environments

Article
How Inter-Basin Transfer of Water Alters Basin Water
Stress Used for Water Footprint Characterization
Shinjiro Yano 1, *, Toshio Okazumi 2 , Yoshihisa Iwasaki 2 , Masahiro Yamaguchi 3 ,
Kenichi Nakamura 4 , Takuhiro Kanayama 4 , Daikichi Ogawada 5 , Akiko Matsumura 5 ,
Martin Gomez-Garcia 5 and Taikan Oki 6,7
1 Institute for Water Science, Suntory Global Innovation Center Limited, 8-1-1 Seikadai, Seika-cho,
Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0284, Japan
2 Secretariat of Water Cycle Policy Headquarters, Cabinet Secretariat, Tokyo 100-8918, Japan;
[email protected] (T.O.); [email protected] (Y.I.)
3 Water Resources Department, Water and Disaster Management Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism, Water Resources Planning Division, Tokyo 100−8918, Japan;
[email protected]
4 CTI Engineering Co., Ltd., Tokyo 103-8430, Japan; [email protected] (K.N.); [email protected] (T.K.)
5 Research and Development Center, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., Ibaraki 300-1259, Japan;
[email protected] (D.O.); [email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (M.G.-G.)
6 United Nations University, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan; [email protected]
7 Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, The University of Tokyo Institutes for Advanced
Study, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-50-3182-0582




Received: 1 August 2018; Accepted: 10 September 2018; Published: 12 September 2018


Abstract: Water footprint assessments contribute to a better understanding of potential environmental

impacts related to water and have become essential in water management. The methodologies for
characterizing such assessments, however, usually fail to reflect temporal and spatial variations
at local scales. In this paper, we employ four widely-used characterization factors, which were
originally developed with global estimates of water demand and availability, to evaluate the impact
that inter-basin transfer (IBT) of water has on water risk assessments and, consequently, on the
evaluation of the soundness of water cycle. The study was conducted for two major river basins in
Japan, where diversion channels were built to move water from the Tone river basin to the Arakawa
river basin. Considering IBT, the available water in the Arakawa river basin increases a 45%, reducing
the characterization factors a 44% on average and denoting their tendency to overestimate the risk in
this basin, while the Tone river basin increased the characterization factors a 28% on average by IBT.
Moreover, with a simple example we show how ambiguity in the definition of some characterization
factors may cause significant changes in the result of the assessments. Finally, we concluded that
local water footprint characterization can be more helpful in local assessment of water resources if the
results are unanimous, Targetable, Replicable, Ameliorable, Comparable, and Engageable (uTRACE).

Keywords: characterization factor; soundness of water cycle; water footprint; water stress

1. Introduction
Water resources are of vital importance for the health and livelihood of humans as well as the
surrounding natural environments. The sixth goal of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
acknowledges water as an essential part of the livelihood of the world’s population, emphasizing on
two requisites for accomplishing a healthy, environmentally sustainable and economically prosper
quality of life. These requisites are (1) access to safe water and sanitation and (2) sound management

Environments 2018, 5, 105; doi:10.3390/environments5090105 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments

