinkage of green and blue water in an arid catchment in Northwest
China. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 933–953. [CrossRef]
166. Chen, D.; Chen, H.W. Using the Köppen classification to quantify climate variation and change: An example for 1901–2010.
Environ. Dev. 2013, 6, 69–79. [CrossRef]
167. Beck, H.E.; Zimmermann, N.E.; McVicar, T.R.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Wood, E.F. Present and future köppen-geiger climate
classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 1–12. [CrossRef]
168. Hegerl, G.C.; Broennimann, S.; Cowan, T.; Friedman, A.R.; Hawkins, E.; Iles, C.E.; Mueller, W.; Schurer, A.; Undorf, S. Causes of
climate change over the historical record. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 123006. [CrossRef]
169. Barker, S.; Knorr, G.; Edwards, R.L.; Parrenin, F.; Putnam, A.E.; Skinner, L.C.; Wolff, E.; Ziegler, M. 800,000 Years of abrupt climate
variability. Science 2011, 334, 347–351. [CrossRef]
170. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.; Rudolf, B.; Rubel, F. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol.
Zeitschrift 2006, 15, 259–263. [CrossRef]
171. Aldieri, C.P.; Vinci, L. Climate Change and Knowledge Spillovers for Cleaner Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122729.
[CrossRef]
172. UNFCCC. Climate Change Science—The Status of Climate Change Science Today; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC): Bonn, Germany, 2011.
173. Deser, C.; Phillips, A.S.; Alexander, M.A.; Smoliak, B.V. Projecting North American climate over the next 50 years: Uncertainty
due to internal variability. J. Clim. 2014, 27, 2271–2296. [CrossRef]
174. Wallace, J.M.; Deser, C.; Smoliak, B.V.; Phillips, A.S. Attribution of Climate Change in the Presence of Internal Variability. In
Climate Change: Multidecadal and Beyond; Chang, C.-P., Ghil, M., Latif, M., Wallace, J.M., Eds.; World Scientific: Singapore, 2015;
pp. 1–29.
175. Hoerling, M.; Eischeid, J.; Perlwitz, J. Regional precipitation trends: Distinguishing natural variability from anthropogenic forcing.
J. Clim. 2010, 23, 2131–2145. [CrossRef]
176. Martel, J.L.; Mailhot, A.; Brissette, F.; Caya, D. Role of natural climate variability in the detection of anthropogenic climate change
signal for mean and extreme precipitation at local and regional scales. J. Clim. 2018, 31, 4241–4263. [CrossRef]
177. Khan, N.; Shahid, S.; Chung, E.S.; Behlil, F.; Darwish, M.S.J. Spatiotemporal changes in precipitation extremes in the arid province
of Pakistan with removal of the influence of natural climate variability. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2020, 142, 1447–1462. [CrossRef]
178. Winsberg, E. Values and uncertainties in the predictions of global climate models. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 2012, 22, 111–137.
[CrossRef]
179. Palmer, T.N.; Doblas-Reyes, F.J.; Hagedorn, R.; Weisheimer, A. Probabilistic prediction of climate using multi-model ensembles:
From basics to applications. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 1991–1998. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
180. Palmer, T.; Buizza, R.; Hagedorn, R.; Lawrence, A.; Leutbecher, M.; Smith, L.A. Ensemble prediction: A pedagogical perspective.
ECMWF Newsl. 2006, 106, 10–17.
181. Hagedorn, R.; Doblas-Reyes, F.J.; Palmer, T.N. The rationale behind the success of multi-model ensembles in seasonal forecasting—
I. Basic concept. Tellus A Dyn. Meteorol. Oceanogr. 2005, 57, 219–233.
182. Pappenberger, F.; Bartholmes, J.; Thielen, J.; Anghel, E. TIGGE: Medium Range Multi Model Weather Forecast Ensembles in Flood
Forecasting (a Case Study); ECMWF: Reading, UK, 2008; p. 557.
183. Li, S.; Robertson, A.W. Evaluation of submonthly precipitation forecast skill from global ensemble prediction systems. Mon.
Weather Rev. 2015, 143, 2871–2889. [CrossRef]
184. Arnell, N.W.; Lowe, J.A.; Challinor, A.J.; Osborn, T.J. Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global
temperature increase. Clim. Chang. 2019, 155, 377–391. [CrossRef]
185. Pitman, A.J.; Arneth, A.; Ganzeveld, L. Review: Regionalizing global climate models. Int. J. Climatol. 2012, 32, 321–337. [CrossRef]
186. Pierce, D.W.; Barnett, T.P.; Santer, B.D.; Gleckler, P.J. Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 8441–8446. [CrossRef]
187. Feser, F.; Rrockel, B.; Storch, H.; Winterfeldt, J.; Zahn, M. Regional climate models add value to global model data a review and
selected examples. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2011, 92, 1181–1192. [CrossRef]
188. de Castro, M.; Gallardo, C.; Jylha, K.; Tuomenvirta, H. The use of a climate-type classification for assessing climate change effects
in Europe from an ensemble of nine regional climate models. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81 (Suppl. 1), 329–341. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 36 of 51

189. Christensen, J.H.; Kjellström, E.; Giorgi, F.; Lenderink, G.; Rummukainen, M. Weight assignment in regional climate models.
Clim. Res. 2010, 44, 179–194. [CrossRef]
190. Kendon, E.J.; Ban, N.; Roberts, N.M.; Fowler, H.J.; Roberts, M.J.; Chan, S.C.; Evans, J.P.; Fosser, G.; Wilkinson, J.M. Do convection-
permitting regional climate models improve projections of future precipitation change? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2017, 98, 79–94.
[CrossRef]
191. Vörösmarty, C.J.; Green, P.; Salisbury, J.; Lammers, R.B. Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population
growth. Science 2000, 289, 284–288. [CrossRef]
192. Bates, B.C.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Wu, S.; Palutikof, J.P. (Eds.) Climate Change and Water; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
193. Dore, M.H.I. Climate change and changes in global precipitation patterns: What do we know? Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 1167–1181.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
194. Seneviratne, S.I.; Donat, M.G.; Pitman, A.J.; Knutti, R.; Wilby, R.L. Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related
climate targets. Nature 2016, 529, 477–483. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
195. Arnell, N.W.; Brown, S.; Gosling, S.N.; Hinkel, J.; Huntingford, C.; Lloyd-Hughes, B.; Lowe, J.A.; Osborn, T.; Nicholls, R.J.;
Żelazowski, P. Global-scale climate impact functions: The relationship between climate forcing and impact. Clim. Chang. 2016,
134, 475–487. [CrossRef]
196. Hocke, K. Relation between short-term and long-term variations of precipitation. Climate 2017, 5, 96. [CrossRef]
197. Fatichi, S.; Ivanov, V.Y.; Caporali, E. Investigating interannual variability of precipitation at the global scale: Is there a connection
with seasonality? J. Clim. 2012, 25, 5512–5523. [CrossRef]
198. Allan, R.P.; Soden, B.J. Atmosphere Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes. Science 2008, 321, 1481–1484.
[CrossRef]
199. Kummu, M.; Gerten, D.; Heinke, J.; Konzmann, M.; Varis, O. Climate-driven interannual variability of water scarcity in food
production: A global analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2013, 10, 6931–6962.
200. Smirnov, O.; Zhang, M.; Xiao, T.; Orbell, J.; Lobben, A.; Gordon, J. The relative importance of climate change and population
growth for exposure to future extreme droughts. Clim. Chang. 2016, 138, 41–53. [CrossRef]
201. Gosling, S.N.; Arnell, N.W. A global assessment of the impact of climate change on water scarcity. Clim. Chang. 2016, 134, 371–385.
[CrossRef]
202. Fox-Rabinovitz, M.; Côté, J.; Dugas, B.; Déqué, M.; McGregor, J.L. Variable resolution general circulation models: Stretched-grid
model intercomparison project (SGMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2006, 111, 1–21. [CrossRef]
203. Buizza, R. Horizontal resolution impact on short- and long-range forecast error. Q. J. R. Meteorogical Soc. 2010, 136, 1020–1035.
[CrossRef]
204. Kim, I.W.; Oh, J.; Woo, S.; Kripalani, R.H. Evaluation of precipitation extremes over the Asian domain: Observation and modelling
studies. Clim. Dyn. 2019, 52, 1317–1342. [CrossRef]
205. Cole, J.J.; Prairie, Y.T.; Caraco, N.F.; McDowell, W.; Tranvik, L.J.; Striegl, R.G.; Duarte, C.M.; Kortelainen, P.; Downing, J.A.;
Middelburg, J.; et al. Plumbing the global carbon cycle: Integrating inland waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems
2007, 10, 171–184. [CrossRef]
206. Tranvik, L.J.; Downing, J.A.; Cotner, J.B.; Loiselle, S.; Striegl, R.G.; Ballatore, T.J.; Dillon, P.; Finlay, K.; Fortino, K.; Knoll, L.B.; et al.
Lakes and reservoirs as regulators of carbon cycling and climate. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2009, 54, 2298–2314. [CrossRef]
207. Eichenlaub, V.L. Lakes, effects on climate. In Climatology. Encyclopedia of Earth Science; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1987.
208. O’Reilly, C.M.; Sharma, S.; Gray, D.K.; Hampton, S.E.; Read, J.S.; Rowley, R.; Schneider, P.; Lenters, J.D.; McIntyre, P.B.; Kraemer,
B.M.; et al. Rapid and highly variable warming of lake surface waters around the globe. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015, 42, 10773–10781.
[CrossRef]
209. Jeppesen, L.; Søndergaard, E.; Lauridsen, M.; Liboriussen, T.L.; Bjerring, R.; Johanssen, F.; Landkildehus, L.S.; Kronvang, B.;
Andersen, H.E.; Trolle, D. Recent climate induced changes in freshwaters in Denmark. In Climatic Change and Global Warming of
Inland Waters: Impacts and Mitigation for Ecosystems and Societies; Goldman, C.R., Kumagari, M., Robarts, R.D., Eds.; John Wiley &
Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 156–171.
210. Llopart, M.; Coppola, E.; Giorgi, F.; da Rocha, R.P.; Cuadra, S.V. Climate change impact on precipitation for the Amazon and La
Plata basins. Clim. Chang. 2014, 125, 111–125. [CrossRef]
211. Xu, R.; Hu, H.; Tian, F.; Li, C.; Khan, M.Y.A. Projected climate change impacts on future streamflow of the Yarlung Tsangpo-
Brahmaputra River. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2019, 175, 144–159. [CrossRef]
212. Trenberth, K.E. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res. 2011, 47, 123–138. [CrossRef]
213. Chou, C.; Chiang, J.C.H.; Lan, C.W.; Chung, C.H.; Liao, Y.C.; Lee, C.J. Increase in the range between wet and dry season
precipitation. Nat. Geosci. 2013, 6, 263–267. [CrossRef]
214. Konapala, G.; Mishra, A.; Leung, L.R. Changes in temporal variability of precipitation over land due to anthropogenic forcings.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 024009. [CrossRef]
215. Schurer, A.P.; Ballinger, A.P.; Friedman, A.R.; Hegerl, G.C. Human influence strengthens the contrast between tropical wet and
dry regions. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 1–12. [CrossRef]
216. Hirji, R.; Ibrekk, H.O. Environmental and Water Resources Management; Environment Strategy Paper No. 2; World Bank, Environ-
ment Department: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
Water 2021, 13, 1693 37 of 51