Environments 2018, 5, 105 2 of 14

of freshwater ecosystems [1,2]. The targets included in this goal encompass access to safe and
affordable drinking water, water quality improvement, water-use efficiency, protection of water-related
ecosystems, and capacity-building support to developing countries. The essentiality of water and its
natural cycle in human activities is demonstrated by looking at the contents of other SDGs, such as
the goal 3, 4, 12, 13, and 15. The definition of the sixth SDG and its specific targets were accompanied
by indicators, one of which measures the degree of water stress in terms of a relationship between
the freshwater withdrawn for human consumption and the availability or renewability of freshwater
resources. Because water stress can be defined in different mathematical ways and also include
other variables (e.g., space, time, and source), the evaluation and inter-regional comparison is not
simple and has led to the development of alternative ways to measure water stress and the associated
environmental risks.
Water sustainability cannot be discussed without considering its natural cycle, given that water
depends on it as a renewable resource [3–6]. In the Basic Act on Water Cycle Policy of Japan, a sound
water cycle is defined as a water cycle adequately maintained to facilitate the function of water in
contribution to human activities and conserving the environment [7,8]. Because the evaluation of the
soundness of the water cycle should include not only the use of water for environmental conservation
but also the use in human activities, the sustainability assessment of water use aimed at achieving a
sound water cycle should be based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) techniques.
In LCAs, the water footprint is a fundamental concept that has been defined differently by
the Water Footprint Network (WFN) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Water footprint, as defined by WFN, is a measure of humanity’s appropriation of fresh water in
volumes of water consumed and/or polluted [9,10]. Because this concept of water footprint is
consumption-based, it can be used to assess the use of water from both ends of supply chains. However,
the local state of water resources was overlooked causing the possibility of water footprint values
being similar in tropical and arid areas. Later, the International Organization for Standardization
set the requirements and guidelines of water footprint assessments by using life-cycle assessment
principles [11,12]. Because water resources are unevenly distributed both geographically and
temporally, the spatiotemporal impact of water use is uneven as well [3,13,14], and the inclusion
of specific impacts in water footprint assessments, as intended by ISO, needs to adopt characterization
factors of such impacts [12]. However, because the (mathematical) definition of the characterizations are
driven by different interests, the results of different evaluation frameworks may be disparate causing
uncertainty and conflict. Some of the more widely used evaluation frameworks are summarized below.
The characterization of water stress is usually some representation of the unbalance between
human demand (water withdrawals) and natural supply (freshwater availability). Baseline Water Stress
(BWS), defined as annual water withdrawals divided by mean available water [15], is a fundamental
concept that has been widely used in scientific and policy literature to identify water stress [16–18].
However, because spatiotemporal variations of water are not explicitly represented by BWS, following
the ISO standards, other water risk assessments have included the uneven distribution of water
resources in the characterization process. The Water Stress Index (WSI) is a screening indicator that
accounts for temporal variability in water availability and the effects of regulated flows (e.g., dams) [19].
The water unavailability factor (fwua) evaluates the potential impacts of water use on fresh water
availability by considering the uneven distribution of water resources over space, time and source.
Because the fwua is obtained globally using the same spatial and temporal references of water
quantities, comparisons with other areas are straightforward [20]. The Available WAter REmaining
(AWARE) characterization factor (CFAWARE ) was proposed as an indicator of available water remaining
after the human and aquatic ecosystem demands have been met [21].
The abovementioned assessment frameworks and their corresponding characterizations factors
are useful for making large-scale assessments or comparisons. However, their regional application
needs further improvement in order to achieve more robust and beneficial results. We consider that
some of the existing assessments overlook local condition of water resources, some midpoint indicators
Environments 2018, 5, 105 3 of 14

are calculated based on particular requirements with a top-down approach. Additionally, because the
calculation of characterization factors is based on different definitions (mathematical relationships) of
water stress, the comparison between assessment frameworks is not straightforward.
There are a limited number of studies that have validated (or improved) the results of global
assessments of water risk with local data and statistical records. Examples are the case studies of the
Colorado river basin (United States) [22], the Yellow river basin (China) [23], the Yangtze river basin
(China) [24], the Mekong river basin (Southeast Asia) [25] and the Orange-Senqu river basin (Southern
Africa) [26], in which the water risk metrics of the Aqueduct framework and the quantities needed for
their calculation (e.g., BWS) were recalculated using the available local data. Such local validations
were critical for achieving more robust and objective assessments of water demand-to-availability that
provided useful information that can be used in regional planning [27].
In this paper, we report the results of recalculating the four abovementioned characterization
factors (i.e., BWS, WSI, fwua and CFAWARE ) using local data and adapting the formulations of
water demand-to-availability to reflect the effect of the IBT between the Tone and Arakawa river
basins. Then, we show how the inclusion of temporal variability has a relevant role in the
characterization of demand-to-availability, yet the risk of temporal variability can be mitigated
through the implementation of an adequate mitigation such as IBT. Finally, considering the merits and
weaknesses of existing characterization factors and the fact that the inclusion of local alterations to
water supply in the assessment process might serve as motivation to improve the current state of the
water cycle, we propose five fundamental requirements that we consider the process of water footprint
characterization should fulfil.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

We chose the Tone and Arakawa rivers to conduct our study. These two rivers are extremely
important as they supply freshwater to the capital region of Japan (Figure 1). The Tokyo metropolitan
area has concentrated assets that lead to higher potential economic risk raised by water issues. For this
reason, the local authorities have invested heavily in flood control measures and a managed water
supply system [28].
The selected rivers are connected by the Musashi-suiro and Minumadai-yosui canals constructed
from 1964 to cope with the industrial, domestic and irrigation demands in the Arakawa river basin,
which transport water from the Tone river basin [29].