217. Destouni, G.; Asokan, S.M.; Jarsj, J. Inland hydro-climatic interaction: Effects of human water use on regional climate. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 2010, 37, 1–6. [CrossRef]
218. Farsani, I.F.; Farzaneh, M.R.; Besalatpour, A.A.; Salehi, M.H.; Faramarzi, M. Assessment of the impact of climate change on
spatiotemporal variability of blue and green water resources under CMIP3 and CMIP5 models in a highly mountainous watershed.
Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2019, 136, 169–184. [CrossRef]
219. Shrestha, N.K.; Du, X.; Wang, J. Assessing climate change impacts on fresh water resources of the Athabasca River Basin, Canada.
Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 601–602, 425–440. [CrossRef]
220. Chen, Z.; Grasby, S.E.; Osadetz, K.G. Relation between climate variability and groundwater levels in the upper carbonate aquifer,
southern Manitoba, Canada. J. Hydrol. 2004, 290, 43–62. [CrossRef]
221. Green, T.R.; Taniguchi, M.; Kooi, H.; Gurdak, J.J.; Allen, D.M.; Hiscock, K.M.; Treidel, H.; Aureli, A. Beneath the surface of global
change: Impacts of climate change on groundwater. J. Hydrol. 2011, 405, 532–560. [CrossRef]
222. Dettinger, M.; Udall, B.; Georgakakos, A. Western water and climate change. Ecol. Appl. 2015, 25, 2069–2093. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
223. Clifton, C.F.; Day, K.T.; Luce, C.H.; Grant, G.E.; Safeeq, M.; Halofsky, J.E.; Staab, B.P. Effects of climate change on hydrology and
water resources in the Blue Mountains, Oregon, USA. Clim. Serv. 2018, 10, 9–19. [CrossRef]
224. Gober, P.; Kirkwood, C.W. Vulnerability assessment of climate-induced water shortage in Phoenix. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2010, 107, 21295–21299. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
225. Backlund, P.; Janetos, A.; Schimel, D. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in
the United States; U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
226. Seneviratne, S.I.; Wilhelm, M.; Stanelle, T.; Hurk, B.V.D.; Hagemann, S.; Berg, A.; Cheruy, F.; Higgins, M.E.; Meier, A.; Brovkin, V.;
et al. Impact of soil moisture-climate feedbacks on CMIP5 projections: First results from the GLACE-CMIP5 experiment. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 2013, 40, 5212–5217. [CrossRef]
227. Fischer, E.M.; Sedláček, J.; Hawkins, E.; Knutti, R. Models agree on forced response pattern of precipitation and temperature
extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2014, 41, 8554–8562. [CrossRef]
228. Molden, D.; Frenken, K.; Barker, R.; de Fraiture, C.; Mati, B.; Svendsen, M.; Sadoff, C.W.; Finlayson, M.; Atapattu, S.; Giordano, M.;
et al. Trends in water and agricultural development. In Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture; Molden, D., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK; International Water Management Institute: Colombo,
Sri Lanka, 2007; pp. 57–89.
229. Falkenmark, M.; Lannerstad, M. Consumptive water use to feed humanity—Curing a blind spot. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2005, 9,
15–28. [CrossRef]
230. Shiklomanov, I.A. Appraisal and Assessment of World Water Resources. Water Int. 2000, 25, 11–32. [CrossRef]
231. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci. 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [CrossRef]
232. Alcamo, J.; Henrichs, T. Critical regions: A model-based estimation of world water resources sensitive to global changes. Aquat.
Sci. 2002, 64, 352–362. [CrossRef]
233. Srinivasan, V.; Lambin, E.F.; Gorelick, S.M.; Thompson, B.H.; Rozelle, S. The nature and causes of the global water crisis:
Syndromes from a meta-analysis of coupled human-water studies. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48, W10516. [CrossRef]
234. Thomas, B.F.; Famiglietti, J.S. Identifying Climate-Induced Groundwater Depletion in GRACE Observations. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9,
1–9. [CrossRef]
235. Wu, W.-Y.; Lo, M.-H.; Wada, Y.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Reager, J.T.; Yeh, P.J.-F.; Ducharne, A.; Yang, Z.-L. Divergent effects of climate
change on future groundwater availability in key mid-latitude aquifers. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
236. Gurdak, J.J. Climate-induced pumping. Nat. Geosci. 2017, 10, 71–72. [CrossRef]
237. Strosser, P.; Dworak, T.; Delvaux, P.A.G.; Berglund, M.; Schmidt, G.; Mysiak, J.; Kossida, M.; Iacovides, I.; Ashton, V. Gap Analysis
of the Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy in the EU; Gap Analysis of the Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy in the EU, European
Commission Tender: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
238. Orth, R.; Destouni, G. Drought reduces blue-water fluxes more strongly than green-water fluxes in Europe. Nat. Commun. 2018,
9, 8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
239. Semmler, T.; Jacob, D. Modeling extreme precipitation events—A climate change simulation for Europe. Glob. Planet Chang. 2004,
44, 119–127. [CrossRef]
240. Fleig, A.K.; Tallaksen, L.M.; James, P.; Hisdal, H.; Stahl, K. Attribution of European precipitation and temperature trends to
changes in synoptic circulation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 3093–3107. [CrossRef]
241. Frei, C.; Schöll, R.; Fukutome, S.; Schmidli, J.; Vidale, P.L. Future change of precipitation extremes in Europe: Intercomparison of
scenarios from regional climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2006, 111. [CrossRef]
242. Nikulin, A.; Kjellström, G.; Hansson, E.; Strandberg, U.; Ullerstig, G. Evaluation and future projections of temperature, precipita-
tion and wind extremes over Europe in an ensemble of regional climate simulations. Tellus A 63:41–55. Tellus A 2011, 63, 41–55.
[CrossRef]
243. Beniston, M.; Stephenson, D.B.; Christensen, O.B.; Ferro, C.A.T.; Frei, C.; Goyette, S.; Halsnæs, K.; Holt, T.; Jylhä, K.; Koffi, B.;
et al. Future extreme events in European climate: An exploration of regional climate model projections. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81
(Suppl. 1), 71–95. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 38 of 51

244. Min, S.K.; Zhang, X.; Zwiers, F.W.; Hegerl, G.C. Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 2011, 470,
378–381. [CrossRef]
245. Kelemen, A.; Munch, W.; Poelman, H.; Gakova, Z.; Dijkstra, L.; Torighelli, B. Regions 2020, an Assessment of Future Challenges for
E.U. Regions 2868; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
246. Dankers, R.; Hiederer, R. Extreme Temperatures and Precipitation in Europe: Analysis of a High-Resolution Climate Change Scenario;
JRC Scientific and Technical Reports; European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability:
Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
247. Lavers, D.A.; Villarini, G. The contribution of atmospheric rivers to precipitation in Europe and the United States. J. Hydrol. 2015,
522, 382–390. [CrossRef]
248. Alpert, P.; Ben-Gai, T.; Baharad, A.; Benjamini, Y.; Yekutieli, D.; Colacino, M.; Diodato, L.; Ramis, C.; Homar, V.; Romero, R.; et al.
The paradoxical increase of Mediterranean extreme daily rainfall in spite of decrease in total values. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2002, 29,
1–4. [CrossRef]
249. Black, E.; Brayshaw, D.J.; Rambeau, C.M.C. Past, present and future precipitation in the Middle East: Insights from models and
observations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2010, 368, 5173–5184. [CrossRef]
250. Qian, B.; Xu, H. Spatial-Temporal Structure of Quasi-Periodic Oscillations in Precipitation over Europe. Int. J. Climatol. 2000, 20,
1583–1598. [CrossRef]
251. Leander, R.; Buishand, T.A.; Tank, A.M.G.K. An alternative index for the contribution of precipitation on very wet days to the
total precipitation. J. Clim. 2014, 27, 1365–1378. [CrossRef]
252. Sánchez, M.; Gallardo, E.; Gaertner, C.; Arribas, M.; Castro, A. Future climate extreme events in the Mediterranean simulated by
a regional climate model: A first approach. Glob. Planet Chang. 2004, 44, 163–180. [CrossRef]
253. Rajczak, J.; Pall, P.; Schär, C. Projections of extreme precipitation events in regional climate simulations for Europe and the Alpine
Region. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 3610–3626. [CrossRef]
254. Gao, X.; Pal, J.S.; Giorgi, F. Projected changes in mean and extreme precipitation over the Mediterranean region from a high
resolution double nested RCM simulation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, 2–5. [CrossRef]
255. Mourato, S.; Moreira, M.; Corte-Real, J. Interannual variability of precipitation distribution patterns in Southern Portugal. Int. J.
Climatol. 2010, 30, 1784–1794. [CrossRef]
256. van den Besselaar, E.J.M.; Tank, A.M.G.K.; Buishand, T.A. Trends in European precipitation extremes over 1951–2010. Int. J.
Climatol. 2013, 33, 2682–2689. [CrossRef]
257. Hagemann, S.; Chen, C.; Clark, D.B.; Folwell, S.; Gosling, S.N.; Haddeland, I.; Hanasaki, N.; Heinke, J.; Ludwig, F.; Voss, F.; et al.
Climate change impact on available water resources obtained using multiple global climate and hydrology models. Earth Syst.
Dyn. 2013, 4, 129–144. [CrossRef]
258. Benateau, S.; Gaudard, A.; Stamm, C.; Altermatt, F. Climate Change and Freshwater Ecosystems: Impacts on Water Quality and
Ecological Status; Hydro-CH2018 Project. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN): Bern, Switzerland, 2019.
259. Mastrotheodoros, T.; Pappas, C.; Molnar, P.; Burlando, P.; Manoli, G.; Parajka, J.; Rigon, R.; Szeles, B.; Bottazzi, M.; Hadjidoukas, P.;
et al. More green and less blue water in the Alps during warmer summers. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 155–161. [CrossRef]
260. Nilsen, I.B.; Fleig, A.K.; Tallaksen, L.M.; Hisdal, H. Recent trends in monthly temperature and precipitation patterns in Europe.
IAHS-AISH Proc. Rep. 2014, 363, 132–137.
261. Giannini, A.; Biasutti, M.; Held, I.M.; Sobel, A.H. A global perspective on African climate. Clim. Chang. 2008, 90, 359–383.
[CrossRef]
262. Niang, I.; Ruppel, O.C.; Abdrabo, M.A.; Essel, A.; Lennard, C.; Padgham, J.; Urquhart, P. Africa. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1199–1265.
263. U.N. Population 2030: Demographic Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development Planning; U.N.: New York, NY,
USA, 2015.
264. Marshall, M.; Funk, C.; Michaelsen, J. Examining evapotranspiration trends in Africa. Clim Dyn 2012, 38, 1849–1865. [CrossRef]
265. U.N. Probabilistic Projections Population Indicators Sub-Sahara. In Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Dynamics;
U.N.: New York, NY, USA, 2020. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 22 April 2021).
266. Beck, L.; Bernauer, T. How will combined changes in water demand and climate affect water availability in the Zambezi river
basin? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1061–1072. [CrossRef]
267. Chiang, J.C.H.; Sobel, A.H. Tropical Tropospheric Temperature Variations Caused by ENSO and Their Influence on the Remote
Tropical Climate. J. Clim. 2002, 15, 2616–2631. [CrossRef]
268. Carter, R.; Parker, A. Climate Change, population Trends and Groundwater in Africa. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2009, 54, 676–689. [CrossRef]
269. Hulme, M. Rainfall changes in Africa: 1931–1960 to 1961–1990. Int. J. Clim. 2002, 12, 685–699. [CrossRef]
270. Rushton, K.R.; Eilers, V.H.M.; Carter, R.C. Improved soil moisture balance methodology for recharge estimation. J. Hydrol. 2006,
318, 379–399. [CrossRef]
271. Mafuta, C. The Value of Green Water Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 2018, 165, 67–75.
[CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 39 of 51

272. Amogu, O.; Descroix, L.; Yéro, K.S.; Le Breton, É.; Mamadou, I.; Ali, A.; Vischel, T.; Bader, J.-C.; Moussa, I.B.; Gautier, E.; et al.
Increasing river flows in the Sahel? Water 2010, 2, 170–199. [CrossRef]
273. Descroix, L.; Mahé, G.; Lebel, T.; Favreau, G.; Galle, S.; Gautier, E.; Olivry, J.-C.; Albergel, J.; Amogu, O.; Cappelaere, B.; et al.
Spatio-temporal variability of hydrological regimes around the boundaries between Sahelian and Sudanian areas of West Africa:
A synthesis. J. Hydrol. 2009, 375, 90–102. [CrossRef]
274. Kundzewicz, Z.; Doll, P. Will groundwater ease freshwater stress under climate change? Hydrol. Sci. J. 2009, 54, 665–675.
[CrossRef]
275. Wang, L.; Dochartaigh, B.Ó.; Macdonald, D. A Literature Review of Recharge Estimation and Groundwater Resource Assessment in
Africa; British Geological Survey: London, UK, 2010.
276. Gbobaniyi, E.; Sarr, A.; Sylla, M.B.; Diallo, I.; Lennard, C.; Dosio, A.; Dhiédiou, A.; Kamga, A.; Klutse, N.A.B.; Hewitson, B.; et al.
Climatology, annual cycle and interannual variability of precipitation and temperature in CORDEX simulations over West Africa.
Int. J. Climatol. 2014, 34, 2241–2257. [CrossRef]
277. Stanzel, P.; Kling, H.; Bauer, H. Climate change impact on West African rivers under an ensemble of CORDEX climate projections.
Clim. Serv. 2018, 11, 36–48. [CrossRef]
278. Diffenbaugh, N.S.; Giorgi, F. Climate change hotspots in the CMIP5 global climate model ensemble model ensemble. Clim. Chang.
2012, 114, 813–822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
279. Giannini, A.; Saravanan, R.; Chang, P. Oceanic Forcing of Sahel Rainfall on Interannual to Interdecadal. Science 2003, 302,
1027–1030. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
280. WASH Cluster Somalia and UNICEF, Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Assessment Report Somalia—December 2019; UNICEF: New York,
NY, USA, 2019.
281. Alam, U.Z. Questioning the Water Wars Rationale: A Case Study of the Indus Waters Treaty. Geogr. J. 2002, 168, 341–353.
[CrossRef]
282. UNFCC. Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries; UNFCCC: New York, USA, 2012.
283. Dosio, A.; Jones, R.G.; Jack, C.; Lennard, C.; Nikulin, G.; Hewitson, B. What can we know about future precipitation in Africa?
Robustness, significance and added value of projections from a large ensemble of regional climate models. Clim. Dyn. 2019, 53,
5833–5858. [CrossRef]
284. Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Mata, L.J.; Arnell, N.W.; Döll, P.; Kabat, P.; Jimenez, B.; Miller, K.A.; Oki, T.; Sen, Z.; Shiklomanov, I.A.
Freshwater Resources and Their Management in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution ofWorking
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, Change; Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,
Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 173–210.
285. Arndt, D.S.; Baringer, M.O.; Johnson, M.R. State of the climate in 2009. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2010, 91. [CrossRef]
286. Zhang, Y.; Tang, C.; Ye, A.; Zheng, T.; Nie, X.; Tu, A.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, S. Impacts of climate and land-use change on blue and
green water: A case study of the Upper Ganjiang river basin, China. Water 2020, 12, 1–18. [CrossRef]
287. Yuan, Z.; Xu, J.; Meng, X.; Wang, Y.; Yan, B.; Hong, X. Impact of climate variability on blue and green water flows in the Erhai
Lake Basin of Southwest China. Water 2019, 11, 424. [CrossRef]
288. Du, J.; Jia, Y.; Hao, C.; Qiu, Y.; Niu, C.; Liu, H. Temporal and spatial changes of blue water and green water in the Taihang
Mountain Region, China, in the past 60 years. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 63, 2040–2056. [CrossRef]
289. Zang, C.F.; Liu, J.; van der Velde, M.; Kraxner, F. Assessment of spatial and temporal patterns of green and blue water flows
under natural conditions in inland river basins in Northwest China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 2859–2870. [CrossRef]
290. Gosain, A.K.; Rao, S.; Arora, A. Climate change impact assessment of water resources of India. Curr. Sci. 2011, 101, 356–371.
291. Lee, M.-H.; Bae, D.-H. Climate Change Impact Assessment on Green and Blue Water over Asian Monsoon Region. Water Resour.
Manag. 2015, 29, 2407–2427. [CrossRef]
292. Immerzeel, W.W.; van Beek, L.P.H.; Bierkens, M.F.P. Climate change will affect the asian water towers. Science 2010, 328, 1382–1385.
[CrossRef]
293. Naveendrakumar, G.; Vithanage, M.; Kwon, H.-H.; Chandrasekara, S.; Iqbal, M.; Pathmarajah, S.; Fernando, K.; Obeysekera, J.
South Asian perspective on temperature and rainfall extremes: A review. Atmos. Res. 2019, 225, 110–120. [CrossRef]
294. Almazroui, M.; Saeed, S.; Saeed, F.; Islam, M.N.; Ismail, M. Projections of Precipitation and Temperature over the South Asian
Countries in CMIP6. Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 4, 297–320. [CrossRef]
295. Endo, N.; Matsumoto, J.; Lwin, T. Trends in precipitation extremes over Southeast Asia. Sci. Online Lett. Atmos. 2009, 5, 168–171.
[CrossRef]
296. Yao, C.; Qian, W.; Yang, S.; Lin, Z. Regional features of precipitation over Asia and summer extreme precipitation over Southeast
Asia and their associations with atmospheric-oceanic conditions. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 2010, 106, 57–73. [CrossRef]
297. Lioubimtseva, E.; Henebry, G.M. Climate and environmental change in arid Central Asia: Impacts, vulnerability, and adaptations.
J. Arid Environ. 2009, 73, 963–977. [CrossRef]
298. IMF. Too Slow for Too Long; IMF: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
299. El-Beltagy, A.; Madkour, M. Impact of climate change on arid lands agriculture. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 1–12. [CrossRef]
300. el Kharraz, J.; El-Sadek, A.; Ghaffour, N.; Mino, E. Water scarcity and drought in WANA countries. Procedia Eng. 2012, 33, 14–29.
[CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 40 of 51

301. Rosegrant, M.W.; Cai, X. Global Water Demand and Supply Projections: Part 2. Results and Prospects to 2025. Water Int. 2002, 27,
170–182. [CrossRef]
302. Mohammed, T.; Al-Amin, A.Q. Climate change and water resources in Algeria: Vulnerability, impact and adaptation strategy.
Econ. Environ. Stud. 2018, 18, 411–429. [CrossRef]
303. Rahmani, A.; Brahim, C. Water Supply Prediction for the Next 10 Years in Algeria: Risks and Challenges. Irrig. Drain. Syst. Eng.
2017, 6, 1–7.
304. Schilling, J.; Hertig, E.; Tramblay, Y.; Scheffran, J. Climate change vulnerability, water resources and social implications in North
Africa. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 15. [CrossRef]
305. Zeroual, A.; Assani, A.A.; Meddi, H.; Bouabdelli, S.; Zeroual, S.; Alkama, R. Assessment of Projected Precipitations and
Temperatures Change Signals over Algeria Based on Regional Climate Model: RCA4 Simulations. In Water Resources in Algeria—
Part I Assessment of Surface and Groundwater Resources; Negm, A.M., Bouderbala, A., Chenchouni, H., Barceló, D., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 135–159.
306. Oduor, A.R.; Gadain, H.M. Potential of Rainwater Harvesting in Somalia; EU-FAO, Somalia Water and Land Information Manage-
ment: Mogadishu, Somalia, 2007.
307. African Development Bank Group. Improving Access to Water and Sanitation Services in Somalia; African Development Bank Group:
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 2016.
308. Noman, A.A.; Al-Jailani, J. Investigation of the potential of fogwater harvesting in the Western Mountainous parts of the Yemen.
Arab Gulf J. Sci. Res. 1989, 25, 50–58.
309. Giesecke, C. Yemen’s Water Crisis Review of Background and Potential Solutions; USAID Knowledge Services Center: Washington,
DC, USA, 2012.
310. Hadil, M.; Elayah, M.; Schuplen, L. Yemen between the Impact of the Climate Change and the Ongoing Saudi-Yemen War: A Real Tragedy;
GPBC and CIDIN: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2017.
311. Egyptian Ministry of Resources and Irrigation. Water for the Future: National Water Resources Plan For Egypt—2017; Ministry of
Water Resources and Irrigation (Egypt): Cairo, Egypt, 2005.
312. McKenzie, S. Egypt’s Choice: From the Nile Basin Treaty to the Cooperative Framework Agreement, an International Legal
Analysis. Transnatl. Law Contemp. Probl. 2012, 21, 571–598.
313. Wheeler, K.G.; Jeuland, M.; Hall, J.W.; Zagona, E.; Whittington, D. Understanding and managing new risks on the Nile with the
Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–9. [CrossRef]
314. Abdel-Dayem, S. Water quality management in Egypt. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2011, 27, 181–202. [CrossRef]
315. UNDP. Egypt’s National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction; The Egyptian Cabinet Information
and Decision Support Center: Cairo, Egypt, 2011.
316. Conway, D. The climate and hydrology of the Upper Blue Nile river. Geogr. J. 2000, 166, 49–62. [CrossRef]
317. Elshamy, M.E.; Seierstad, I.A.; Sorteberg, A. Impacts of climate change on Blue Nile flows using bias-corrected GCM scenarios.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 13, 551–565. [CrossRef]
318. Sušnik, J.; Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, L.S.; Baumert, N.; Kloos, J.; Renaud, F.G.; La Jeunesse, I.; Mabrouk, B.; Savić, D.A.; Kapelan, Z.;
Ludwig, R.; et al. Interdisciplinary assessment of sea-level rise and climate change impacts on the lower Nile delta, Egypt. Sci.
Total Environ. 2015, 503–504, 279–288. [CrossRef]
319. Coffel, E.D.; Keith, B.; Lesk, C.; Horton, R.M.; Bower, E.; Lee, J.; Mankin, J.S. Future Hot and Dry Years Worsen Nile Basin Water
Scarcity Despite Projected Precipitation Increases. Earth’s Futur. 2019, 7, 967–977. [CrossRef]
320. Agrawala, S.; Moehner, A.; Raey, M.E.; Conway, D.; van Aalst, M.; Hagenstad, M.; Smith, J. Development and Climate Change in
Egypt: Focus on Coastal Resources and the Nile; OECD: Paris, France, 2004.
321. Gosling, S.N.; Dunn, R.; Carrol, F.; Christidis, N.; Fullwood, J.; de Gusmao, D.; Golding, N.; Good, L.; Hall, T.; Kendon, L.; et al.
Climate: Observations, Projections and Impacts; Met Office Hadley Centre: Exeter, UK, 2011.
322. Ludwig, F.; Vellinga, P. Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resource Management in Egypt and The Netherlands. In 42nd Meeting
of the Egyptian-Dutch Advisory Panel on Water Management; MWRI: Cairo, Egypt; Alterra: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008.
323. Assaf, H.; Erian, W.; Gafrej, R.; Herrmann, S.; McDonnell, R.; Taimeh, A. Adaptation to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries.
In Adaptation to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries; Verner, D., Ed.; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 109–151.
324. Kelley, C.P.; Mohtadi, S.; Cane, M.A.; Seager, R.; Kushnir, Y. Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent
Syrian drought. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 3241–3246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
325. Abbas, N.; Wasimi, S.A.; Al-Ansari, N. Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources of Greater Zab River, Iraq. J. Civ. Eng. Archit.
2016, 10, 1384–1402.
326. Procházka, P.; Hönig, V.; Maitah, M.; Pljucarská, I.; Kleindienst, J. Evaluation of Water Scarcity in Selected Countries of the Middle
East. Water 2018, 10, 1482. [CrossRef]
327. Herein, M.; Drótos, G.; Haszpra, T.; Márfy, J.; Tél, T. The theory of parallel climate realizations as a new framework for
teleconnection analysis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
328. Ouachani, R.; Bargaoui, Z.; Ouarda, T. Power of teleconnection patterns on precipitation and streamflow variability of upper
Medjerda Basin. Int. J. Climatol. 2013, 33, 58–76. [CrossRef]
329. Westra, S.; Renard, B.; Thyer, M. The ENSO-precipitation teleconnection and its modulation by the interdecadal pacific oscillation.
J. Clim. 2015, 28, 4753–4773. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 41 of 51