2.2. Description of Characterization Factors

Considering the definition given in Section 1, in which a sound water cycle implies having a low
risk of water stress, in this study we test if the existing characterization factors for water footprint can
be utilized to assess the soundness of the water cycle. Herein, BWS of the Aqueduct framework [15,30],
WSI [19], fwua of surface water [20], and CFAWARE [21] were chosen to conduct the local validation.
These characterization factors have been well adopted by various water footprint and water risk
assessment studies [18,31–33]. The mathematical expression, the variable range and the horizontal
resolution of the publicly available global datasets of the selected characterization factors are shown in
Table 1. The values of the characterization factors extracted from the global datasets are henceforth
denominated global estimates. The global estimate of BWS for the Tone river basin is divided in
three parts, corresponding to the smaller basins of the Tone, Nakagawa, and Ayase rivers. Thus,
the area-weighted average of the three smaller basins is used. WSI, fwua, and CFAWARE are available
as gridded datasets or gridded basin-units with a spatial resolution of 0.5◦ × 0.5◦ . The global estimates
of WSI and CFAWARE of the Tone and Arakawa river basins correspond respectively to the basin-unit
identification numbers (basin ID) 36588 and 36586 of the global datasets. The global estimates of fwua
correspond to the grids in which the river mouth of the Tone and Arakawa rivers are located (Figure 2).
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

basin-unit identification numbers (basin ID) 36588 and 36586 of the global datasets. The global
estimates of fwua correspond to the grids in which the river mouth of the Tone and Arakawa rivers
are located2018,
Environments (Figure
5, 105 2). 4 of 14

Figure1.1.Location
Figure Locationof
ofthe
theTone
Toneand
andthe
theArakawa
ArakawaRiver
RiverBasins.
Basins.

Table 1. Description of characterization factors.

Table 1. Description of characterization factors.
Indicator Expression Range Resolution
Indicator Expression Range Resolution
Baseline Water
Baseline Water Stress
Stress ℎ
Water withdrawals 0~∞ Basin
(BWS) [15] Available blue water 0~∞ Basin
(BWS) [15]
1
1+e−6.4·WTA 1( 0.01
∗ 1
Water Stress Index −1 ) Basin,
Water Stress Index WTA*: . adjusted
∙ ∗ 1
WTA 0.01~1
0.5◦ × 0.5 ◦
Basin,
(WSI) [19] 1+ −1
(WTA: withdrawal to 0.01
availability) 0.01~1
(WSI) [19] WTA*: adjusted WTA 0.5° × 0.5°
A x,l
Water unavailability factor (WTA: withdrawal
Are f to availability) 0~∞
A: required land area
, to obtain the
0.5◦ × 0.5◦
(fwua) [20] (99 percentile)
Water unavailability factor reference volume of water 0~∞
0.5° × 0.5°
(fwua) [20] AMD
A: required land area
world avg to obtain the (99 percentile) Basin,
CFAWARE [21] AMDi 0.1~100
AMD: reference volume of water
availability-minus-demand 0.5◦ × 0.5◦
AMD
WTA*: adjusted WTA. Basin,
CFAWARE [21] AMD 0.1~100
0.5° × 0.5°
AMD: availability-minus-demand
The characterization factors computed withadjusted
WTA*: local data are hereafter denominated local estimates.
WTA.
The quantities needed for calculating the local estimates of the selected characterization factors
were The
collected or computed
characterization using
factors locally available
computed with localinformation. For calculating
data are hereafter denominated BWS,
localtotal water
estimates.
withdrawals
The quantitieswere assumed
needed to be equal
for calculating to the
the local sum of
estimates of withdrawals for municipal,factors
the selected characterization industrial,
were
and irrigation use. Available blue water is the total water volume that is available
collected or computed using locally available information. For calculating BWS, total water to a catchment minus
the upstream consumptive
withdrawals were assumed water
to beuse, where
equal consumptive
to the use is the water
sum of withdrawals withdrawn
for municipal, that was not
industrial, and
returned to its natural course. Because we were computing for the whole basin, we estimated
irrigation use. Available blue water is the total water volume that is available to a catchment minus available
blue water as the
the upstream sum of observed
consumptive discharge
water use, accumulated use
where consumptive in the period
is the in withdrawn
water which withdrawals
that was are
not
available
returned and thenatural
to its difference of total
course. withdrawals
Because we were and non-consumptive
computing use (i.e.,
for the whole withdrawn
basin, water
we estimated
returned
availabletoblue
the natural
water stream).
as the sumThe estimation
of observed of available
dischargeblue water also considered
accumulated in the period flowin changes
which
caused by reservoir control and IBT where applicable.
As detailed in Table 1, WSI is a function of the ratio of annual water withdrawals to availability.
Because this demand-to-availability quantity is defined in a similar fashion as BWS, to calculate
withdrawals are available and the difference of total withdrawals and non-consumptive use (i.e.,
withdrawn water returned to the natural stream). The estimation of available blue water also
considered flow changes caused by reservoir control and IBT where applicable.
As detailed in Table 1, WSI is a function of the ratio of annual water withdrawals to availability.
Environments 2018, 5, 105
Because this demand-to-availability quantity is defined in a similar fashion as BWS, to calculate 5water of 14