330. Baek, S.H.; Smerdon, J.E.; Coats, S.; Williams, A.P.; Cook, B.I.; Cook, E.R.; Seager, R. Precipitation, temperature, and teleconnection
signals across the combined North American, monsoon Asia, and old world drought atlases. J. Clim. 2017, 30, 7141–7155.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
331. Mamalakis, A.; Yu, J.Y.; Randerson, J.T.; Aghakouchak, A.; Foufoula-Georgiou, E. A new interhemispheric teleconnection
increases predictability of winter precipitation in southwestern US. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
332. Plewa, K.; Perz, A.; Wrzesiński, D. Links between teleconnection patterns and water level regime of selected Polish lakes. Water
2019, 11, 1–19. [CrossRef]
333. Bódai, T.; Drótos, G.; Ha, K.-J.; Lee, J.-Y.; Haszpra, T.; Chung, E.-S. Nonlinear forced change and nonergodicity: The case of
ENSO-Indian monsoon and global precipitation teleconnections. In Proceedings of the JpGU-AGU Joint Meeting 2020 For a
borderless World of Geoscience, Chiba, Japan, 24–28 May 2020; pp. 1–31.
334. Keys, P.W.; Barnes, E.A.; van der Ent, R.J.; Gordon, L.J. Variability of moisture recycling using a precipitationshed framework.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 3937–3950. [CrossRef]
335. Adler, R.F.; Gu, G.; Sapiano, M.; Wang, J.J.; Huffman, G.J. Global Precipitation: Means, Variations and Trends During the Satellite
Era (1979–2014). Surv. Geophys. 2017, 38, 679–699. [CrossRef]
336. Davey, M.K.; Brookshaw, A.; Ineson, S. The probability of the impact of ENSO on precipitation and near-surface temperature.
Clim. Risk Manag. 2014, 1, 5–24. [CrossRef]
337. Abtew, W.; Melesse, A.M.; Dessalegne, T. El Nino Southern Oscillation link to the Blue Nile River Basin hydrology. Hydrol. Process.
2009, 23, 3653–3660. [CrossRef]
338. Abtew, W.; Melesse, A. Climate Teleconnections and Water Management. In Nile River Basin; Melesse, A., Abtew, W., Setegn, S.,
Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 7–21.
339. Alhamshry, A.; Fenta, A.A.; Yasuda, H.; Shimizu, K.; Kawai, T. Prediction of summer rainfall over the source region of the Blue
Nile by using teleconnections based on sea surface temperatures. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2019, 137, 3077–3087. [CrossRef]
340. Eltahir, E.A.B. El Nino and the natural variability of the Nile River. Water Resour. Res. 1991, 32, 131–1376. [CrossRef]
341. Molla, F.; Kebede, A.; Raju, U.J.P. The Impact of the El-Niño Southern Oscillation Precipitation and the Surface Temperature over
the Upper Blue Nile Region. J. Sci. Res. Rep. 2019, 21, 1–15. [CrossRef]
342. Arpe, K.; Bengtsson, L.; Golitsyn, G.S.; Mokhov, I.I.; Semenov, V.A.; Sporyshev, P.V. Connection between Caspian Sea level
variability and ENSO. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2000, 27, 2693–2696. [CrossRef]
343. Roghani, R.; Soltani, S.; Bashari, H. Influence of southern oscillation on autumn rainfall in Iran (1951–2011). Theor. Appl. Climatol.
2015, 124, 411–423. [CrossRef]
344. Dehghani, M.; Salehi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Nabipour, N.; Shamshirband, S.; Ghamisi, P. Spatial analysis of seasonal precipitation over
Iran: Co-variation with climate indices. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information 2020, 9, 73. [CrossRef]
345. Huang, R.; Wu, Y. The influence of ENSO on the summer climate change in China and its mechanism. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 1989, 6,
21–32.
346. Hasanean, H. Precipitation variability over the Mediterranean and its linkage with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
J. Meteorol. 2004, 29, 151–160.
347. Pozo-Vazquez, D.; Gámiz-Fortis, S.R.; Tovar-Pescador, J.; Esteban-Parra, M.J.; Castro-Díez, Y. El Niño–Southern Oscillation events
and associated European winter precipitation anomalies. Int. J. Climatol. 2005, 25, 17–31. [CrossRef]
348. George, D.G. The impact of the North Atlantic Oscillation on the development of ice on Lake Windermere. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81,
455–468. [CrossRef]
349. Funk, C.; Dettinger, M.D.; Michaelsen, J.C.; Verdin, J.P.; Brown, M.; Barlow, M.; Hoell, A. Warming of the Indian Ocean threatens
eastern and southern African food security but could be mitigated by agricultural development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008,
105, 11081–11086. [CrossRef]
350. Holman, I.P.; Rivas-Casado, M.; Bloomfield, J.P.; Gurdak, J.J. Identifying non-stationary groundwater level response to North
Atlantic ocean-atmosphere teleconnection patterns using wavelet coherence. Hydrogeol. J. 2011, 19, 1269–1278. [CrossRef]
351. Kuss, A.J.M.; Gurdak, J.J. Groundwater level response in U.S. principal aquifers to ENSO, NAO, PDO, and AMO. J. Hydrol. 2014,
519, 1939–1952. [CrossRef]
352. Velasco, E.M.; Gurdak, J.J.; Dickinson, J.E.; Ferré, T.P.A.; Corona, C.R. Interannual to multidecadal climate forcings on groundwater
resources of the U.S. West Coast. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2017, 11, 250–265. [CrossRef]
353. Rust, W.; Holman, I.; Bloomfield, J.; Cuthbert, M.; Corstanje, R. Understanding the potential of climate teleconnections to project
future groundwater drought. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 23, 3233–3245. [CrossRef]
354. Abiy, A.Z.; Melesse, A.M.; Seyoum, W.M.; Abtew, W. Drought and climate teleconnection and drought monitoring. In Extreme
Hydrology and Climate Variability; Melesse, A.M., Abtew, W., Senay, G., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019;
pp. 275–295.
355. Amini, M.; Ghadami, M.; Fathian, F.; Modarres, R. Teleconnections between oceanic–atmospheric indices and drought over Iran
using quantile regressions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2020, 65, 2286–2295. [CrossRef]
356. Trenberth, K.E.; Branstator, G.W.; Arkin, P.A. Origins of the 1988 North American Drought. Science. Science 1988, 242, 1640–1645.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
357. Seager, R. The turn of the century North American drought: Global context, dynamics, and past analogs. J. Clim. 2007, 20,
5527–5552. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 42 of 51

358. Mo, K.C.; Schemm, J.K.E.; Yoo, S.H. Influence of ENSO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation on drought over the United
States. J. Clim. 2009, 22, 5962–5982. [CrossRef]
359. Räsänen, T.A.; Lindgren, V.; Guillaume, J.H.A.; Buckley, B.M.; Kummu, M. On the spatial and temporal variability of ENSO
precipitation and drought teleconnection in mainland Southeast Asia. Clim. Past 2016, 12, 1889–1905. [CrossRef]
360. Meza, F.J. Recent trends and ENSO influence on droughts in Northern Chile: An application of the Standardized Precipitation
Evapotranspiration Index. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2013, 1, 51–58. [CrossRef]
361. Park, S.; Kang, D.; Yoo, C.; Im, J.; Lee, M.-I. Recent ENSO influence on East African drought during rainy seasons through the
synergistic use of satellite and reanalysis data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 162, 17–26. [CrossRef]
362. Lau, W.K.M.; Kim, K.M. The 2010 Pakistan flood and Russian heat wave: Teleconnection of hydrometeorological extremes.
J. Hydrometeorol. 2012, 13, 392–403. [CrossRef]
363. Hooshyaripor, F.; Faraji-Ashkavar, S.; Koohyian, F.; Tang, Q.; Noori, R. Annual flood damage influenced by El Niño in the Kan
River basin, Iran. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 20, 2739–2751. [CrossRef]
364. Wang, S.Y.S.; Huang, W.R.; Hsu, H.H.; Gillies, R.R. Role of the strengthened El Niño teleconnection in the May 2015 floods over
the southern Great Plains. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015, 42, 8140–8146. [CrossRef]
365. Najibi, N.; Devineni, N.; Lu, M. Hydroclimate drivers and atmospheric teleconnections of long duration floods: An application to
large reservoirs in the Missouri River Basin. Adv. Water Resour. 2017, 100, 153–167. [CrossRef]
366. Wu, Y.; Gough, W.A. The teleconnection between floods in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River and El Niño events. In
Proceedings of the Predictions in Ungauged Basins: PUB Kick-Off (Proceedings of the PUB Kick-Off Meeting, Brasilia, Brazil,
20–22 November 2002; Volume 14, pp. 376–380.
367. Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Szwed, M.; Pińskwar, I. Climate variability and floods—A global review. Water 2019, 11, 1399. [CrossRef]
368. Whan, K.; Zwiers, F. The impact of ENSO and the NAO on extreme winter precipitation in North America in observations and
regional climate models. Clim. Dyn. 2017, 48, 1401–1411. [CrossRef]
369. Lü, J.; Li, Y.; Zhai, P.; Chen, J.; Zhao, T. Teleconnection Patterns Impacting on the Summer Consecutive Extreme Rainfall in
Central-Eastern China. In Proceedings of the 40th NOAA Annual Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop, Denver, CO,
USA, 26–29 October 2015; pp. 1–5.
370. Deng, Y.; Jiang, W.; He, B.; Chen, Z.; Jia, K. Change in Intensity and Frequency of Extreme Precipitation and its Possible
Teleconnection With Large-Scale Climate Index Over the China From 1960 to 2015. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2018, 123, 2068–2081.
[CrossRef]
371. Sun, X.; Renard, B.; Thyer, M.; Westra, S.; Lang, M. A global analysis of the asymmetric effect of ENSO on extreme precipitation.
J. Hydrol. 2015, 530, 51–65. [CrossRef]
372. Shimizu, M.H.; Ambrizzi, T.; Liebmann, B. Extreme precipitation events and their relationship with ENSO and MJO phases over
northern South America. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 2977–2989. [CrossRef]
373. Krichak, S.O.; Breitgand, J.S.; Gualdi, S.; Feldstein, S.B. Teleconnection-extreme precipitation relationships over the Mediterranean
region. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2014, 117, 679–692. [CrossRef]
374. Casanueva, A.; Rodríguez-Puebla, C.; Frías, M.D.; González-Reviriego, N. Variability of extreme precipitation over Europe and
its relationships with teleconnection patterns. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 709–725. [CrossRef]
375. Duzenli, E.; Tabari, H.; Willems, P.; Yilmaz, M.T. Decadal variability analysis of extreme precipitation in Turkey and its relationship
with teleconnection patterns. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 3513–3528. [CrossRef]
376. Brubaker, K.; Entekhabi, D.; Eagleson, P. Estimation of continental precipitation recycling. J. Clim. 1993, 6, 1077–1089. [CrossRef]
377. Brubaker, K.L.; Entekhabi, D. Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms in Land-Atmosphere Interaction Analysis of feedback mecha-
nisms in land-atmosphere interaction. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32, 1343–1357. [CrossRef]
378. Budyko, M.I.; Drozdov, O.A. Zakonomernosti vlagooborota v atmosfere (Regularities of the hydrologic cycle in the atmosphere).
Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Geogr. 1953, 4, 5–14.
379. Eltahir, E.A.B.; Bras, R.L. Precipitation recycling. Rev. Geophys. 1996, 34, 367–378. [CrossRef]
380. Burde, G.I.; Zangvil, A. The estimation of regional precipitation recycling. Part I: Review of recycling models. J. Clim. 2001, 14,
2497–2508. [CrossRef]
381. Dirmeyer, P.A.; Brubaker, K.L. Global characterization of the hydrologic cycle from a quasi-isentropic back-trajectory analysis of
atmospheric water vapor. J. Hydrometeorol. 2007, 8, 20–37. [CrossRef]
382. Dirmeyer, P.A.; Brubaker, K.L.; DelSole, T. Import and export of atmospheric water vapor between nations. J. Hydrol. 2009, 365,
11–22. [CrossRef]
383. Dirmeyer, P.A.; Brubaker, K.L. Contrasting evaporative moisture sources during the drought of 1988 and the flood of 1993.
J. Geophys. Res. 1999, 104, 19383–19397. [CrossRef]
384. Dirmeyer, P. What water vapor back-trajectory analysis can tell us about climate variability. In Proceedings of the 8th EGU
Leonardo Conference 25 October 2016, Ourense, Spain, 25–27 October 2016.
385. Xie, P.; Arkin, P.A. Global precipitation: A 17-year monthly analysis based on gauge observations, satellite estimates, and
numerical model outputs. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 1997, 78, 2539–2558. [CrossRef]
386. Stohl, A. Computation, accuracy and applications of trajectories—A review and bibliography. Atmos. Environ. 1998, 32, 947–966.
[CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 43 of 51

387. Kanamitsu, M.; Ebisuzaki, W.; Woollen, J.; Yang, S.-K.; Hnilo, J.J.; Fiorino, M.; Potter, G.L. NCEP-DOE AMIP-II reanalysis (R-2).
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 2002, 83, 1631–1648. [CrossRef]
388. Bisselink, B.; Dolman, A.J. Precipitation recycling: Moisture sources over Europe using ERA-40 data. J. Hydrometeorol. 2008, 9,
1073–1083. [CrossRef]
389. Dyn, C.; Hoyos, I.; Cañón, F.D.J.; Martínez, B.J.A. Moisture origin and transport processes in Colombia, northern South America.
Clim. Dyn. Dyn. 2018, 50, 971–990.
390. Ryoo, J.; Waliser, D.E. Trajectory analysis on the origin of air mass and moisture associated with Atmospheric Rivers over the
west coast of the United States. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2011, 11, 11109–11142.
391. Jana, S.; Rajagopalan, B.; Alexander, M.A.; Ray, A.J. Understanding the Dominant Sources and Tracks of Moisture for Summer
Rainfall in the Southwest United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2018, 123, 4850–4870. [CrossRef]
392. Hua, L.; Zhong, L.; Ke, Z. Characteristics of the precipitation recycling ratio and its relationship with regional precipitation in
China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2017, 127, 513–531. [CrossRef]
393. Bosilovich, M.G.; Chern, J.D. Simulation of water sources and precipitation recycling for the MacKenzie, Mississippi, and Amazon
River basins. J. Hydrometeorol. 2006, 7, 312–329. [CrossRef]
394. Nieto, R.; Gallego, D.; Trigo, R.; Ribera, P.; Gimeno, L. Dynamic identification of moisture sources in the Orinoco basin in
equatorial South America. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2008, 53, 602–617. [CrossRef]
395. Shiklomanov, I.A. Anthropogenic effects on the hydrological cycle. In Hydrological Cycle—Volume I; Shiklomanov, I.A., Ed.;
Unesco Eolss: New York, NY, USA, 1996; p. 7.
396. Keys, P.W.; van der Ent, R.J.; Gordon, L.J.; Hoff, H.; Nikoli, R.; Savenije, H.H.G. Analyzing precipitationsheds to understand the
vulnerability of rainfall dependent regions. Biogeosciences 2012, 9, 733–746. [CrossRef]
397. Gimeno, L.; Stohl, A.; Trigo, R.M.; Dominguez, F.; Yoshimura, K.; Yu, L.; Drumond, A.; Durán-Quesada, A.M.; Nieto, R. Oceanic
and terrestrial sources of continental precipitation. Rev. Geophys. 2012, 50, 1–41. [CrossRef]
398. de Vrese, P.; Hagemann, S.; Claussen, M. Asian irrigation, African rain: Remote impacts of irrigation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016, 43,
3737–3745. [CrossRef]
399. Stickler, C.M.; Coe, M.T.; Costa, M.; Nepstad, D.C.; McGrath, D.G.; Dias, L.C.P.; Rodrigues, H.O.; Soares-Filho, B.S. Dependence
of hydropower energy generation on forests in the Amazon Basin at local and regional scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013,
110, 9601–9606. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
400. Li, E.; Endter-Wada, J.; Li, S. Characterizing and Contextualizing the Water Challenges of Megacities. J. Am. Resour. Assovcation
2015, 51, 1–26. [CrossRef]
401. Keys, P.W.; Wang-Erlandsson, L.; Gordon, L.J. Megacity precipitationsheds reveal tele- connected water security challenges. PLoS
ONE 2018. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
402. Chhabra, A.; Geist, H.; Houghton, R.A.; Haberl, H.; Braimoh, A.K.; Vlek, P.L.G.; Patz, J.; Xu, J.; Ramankutty, N.; Coomes, O. et al.
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Loval Processes and Global Impacts. In Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Loval Processes and
Global Impacts; Lambin, E., Geist, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 71–116.
403. Mustard, J.F.; Desfries, R.S.; Fisher, T.; Moran, E. Land Use and Land Cover Change Pathways and Impacts. In Land Change Science:
Observing, Monitoring, and Understanding Trajectories of Change on Earth’s Surface; Gutman, G., Janetos, A.C., Justice, C.O., Moran,
E.F., Mustard, J.F., Rindfuss, R.R., Skole, D., Turner, B.L.I., Cochrane, M.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2004; pp. 411–429.
404. Hogeboom, R.J.; Knook, L.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The blue water footprint of the world’s artificial reservoirs for hydroelectricity,
irrigation, residential and industrial water supply, flood protection, fishing and recreation. Adv. Water Resour. 2018, 113, 285–294.
[CrossRef]
405. Veldkamp, T.; Wada, Y.; Aerts, J.; Döll, P.; Gosling, S.N.; Liu, J.; Masaki, Y.; Oki, T.; Ostberg, S.; Pokhrel, Y.; et al. Water scarcity
hotspots travel downstream due to human interventions in the 20th and 21st century. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1–12. [CrossRef]
406. Fekete, B.M.; Wisser, D.; Mayorga, E.; Bouwman, L.; Vörösmarty, C.; Kroeze, C.; Wollheim, W. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
scenario drivers (1970-2050): Climate and hydrological alterations. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2010, 24. [CrossRef]
407. Meyer, W.B.; Turner, B.L. Human population growth and global land cover change. Annu. Revis. Ecol. Syst. 1992, 23. [CrossRef]
408. Ruddiman, W.F. The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Clim. Chang. 2003, 61, 261–293. [CrossRef]
409. Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.; Gingrich, S.; Haberl, H.; Bondeau, A.; Gaube, V.; Lauk, C.; Plutzar, C.; Searchinger, T.D. Global human
appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 10324–10329.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
410. Vitousek, P.M.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H.; Matson, P.A. Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. Am. Inst. Biol.
Sci. Stable 1986, 36, 368–373. [CrossRef]
411. Rojstaczer, S.; Sterling, S.M.; Moore, N.J. Human Appropriation of Photosynthesis Products. Science 2001, 294, 2549–2552.
[CrossRef]
412. Potter, C.; Klooster, S.; Genovese, V. Net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems from 2000 to 2009. Clim. Chang. 2012, 115,
365–378. [CrossRef]
413. Kazama, S.; Oki, T. The Effects of Climate Change on Water Resources. Clim. Res. 2011, 47, 77–82.
414. Ky, R. Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 1–6.
415. Trenberth, K.E. Climate change caused by human activities is happening and it already has major consequences. J. Energy Nat.
Resour. Law 2018, 36, 463–481. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 44 of 51

416. Wang, R.; Zimmerman, J. Hybrid Analysis of Blue Water Consumption and Water Scarcity Implications at the Global, National,
and Basin Levels in an Increasingly Globalized World. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5143–5153. [CrossRef]
417. Lade, S.J.; Steffen, W.; De Vries, W.; Carpenter, S.R.; Donges, J.F.; Gerten, D.; Hoff, H.; Newbold, T.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.
Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 3, 119–128. [CrossRef]
418. Goldewijk, K.K. Estimating global land use change over the past 300 years: The HYDE database. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2001,
15, 417–433. [CrossRef]
419. Delzeit, R.; Zabel, F.; Meyer, C.; Václavík, T. Addressing future trade-offs between biodiversity and cropland expansion to
improve food security. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1429–1441. [CrossRef]
420. FAO. Crop Production and Natural Resource Use FAO. 2020. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 22 April 2021).
421. Gregory, P.J.; George, T.S. Feeding nine billion: The challenge to sustainable crop production. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 5233–5239.
[CrossRef]
422. Smith, P.; Gregory, P.J.; Van Vuuren, D.; Obersteiner, M.; Havlik, P.; Rounsevell, M.; Woods, J.; Stehfest, E.; Bellarby, J. Competition
for land. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2941–2957. [CrossRef]
423. Eitelberg, D.A.; van Vliet, J.; Verburg, P.H. A review of global potentially available cropland estimates and their consequences for
model-based assessments. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 1236–1248. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
424. Schmitz, C.; Van Meijl, H.; Kyle, P.; Nelson, G.C.; Fujimori, S.; Gurgel, A.C.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Popp, A.;
et al. Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: Insights from a global agro-economic model comparison. Agric. Econ. 2014, 45,
69–84. [CrossRef]
425. Defries, S.; Foley, A.; Asner, P. Balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 249–257. [CrossRef]
426. Rodríguez, J.P.; Beard, J.T.D.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Dobson, A.P.; Peterson, G. Trade-offs across Space,
Time, and Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1–14. [CrossRef]
427. Huq, N.; Bruns, A.; Ribbe, L. Interactions between freshwater ecosystem services and land cover changes in southern Bangladesh:
A perspective from short-term (seasonal) and long-term (1973–2014) scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 650, 132–143. [CrossRef]
428. Gordon, L.J.; Steffen, W.; Jönsson, B.F.; Folke, C.; Falkenmark, M.; Johannessen, Å. Human modification of global water vapor
flows from the land surface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 7612–7617. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
429. Verburg, P.H.; van Eck, J.R.R.; de Nijs, T.C.M.; Dijst, M.J.; Schot, P. Determinants of land-use change patterns in the Netherlands.
Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2004, 31, 125–150. [CrossRef]
430. Kissinger, G.; Herold, M.; de Sy, V. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis for REDD+Policymakers Vancouver,
Canada; Lexeme Consulting: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012.
431. Persson, M.; Henders, S.; Kastner, T. Trading Forests: Quantifying the Contribution of Global Commodity Markets to Emissions from
Tropical Deforestation; Center for Global Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
432. Heistermann, M.; Müller, C.; Ronneberger, K. Land in sight? Achievements, deficits and potentials of continental to global scale
land-use modeling. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 114, 141–158. [CrossRef]
433. Land Matrix, Land Matrix: Africa. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 21 February 2021).
434. Johansson, E.L.; Fader, M.; Seaquist, J.W.; Nicholas, K.A. Green and blue water demand from large-scale land acquisitions in
Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11471–11476. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
435. Gibbs, H.K.; Ruesch, A.S.; Achard, F.; Clayton, M.K.; Holmgren, P.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Tropical forests were the primary
sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2010, 107, 16732–16737. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
436. Hosonuma, N.; Herold, M.; De Sy, V.; De Fries, R.S.; Brockhaus, M.; Verchot, L.; Angelsen, A.; Romijn, E. An assessment of
deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 044009. [CrossRef]
437. Zhang, X.; Zwiers, F.W.; Hegerl, G.; Lambert, F.H.; Gillett, N.P.; Solomon, S.; Stott, P.A.; Nozawa, T. Detection of human influence
on twentieth-century precipitation trends. Nat. Lett. 2007, 448, 461–466. [CrossRef]
438. Stott, P.A. Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2003, 30,
1–4. [CrossRef]
439. Garg, V.; Nikam, B.R.; Thakur, P.K.; Aggarwal, S.P.; Gupta, P.K.; Srivastav, S.K. Human-induced land use land cover change and
its impact on hydrology. HydroResearch 2019, 1, 48–56. [CrossRef]
440. Balling, R.J. The climatic impacts of a Sonoran vegetation discontinuity. Clim. Chang. 1988, 13, 99–109. [CrossRef]
441. Campra, P.; Garcia, M.; Canton, Y.; Palacios-Orueta, A. Surface temperature cooling trends and negative radiative forcing due to
land use change toward greenhouse farming in southeastern Spain. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2008, 113, 1–10. [CrossRef]
442. Kvalevag, M.; Myhre, G.; Bonan, G.; Levis, S. Anthropogenic land cover changes in a GCM with surface albedo changes based on
MODIS data. Int. J. Climatol. 2010, 30, 2105–2117. [CrossRef]
443. Davin, E.L.; de Noblet-Ducoudré, N.; Friedlingstein, P. Impact of land cover change on surface climate: Relevance of the radiative
forcing concept. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, 1–5. [CrossRef]
444. Lee, E.; Sacks, W.J.; Chase, T.N.; Foley, J.A. Simulated impacts of irrigation on the atmospheric circulation over Asia. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 2011, 116, 1–13. [CrossRef]
445. Mahmood, R.; Sr, R.A.P.; Hubbard, K.G.; Niyogi, D.; Dirmeyer, P.A.; McAlpine, C.; Carleton, A.M.; Hale, R.; Gameda, S.;
Beltrán-Przekurat, A.; et al. Land cover changes and their biogeophysical effects on climate. Int. J. Climatol. 2014, 34, 929–953.
[CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 45 of 51

446. Tolba, M.K.; El-Kholy, O.A. (Eds.) The World Environment 1972–1992: Two Decades of Challenge; Chapman & Hall: London,
UK, 1992.
447. Weaver, C.P.; Avissar, R. Atmospheric disturbances caused by human modification of the landscape. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2001,
82, 269–282. [CrossRef]
448. Pielke, R.A.; Marland, G.; Betts, R.A.; Chase, T.N.; Eastman, J.L.; Niles, J.O.; Niyogi, D.D.S.; Running, S.W. The influence of
land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: Relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect
of greenhouse gases. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2002, 360, 1705–1719. [CrossRef]
449. Avissar, R.; Werth, D. Global hydroclimatological teleconnections resulting from tropical deforestation. J. Hydrometeorol. 2005, 6,
134–145. [CrossRef]
450. Wang-Erlandsson, L.; Fetzer, I.; Keys, P.W.; van der Ent, R.J.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Gordon, L.J. Remote land use impacts on river
flows through atmospheric teleconnections. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 4311–4328. [CrossRef]
451. Wang, M.; Shao, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Xiao, L.; Yan, H.; Gao, X.; Wang, L.; Liu, P. Impacts of climate change and human activity on the
runoff changes in the Guishui River Basin. Land 2020, 9, 291. [CrossRef]
452. Seneviratne, S.I.; Lüthi, D.; Litschi, M.; Schär, C. Land-atmosphere coupling and climate change in Europe. Nature 2006, 443,
205–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
453. Chan, D.; Wu, Q. Significant anthropogenic-induced changes of climate classes since 1950. Sci. Reports Nat. Publ. Gr. 2015, 4, 1–8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
454. Magrin, G.O.; Marengo, J.A.; Boulanger, J.-P.; Buckeridge, M.S.; Castellanos, E.; Poveda, G.; Scarano, F.R.; Vicuña, S.; Alfaro, E.;
Anthelme, F.; et al. Central and South America in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Barros, V.R.,
Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al.,
Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1499–1566.
455. Pervez, S.; Henebry, G.M. Assessing the impacts of climate and land use and land cover change on the freshwater availability in
the Brahmaputra River basin. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 3, 285–311. [CrossRef]
456. Tekleab, S.; Mohamed, Y.; Uhlenbrook, S.; Wenninger, J. Hydrologic responses to land cover change: The case of Jedeb mesoscale
catchment, Abay/Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 5149–5161. [CrossRef]
457. Berihun, M.L.; Tsunekawa, A.; Haregeweyn, N.; Meshesha, D.T.; Adgo, E.; Tsubo, M.; Masunaga, T.; Fenta, A.A.; Sultan, D.;
Yibeltal, M.; et al. Hydrological responses to land use/land cover change and climate variability in contrasting agro-ecological
environments of the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 689, 347–365. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
458. ESA Climate Change Initiative—Land Cover led by UC Louvain, Global Land Cover Maps 1992–2015. 2017. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 22 April 2021).
459. Brink, A.B.; Eva, H.D. Monitoring 25 years of land cover change dynamics in Africa: A sample based remote sensing approach.
Appl. Geogr. 2009, 29, 501–512. [CrossRef]
460. Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A.; Norman, J.; McSweeney, K. The global distribution of cultivable lands: Current patterns and
sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2002, 11, 377–392. [CrossRef]
461. Pitman, A.J.; De Noblet-Ducoudré, N.; Avila, F.B.; Alexander, L.V.; Boisier, J.P.; Brovkin, V.; Delire, C.; Cruz, F.; Donat, M.G.;
Gayler, V.; et al. Effects of land cover change on temperature and rainfall extremes in multi-model ensemble simulations. Earth
Syst. Dyn. Discuss. 2012, 3, 597–641.
462. Niu, X.; Tang, J.; Wang, S.; Fu, C. Impact of future land use and land cover change on temperature projections over East Asia.
Clim. Dyn. 2019, 52, 6475–6490. [CrossRef]
463. Wu, M.; Schurgers, G.; Ahlström, A.; Rummukainen, M.; A Miller, P.; Smith, B.; May, W. Impacts of land use on climate and
ecosystem productivity over the Amazon and the South American continent. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 054016. [CrossRef]
464. Li, D.; Wang, L. Sensitivity of Surface Temperature to Land Use and Land Cover Change-Induced Biophysical Changes: The
Scale Issue. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019, 46, 9678–9689. [CrossRef]
465. Falkenmark, M.; Widstrand, C. Population and water resources: A delicate balance. Popul Bull 1992, 47, 1–36. [PubMed]
466. Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H. Too Many People, Too Much Consumption Yale 360. 2008. Available online: [Link]
features/too_many_people_too_much_consumption (accessed on 21 April 2021).
467. van Ypersele, J.P.; Bartiaux, F. The Role of Population Growth in Global Warming. In “International Population Conference”,
Inter-national Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP); Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1973; Volume 4, pp. 33–54.
468. Rosnick, D. The Consequences of Increased Population Growth for Climate Change; Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR):
Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
469. Daly, H.E. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1996.
470. Henderson, K.; Loreau, M. An ecological theory of changing human population dynamics. People Nat. 2019, 1, 31–43. [CrossRef]
471. World Bank. Renewable Internal Freshwater Resources per Capita (Cubic Meters). 2014. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/indicator/[Link]?end=2014&start=1970 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
472. Word Bank. Population, Total. 2019. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
22 April 2021).
473. World Bank. Population, Total—Middle East & North Africa. 2020. Available online: [Link]
[Link]?end=2014&locations=ZQ&start=1970 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
Water 2021, 13, 1693 46 of 51

474. Roudi-Fahimi, F.; Kent, M.M. Challenges and opportunities—The population of the Middle East and North Africa. Popul. Bull.
2007, 62, 1–19.
475. World Bank. Renewable Energy Desalination An Emerging Solution to Close the Water Gap in the Middle East and North Africa MENA
Development Report; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
476. World Bank. Beyond Scarcity: Water Security in the Middle East and North Africa MENA Development Series; World Bank: Washington,
DC, USA, 2017.
477. Bongaarts, J. Human population growth and the demographic transition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2985–2990.
[CrossRef]
478. Roser, M. Future Population Growth. In Our World in Data. Available online: [Link]
growth (accessed on 22 February 2021).
479. Piguet, E.; Pécoud, A.; de Guchteneire, P. Migration and climate change: An overview. Refug. Surv. Q. 2011, 30, 1–23. [CrossRef]
480. Black, R.; Kniveton, D.; Skeldon, R.; Coppard, D.; Murata, A.; Schmidt-verkerk, K. Demographics and Climate Change: Future Trends
And their Policy Implications for Migration T-27; Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, University
of Sussex: Brighton, UK, 2008.
481. UNHCR. Supplementary Appeal: Somalia Situation 2017; UNHCR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
482. Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG). Somalia Migration Profile: Study on Migration Routes in the East and Horn of
Africa; Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG): Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2017.
483. AQUASTAT. Water Uses 2019. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
22 April 2021).
484. Falkenmark, M.; Rockström, J.; Karlberg, L. Present and future water requirements for feeding humanity. Food Secur. 2009, 1,
59–69. [CrossRef]
485. Wada, Y.; Flörke, M.; Hanasaki, N.; Eisner, S.; Fischer, G.; Tramberend, S.; Satoh, Y.; van Vliet, M.T.H.; Yillia, P.; Ringler, C.; et al.
Modeling global water use for the 21st century: The Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative and its approaches. Geosci.
Model Dev. 2016, 9, 175–222. [CrossRef]
486. UN Water. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water UNESCO; UN Water: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2018.
487. Boretti, A.; Rosa, L. Reassessing the projections of the World Water Development Report. NPJ Clean Water 2019, 2, 15. [CrossRef]
488. U.N. Water. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019: Leaving No One Behind; UN Water: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
489. Pitchford, J.D. Relative scarcity and uneven growth. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 1997, 24, 847–858. [CrossRef]
490. International Task Force on Global Public Goods. Meeting Global Challenges: International Cooperation in the National Interest
Stockholm; International Task Force on Global Public Goods: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006.
491. Leagans, J.P. Concept of Needs. J. Ext. 1964, 2, 89–96.
492. Beatty, P.T. The concept of need: Proposal for a working definition. J. Community Dev. Soc. 1981, 12, 39–46. [CrossRef]
493. Samuelson, P.A. Economics: An Introductory Analysis; McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1955.
494. Thaler, R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1980, 1, 39–60. [CrossRef]
495. Kahneman, D.; Thaler, R.H. Anomalies: Utility maximization and experienced utility. J. Econ. Perspect. 2006, 20, 221–234.
[CrossRef]
496. Hussien, W.A.; Memon, F.A. Assessing and Modelling the Influence of Household Characteristics on Per Capita Water Consump-
tion Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply Rights reserved. Water Resour. Manag. 2016. [CrossRef]
497. de Buck, E.; Borra, V.; de Weerdt, E.; Veegaete, A.V. A Systematic Review of the Amount of Water per Person per Day Needed to
Prevent Morbidity and Mortality in (Post-) Disaster Settings. PLoS ONE 2015, 11, e0126395. [CrossRef]
498. Gleick, P.H.; Iwra, M. Basic Water Requirements. Water Int. 1996, 21, 83–92. [CrossRef]
499. WHO/SEARO. Minimum Water Quantity Needed for Domestic Uses; WHO/SEARO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
500. Dalezios, N.R.; Angelakis, A.N.; Eslamian, S.S. Water scarcity management: Part 1: Methodological framework. Int. J. Glob.
Environ. Issues 2018, 17, 1–40. [CrossRef]
501. Molden, D. Scarcity of water or scarcity of management? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020, 36, 258–268. [CrossRef]
502. FAO. Land and Water. 2020. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
21 April 2021).
503. Bettini, Y.; Brown, R.; de Haan, F.J.; Science, E. Water scarcity and institutional change: Lessons in adaptive governance from the
drought experience of Perth, Western. Water Sci. Technol. 2004, 67, 2160–2168. [CrossRef]
504. Barnes, J. Managing the waters of ba’th country: The politics of water scarcity in Syria. Geopolitics 2009, 14, 510–530. [CrossRef]
505. Wang, C.; Huang, H.; Zhou, J.; Deng, H.; Fang, C. Analysis of sustainable utilization of water resources based on the improved
water resources ecological footprint model: A case study of Hubei Province, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 262. [CrossRef]
506. Maruyama, T.; Kawachi, T.; Singh, V.P. Entropy-based assessment and clustering of potential water resources availability. J. Hydrol.
2005, 309, 104–113. [CrossRef]
507. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Chapagain, A.K.; Mathews, R.E.; Richter, B.D. Global monthly water scarcity: Blue water
footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
508. Faramarzi, M.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Schulin, R.; Yang, H. Modelling blue and green water resources availability in Iran. Hydrol.
Process. 2009, 23, 486–501. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 47 of 51

509. Schuol, J.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Yang, H.; Srinivasan, R.; Zehnder, A.J.B. Modeling blue and green water availability in Africa. Water
Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 1–18.
510. Xu, Z.; Zuo, D. Simulation of blue and green water resources in the Wei River basin, China in Evolving Water Resources
Systems: Understanding, Predicting and Managing Water–Society Interactions. In Proceedings of the ICWRS2014, Bologna, Italy,
4–6 June 2014; pp. 486–491.
511. Sayyad, G.; Vasel, L.; Besalatpour, A.A.; Gharabaghi, B.; Golmohammadi, G. Modeling Blue and Green Water Resources
Availability in an Iranian Data Scarce Watershed Using SWAT. J. Water Manag. Model. 2015, 1–8. [CrossRef]
512. Xu, H.; Wu, M. A first estimation of county-based greenwater availability and its implications for agriculture and bioenergy
production in the United States. Water 2018, 10, 148. [CrossRef]
513. Badou, D.F.; Diekkrüger, B.; Kapangaziwiri, E.; Mbaye, M.L.; Yira, Y.; Lawin, E.A.; Oyerinde, G.T.; Afouda, A. Modelling blue and
green water availability under climate change in the Beninese Basin of the Niger River Basin, West Africa. Hydrol. Process. 2018,
32, 2526–2542. [CrossRef]
514. Alamou, E.A.; Obada, E.; Afouda, A. Assessment of future water resources availability under climate change scenarios in the
Mékrou Basin, Benin. Hydrology 2017, 4, 51. [CrossRef]
515. Sordo-Ward, A.; Granados, I.; Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L. Blue water in Europe: Estimates of current and future availability and
analysis of uncertainty. Water 2019, 11, 420. [CrossRef]
516. Khan, S.; Guan, Y.; Khan, F.; Khan, Y. A Comprehensive Index for Measuring Water Security in an Urbanizing World: The Case of
Pakistan’s Capital. Water 2020, 12, 166. [CrossRef]
517. Reilly, T.E.; Dennehy, K.F.; Alley, W.M.; Cunningham, W.L. U.S.G.S. Circular 1323: Ground-Water Availability in the United States;
U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2008.
518. MacDonald, A.M.; Bonsor, H.C.; Dochartaigh, B.É.Ó.; Taylor, R.G. Quantitative maps of groundwater resources in Africa. Environ.
Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 024009. [CrossRef]
519. Al-Ghazawy, O. Africa floats on underground water reserves. Nat. Middle East. Available online: [Link]
en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2012.72 (accessed on 22 April 2021). [CrossRef]
520. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Irrigation and Water Management: Results from the 2018 Irrigation and Water Management
Survey (Highlights); United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
521. Fung, F.; Lopez, A.; New, M. Water availability in +2◦ C and +4◦ C worlds. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2011, 369,
99–116. [CrossRef]
522. Latrubesse, E.M. Patterns of anabranching channels: The ultimate end-member adjustment of Mega Rivers. Geomorphology 2008,
101, 130–145. [CrossRef]
523. Czaya, E. Rivers of the World; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1985.
524. Allan, J.A. Virtual water: A strategic resource. Global solutions to regional deficits Ground Water. Ground Water 1998, 36, 545–546.
[CrossRef]
525. Burek, P.; Langan, S.; Cosgrove, W.; Fischer, G.; Kahil, T.; Magnuszewski, P.; Satoh, Y.; Tramberend, S.; Wada, Y.; Wiberg, D.
The Water Futures and Solutions Initiative of IIASA; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA): Laxenburg,
Austria, 2016.
526. Shiklomanov, I.A. Assessment of Water Resources and Water Availability in the World: Scientific and Technical Report; Russian State
Hydrological Institute: St. Petersburg, Russia, 1996.
527. Grove, A.T. The geography of semi-arid lands. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1977, 278, 457–475.
528. Mortimore, M.; Anderson, S.; Cotula, L.; Davies, J.; Faccer, K.; Hesse, C.; Morton, J.; Nyangena, W.; Skinner, J.; Wolfangel, C.
Dryland Opportunities: A new paradigm for people, ecosystems and development; IIED: London, UK, 2009.
529. United Nations Environment Management Group. Global Drylands: A UN System-Wide Response; United Nations Environment
Management Group: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
530. Bychkov, I.; Gagarinova, O.; Orlova, I.; Bogdanov, V. Water Protection Zoning as an Instrument of Preservation for Lake Baikal.
Water 2018, 10, 1474. [CrossRef]
531. Afanas’ev, A.N. Vodnye resursy i vodnyi balans basseina oz. Baikal (Water Resources and Water Balance of the Baikal Lake Basin); Nauka:
Moscow, Russia, 1976.
532. Fry, A.; Haden, E.; Martin, M.; Fry, A.; Haden, E.; Martin, M. Facts and Trends: Water. World Business Council for Sustainable
Development; UN Water: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
533. Demin, A.P. Water resources and food program. Water Resour. 2014, 41, 232–241. [CrossRef]
534. UNESCO. Map of the World Distribution of Arid Regions: Explanatory Note; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1979; Volume 7.
535. Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Hevesi, J.A.; Blainey, J.B. Fundamental Concepts of Recharge in the Desert Southwest: A Regional Modeling
Perspective. In Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States Water Science and Application; American
Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 9, pp. 159–184.
536. Dynesius, M.; Nilsson, C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of rivers. Sci. New Ser. 1994, 266, 753–762.
537. Postel, P.; Daily, S.L.; Ehrlich, G.C. Human Appropriation of Renewable Fresh Water. Science 1996, 271, 785–788. [CrossRef]
538. Biggs, E.M.; Duncan, J.M.A.; Atkinson, P.M.; Dash, J. Plenty of water, not enough strategy: How inadequate accessibility, poor
governance and a volatile government can tip the balance against ensuring water security: The case of Nepal. Environ. Sci. Policy
2013, 33, 388–394. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 48 of 51

539. Ogino, S.Y.; Yamanaka, M.D.; Mori, S.; Matsumoto, J. How much is the precipitation amount over the tropical coastal region?
J. Clim. 2016, 29, 1231–1236. [CrossRef]
540. Curtis, S. Means and Long-Term Trends of Global Coastal Zone Precipitation. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
541. Jahfer, S.; Vinayachandran, P.N.; Nanjundiah, R.S. Long-Term impact of Amazon River runoff on northern hemispheric climate.
Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
542. Tyaquiçã, P.; Veleda, D.; Lefèvre, N.; Araujo, M.; Noriega, C.; Caniaux, G.; Servain, J.; Silva, T. Amazon plume salinity response to
ocean teleconnections. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 1–14. [CrossRef]
543. Lewis, S.L.; Brando, P.M.; Phillips, O.L.; van der Heijden, G.M.F.; Nepstad, D. The 2010 Amazon drought. Science 2011, 331, 554.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
544. Dai, A.; Trenberth, K.E. Estimates of Freshwater Discharge from Continents: Latitudinal and Seasonal Variations. J. Hydrometeorol.
2002, 3, 660–687. [CrossRef]
545. Oki, T.; Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 2006, 313, 1068–1072. [CrossRef]
546. Dai, A.; Qian, T.; Trenberth, K.E.; Milliman, J.D. Changes in continental freshwater discharge from 1948 to 2004. J. Clim. 2009, 22,
2773–2792. [CrossRef]
547. Shi, X.; Qin, T.; Nie, H.; Weng, B.; He, S. Changes in major global river discharges directed into the ocean. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2019, 16, 1469. [CrossRef]
548. Peterson, B.J.; Holmes, R.M.; McClelland, J.; Vörösmarty, C.J.; Lammers, R.B.; Shiklomanov, A.I.; Shiklomanov, I.A.; Rahmstorf, S.
Increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science 2002, 298, 2171–2173. [CrossRef]
549. L’Vovich, M.L.; White, G.F. Use and transformation of terrestrial water systems. In The Earth as Transformed by Human Action;
Turner, B.L., II, Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T., Meyer, W.B., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 1990; pp. 235–252.
550. Thober, S.; Kumar, R.; Wanders, N.; Marx, A.; Pan, M.; Rakovec, O.; Samaniego, L.; Sheffield, J.; Wood, E.F.; Zink, M. Multi-model
ensemble projections of European river floods and high flows at 1.5, 2, and 3 degrees global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 13.
[CrossRef]
551. Machado, M.J.; Botero, B.A.; López, J.; Francés, F.; Díez-Herrero, A.; Benito, G. Flood frequency analysis of historical flood data
under stationary and non-stationary modelling. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 2561–2576. [CrossRef]
552. Odry, J.; Arnaud, P. Comparison of flood frequency analysis methods for ungauged catchments in France. Geoscience 2017, 7, 24.
[CrossRef]
553. Madsen, H.; Lawrence, D.; Lang, M.; Martinkova, M.; Kjeldsen, T. WG4: Flood Frequency Estimation Methods and Environmental
Change; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Bailrigg: Lancaster, UK, 2013.
554. Lawrence, D. Uncertainty introduced by flood frequency analysis in projections for changes in flood magnitudes under a future
climate in Norway. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2020, 28, 100675. [CrossRef]
555. Yin, J.; Guo, S.; Gu, L.; He, S.; Ba, H.; Tian, J.; Li, Q.; Chen, J. Projected changes of bivariate flood quantiles and estimation
uncertainty based on multi-model ensembles over China. J. Hydrol. 2020, 585. [CrossRef]
556. Hu, L.; Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Marra, F.; Anagnostou, E.N. Sensitivity of flood frequency analysis to data record, statistical model, and
parameter estimation methods: An evaluation over the contiguous United States. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2020, 13, 1–13. [CrossRef]
557. Topaloǧlu, F. Regional flood frequency analysis of the basins of the East Mediterranean region. Turkish J. Agric. Forestry 2005, 29,
287–295.
558. Yu, X.; Cohn, T.A.; Stedinger, J.R. Flood frequency analysis in the context of climate change. In Proceedings of the World
Environment Water Resource Congress 2015, Floods, Droughts, Ecosyst, Austin, TX, USA, 17–21 May 2015; pp. 2376–2385.
559. Demissie, S.; Cunnane, C. Representation of Climate Change in Flood Frequency Estimation; National University of Ireland: Galway,
Ireland, 2002.
560. Maghsood, F.F.; Moradi, H.; Bavani, A.R.M.; Panahi, M.; Berndtsson, R.; Hashemi, H. Climate change impact on flood frequency
and source area in northern Iran under CMIP5 scenarios. Water 2019, 11, 273. [CrossRef]
561. Reynard, N.; Crooks, S.; Wilby, R.; Kay, A. Climate change and flood frequency in the UK. In Proceedings of the 39th Defra Flood
and Coastal Flood management Conference, York, UK, 29 June–1 July 2004; pp. 1–12.
562. Salles, C.; Chu, Y.; Perrin, J.L.; Tournoud, M.G.; Boudet, L.; Cres, F.N.; Rodier, C.; Zheng, S.; Huang, L.; Ma, Y. Flood duration
frequency analysis in a changing climate: The methodology applied to Fengle River (Yangtze basin, China). IAHS-AISH Proc. Rep.
2014, 363, 54–59.
563. Olsson, T.; Jakkila, J.; Veijalainen, N.; Backman, L.; Kaurola, J.; Vehviläinen, B. Impacts of climate change on temperature,
precipitation and hydrology in Finland—Studies using bias corrected Regional Climate Model data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015,
19, 3217–3238. [CrossRef]
564. Morton, J.F. The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104,
19680–19685. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
565. Muller, C.; Takayabu, Y. Response of precipitation extremes to warming: What have we learned from theory and idealized
cloud-resolving simulations, and what remains to be learned? Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15. [CrossRef]
566. Li, J.; Wang, M.H.; Ho, Y.S. Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis. Glob.
Planet. Chang. 2011, 77, 13–20. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 49 of 51

567. Sarhadi, A.; Soulis, E.D. Time-varying extreme rainfall intensity-duration-frequency curves in a changing climate. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 2017, 44, 2454–2463. [CrossRef]
568. Liang, S.; Wang, W.; Zhang, D. Characteristics of annual and seasonal precipitation variation in the upstream of Minjiang River,
Southwestern China. Adv. Meteorol. 2018, 18, 1–15. [CrossRef]
569. Li, W.; He, X.; Scaioni, M.; Yao, D.; Mi, C.; Zhao, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, K.; Gao, J.; Li, X. Annual precipitation and daily extreme
precipitation distribution: Possible trends from 1960 to 2010 in urban areas of China. Geomatics Nat. Hazards Risk 2019, 10,
1694–1711. [CrossRef]
570. Song, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, C.; Zou, X. A Comprehensive Analysis of the Changes in Precipitation Patterns over Beijing during
1960–2012. Adv. Meteorol. 2019, 2019, 1–22. [CrossRef]
571. Zhang, Y.; Liang, C. Analysis of Annual and Seasonal Precipitation Variation in the Qinba Mountain area, China. Sci. Rep. 2020,
10, 1–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
572. Tošić, I.; Hrnjak, I.; Gavrilov, M.B.; Unkašević, M.; Marković, S.B.; Lukić, T. Annual and seasonal variability of precipitation in
Vojvodina, Serbia. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2013, 117, 331–341. [CrossRef]
573. Bajat, B.; Pejović, M.; Luković, J.; Manojlović, P.; Ducić, V.; Mustafić, S. Mapping average annual precipitation in Serbia (1961–1990)
by using regression kriging. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2013, 112, 1–13. [CrossRef]
574. Zubovic, J.; Jelocnik, M.; Zdravkovic, A.; Subic, J.; Radovanovic, S. Using Spatial and Seasonal Panel Model to Determine Impact
of Climatic Factors on Maize Yields in Serbia. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2018, 23, 13383–13393.
575. Modarres, R.; Sarhadi, A. Rainfall trends analysis of Iran in the last half of the twentieth century. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2009, 114,
1–10. [CrossRef]
576. Khalili, K.; Tahoudi, M.N.; Mirabbasi, R.; Ahmadi, F. Investigation of spatial and temporal variability of precipitation in Iran over
the last half century. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2016, 30, 1205–1221. [CrossRef]
577. Khozeymehnezhad, H.; Tahroudi, M.N. Annual and seasonal distribution pattern of rainfall in Iran and neighboring regions.
Arab. J. Geosci. 2019, 12, 271. [CrossRef]
578. Guhathakurta, P.; Rajeevan, M. Trends in the rainfall pattern over India. Int. J. Climatol. 2008, 28, 1453–1469. [CrossRef]
579. Fishman, R. More uneven distributions overturn benefits of higher precipitation for crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016,
11, 024004. [CrossRef]
580. Rai, P.; Dimri, A.P. Changes in rainfall seasonality pattern over India. Meteorol. Appl. 2020, 27, 1–6. [CrossRef]
581. Nicholson, S.E.; Funk, C.; Fink, A.H. Rainfall over the African continent from the 19th through the 21st century. Glob. Planet.
Chang. 2018, 165, 114–127. [CrossRef]
582. Mardero, S.; Schmook, B.; Christman, Z.; Metcalfe, S.E.; de la Barreda-Bautista, B. Recent disruptions in the timing and intensity
of precipitation in Calakmul, Mexico. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2020, 140, 129–144. [CrossRef]
583. Ragno, E.; AghaKouchak, A.; Love, C.A.; Cheng, L.; Vahedifard, F.; Lima, C.H.R. Quantifying Changes in Future Intensity-
Duration-Frequency Curves Using Multimodel Ensemble Simulations. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 1751–1764. [CrossRef]
584. Government of India; Ministry of Environment and Forests. India Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change; Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2012.
585. Ghil, M.; Lucarini, V. The physics of climate variability and climate change. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2020, 92, 035002. [CrossRef]
586. Cooke, R.M. Messaging climate change uncertainty. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 8–10. [CrossRef]
587. Nearing, G.S.; Tian, Y.; Gupta, H.V.; Clark, M.P.; Harrison, K.W.; Weijs, S.V. A philosophical basis for hydrological uncertainty.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 2016, 61, 1666–1678. [CrossRef]
588. Joseph, J.; Ghosh, S.; Pathak, A.; Sahai, A.K. Hydrologic impacts of climate change: Comparisons between hydrological parameter
uncertainty and climate model uncertainty. J. Hydrol. 2018, 566, 1–22. [CrossRef]
589. Dayon, G.; Boé, J.; Martin, É.; Gailhard, J. Impacts of climate change on the hydrological cycle over France and associated
uncertainties. Comptes Rendus Geosci. 2018, 350, 141–153. [CrossRef]
590. Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Krysanova, V.; Benestad, R.E.; Hov, Ø.; Piniewski, M.; Otto, I.M. Uncertainty in climate change impacts on
water resources. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 79, 1–8. [CrossRef]
591. Clark, M.P.; Wilby, R.L.; Gutmann, E.; Vano, J.A.; Gangopadhyay, S.; Wood, A.W.; Fowler, H.J.; Prudhomme, C.; Arnold, J.R.;
Brekke, L.D. Characterizing Uncertainty of the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 2016, 2, 55–64.
[CrossRef]
592. Schmied, H.M.; Adam, L.; Eisner, S.; Fink, G.; Flörke, M.; Kim, H.; Oki, T.; Portmann, F.T.; Reinecke, R.; Riedel, C.; et al. Variations
of global and continental water balance components as impacted by climate forcing uncertainty and human water use. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 20, 2877–2898. [CrossRef]
593. Thompson, J.R.; Laizé, C.L.R.; Green, A.J.; Acreman, M.C.; Kingston, D.G. Climate change uncertainty in environmental flows for
the Mekong River. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2014, 59, 935–954. [CrossRef]
594. Hoffman, F.O.; Hammonds, J.S. Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: The need to distinguish between uncertainty due
to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variabi. Risk Anal. 1994, 14, 707–712. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
595. Fletcher, S.; Lickley, M.; Strzepek, K. Learning about climate change uncertainty enables flexible water infrastructure planning.
Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1–11. [CrossRef]
596. Stakhiv, E.Z. Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management. Water Policy 1998, 1, 159–175.
[CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 50 of 51

597. Haasnoot, M.; Kwakkel, J.H.; Walker, W.E.; Maat, J.T. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions
for a deeply uncertain world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 485–498. [CrossRef]
598. Farmer, W.H.; Vogel, R.M. On the deterministic and stochastic use of hydrologic models. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 5619–5633.
[CrossRef]
599. Tase, N. Area-Deficit-Intensity Characteristics of Droughts; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1976; Volume 87.
600. Yevjevich, V. Structural Analysis of Hydrologic Time Series; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1972; p. 56.
601. Petelczyc, M.; Gac, J.M. Separation of deterministic and stochastic components from time series. Acta Phys. Pol. B, Proc. Suppl.
2014, 7, 395–405. [CrossRef]
602. Fatichi, S.; Barbosa, S.M.; Caporali, E.; Silva, M.E. Deterministic versus stochastic trends: Detection and challenges. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 2009, 114, 1–11. [CrossRef]
603. Ha-Duong, M. Review of Risk and Uncertainty Concepts for Climate Change Assessments Including Human Dimensions; CIRED–Centre
international de recherche sur l’environnement et le développement: Nogent-sur-Marne, France, 2012.
604. Chen, Y.; Fanke, M.; Glanemann, N. Knightian Uncertainty and Climate Change; CESifo: Munich, Germany, 2011.
605. Smith, L.A.; Stern, N. Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2011, 369. [CrossRef]
606. Knight, F.H. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit; Liberty Fund, Inc.: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 1921.
607. Baumgärtner, S.; Engler, J.-O. An axiomatic foundation of entropic preferences under Knightian uncertainty. In Beiträge zur
Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2018: Digitale Wirtschaft—Session: Theory—Concepts; Informationszentrum Wirtschaft: Kiel,
Germany, 2018; p. 57.
608. Mittelstaedt, C.; Baumgärtner, S. Preference Functions for Knightian Uncertainty Zurich; ETH: Zurich, Switzerland, 2020.
609. Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process in Retrospect. East. Econ. J. 1986, 12, 3–25.
610. Faber, M.; Frick, M.; Zahrnt, D. Absolute and Relative Scarcity MINE Website. 2019. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 22 February 2021).
611. Dooge, J.C.I. The hydrologic cycle as a closed system. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol. Bull. 1968, 13, 58–68. [CrossRef]
612. Konings, A.G.; Feng, X.; Molini, A.; Manzoni, S.; Vico, G.; Porporato, A. Thermodynamics of an idealized hydrologic cycle. Water
Resour. Res. 2012, 48. [CrossRef]
613. Gleeson, T.; Wang-Erlandsson, L.; Zipper, S.C.; Porkka, M.; Jaramillo, F.; Gerten, D.; Fetzer, I.; Cornell, S.E.; Piemontese, L.;
Gordon, L.J.; et al. The Water Planetary Boundary: Interrogation and Revision. One Earth 2020, 2, 223–234. [CrossRef]
614. United Nations. Concise Report on the World Population Situation in 2014; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
615. Our World in Data, Renewable Freshwater Resources. Our World in Data. 2021. Available online: [Link]
grapher/internal-renewable-freshwater-resources-by-region (accessed on 21 May 2021).
616. Faber, M.; Manstetten, R.; Müller, G. Interdisziplinäre Umweltforschung aus ökonomischer Sicht. Naturwissenschaften 1994, 81,
193–199. [CrossRef]
617. Baumgärtner, S.; Becker, C.; Faber, M.; Manstetten, R. Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics
and ecology for biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59, 487–498. [CrossRef]
618. Hummel, S. Relative water scarcity and country relations along cross-boundary rivers: Evidence from the Aral Sea basin. Int.
Stud. Q. 2017, 61, 795–808. [CrossRef]
619. Yoffe, S.; Wolf, A.T.; Giordano, M. Conflict and cooperation over international freshwater resources: Indicators of basins at risk.
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2003, 39, 1109–1126. [CrossRef]
620. Akamani, K.; Wilson, P.I. Toward the adaptive governance of transboundary water resources. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 409–416.
[CrossRef]
621. Armitage, D.; De Loë, R.C.; Morris, M.; Edwards, T.W.D.; Gerlak, A.K.; Hall, R.I.; Huitema, D.; Ison, R.; Livingstone, D.;
Macdonald, G.; et al. Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio 2015, 44, 353–366. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
622. Poynder, J. Literary Extracts from English and other Works; John Hatchard & Son: London, UK, 1844; Volume 1.
623. Dolan, F.; Lamontagne, J.; Link, R.; Hejazi, M.; Reed, P.; Edmonds, J. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a
changing world. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
624. Hernandez, Y.; Naumann, G.; Corral, S.; Barbosa, P. Water footprint expands with gross domestic product. Sustainability 2020,
12, 8741. [CrossRef]
625. Aqueduct, Aqueduct Country Rankings Aqueduct. 2019. Available online: [Link]
country-rankings/ (accessed on 22 April 2021).
626. Amjath-Babu, T.; Bhaskar, P.; Aggarwal, P. Do Virtual Water Transfers Act as an Adaptation Mechanism to Droughts? A Global Analysis;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016.
627. Hoekstra, A.Y. The Relation between International Trade and Freshwater Scarcity; Working Paper; World Trade Organization Economic
Research and Statistics Division: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
628. Roson, R.; Sartori, M. Water Scarcity and Virtual Water Trade in the Mediterranean; IEFE The Center for Research on Energy and
Environmental Economics and Policy at Bocconi University Milano: Milano, Italy, 2010.
629. Novo, P.; Garrido, A.; Varela-Ortega, C. Are virtual water ‘flows’ in Spanish grain trade consistent with relative water scarcity?
Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1454–1464. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1693 51 of 51

630. Carrión, J.; Fernández, S.; Jiménez-Moreno, G.; Fauquette, S.; Gil-Romera, G.; González-Sampériz, P.; Finlayson, C. The historical
origins of aridity and vegetation degradation in southeastern Spain. J. Arid Environ. 2010, 74, 731–736. [CrossRef]
631. Tejedor, E.; de Luis, M.; Cuadrat, J.M.; Esper, J.; Saz, M.Á. Tree-ring-based drought reconstruction in the Iberian Range (east of
Spain) since 1694. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2016, 60, 361–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
632. D’Odorico, P.; Carr, J.; Dalin, C.; Dell’Angelo, J.; Konar, M.; Laio, F.; Ridolfi, L.; Rosa, L.; Suweis, S.; Tamea, S.; et al. Global virtual
water trade and the hydrological cycle: Patterns, drivers, and socio-environmental impacts Global virtual water trade and the
hydrological cycle: Patterns, drivers, and socio-environmental impacts. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 053001. [CrossRef]