withdrawals to availability, we proceeded in the same way as described above for BWS. Water
withdrawals
water to availability
withdrawals need towe
to availability, beproceeded
adjusted toinconsider
the sameannual
way asand seasonalabove
described variations, as well
for BWS. Wateras
the effect of regulations
withdrawals to availabilityof flow.
needThe Tone
to be and the
adjusted to Arakawa river basins
consider annual were both
and seasonal recognized
variations, as “not
as well as
strongly regulated” rivers [34].
the effect of regulations of flow. The Tone and the Arakawa river basins were both recognized as “not
strongly regulated” rivers [34].

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Location
Location of
of the
the Tone and Arakawa River Basins in the global global datasets
datasets of the
the selected
selected
characterization factors.
characterization factors. (a)
(a) Basin
Basin ID
ID of
of the
the global
globalestimates
estimatesof
ofWSI
WSI(Water
(WaterStress
StressIndex)
Index)and
andCF
CF AWARE;
AWARE
(b) Grid
(b) Grid of
of the
the fwua
fwua dataset
dataset in in which
which the
the river
river mouths
mouths are
arelocated.
located.

Besides
Besides considering
considering the the variations
variations in in space
space andand time,
time, fwua
fwua evaluates
evaluates the the impacts
impacts of of water
water useuse
separately for three types of water sources: precipitation, surface water,
separately for three types of water sources: precipitation, surface water, and groundwater and groundwater [20]. Because
[20].
in this analysis
Because in thiswe only consider
analysis we onlysurface
considerwater, the acronym
surface water, the fwua henceforth
acronym fwua refers to surface
henceforth water
refers to
only. The estimation of fwua depends on the annual renewability rate of surface
surface water only. The estimation of fwua depends on the annual renewability rate of surface water, water, the consumptive
water use and the
the consumptive environmental
water use and theflow. We assumed
environmental flow.theWeannual
assumed renewability
the annualrate, which israte,
renewability the
sum of surface and subsurface runoff, equal to the annual river flow at the
which is the sum of surface and subsurface runoff, equal to the annual river flow at the river mouth. river mouth. For the
consumptive water use, we considered that half of the irrigation withdrawals
For the consumptive water use, we considered that half of the irrigation withdrawals are returned to are returned to the river.
The environmental
the river. flow was assumed
The environmental flow was as maintenance flow rate needed
assumed as maintenance flowtorate
maintain
needed anto
adequate
maintain river
an
environment considering the potential use in activities such as shipping, fishery,
adequate river environment considering the potential use in activities such as shipping, fishery, setup setup of rivers scenery,
mitigation of salt damage,
of rivers scenery, mitigation andofothers undertaken
salt damage, at maintenance
and others undertaken facilities. Lastly, fwua
at maintenance expresses
facilities. the
Lastly,
potential impactsthe
fwua expresses relatively to aimpacts
potential reference volume to
relatively of water. We adopted
a reference volumethe ofconditions
water. Weand reference
adopted the
volume proposed in previous studies, 1000 mm y −1 over 1.0 m2 of land (1 m3 y−1 ) [35].
conditions and reference volume proposed in previous studies, 1000 mm y over 1.0 m of land (1 m3 −1 2

CFAWARE is a measure of water availability-minus-demand relative to a global average.

y−1) [35].
As available
CFAWARE water, we used
is a measure of the
watermonthly values of available blue
availability-minus-demand water
relative to athat wereaverage.
global calculated As
earlier for BWS. Water demand is the monthly available water remaining
available water, we used the monthly values of available blue water that were calculated earlier after subtracting human for
water
BWS. consumption
Water demand andis environmental water requirements,
the monthly available water remaining whichafterwe assumed
subtracting to behuman
equal to the
water
consumptive water use and environmental flow, respectively, that
consumption and environmental water requirements, which we assumed to be equal to thewere used in the estimation of fwua.
The global average 3 m−2 -month [21].
consumptive waterofuseavailability-minus-demand
and environmental flow,was set equal to
respectively, 0.0136
that weremused in the estimation of
fwua. The global average of availability-minus-demand was set equal to 0.0136 m3 m−2-month [21].
2.3. Sources of Local Data for Computation of Local Estimates
2.3. Sources
2.3.1. of Local
Tone River Data for Computation of Local Estimates
Basin

2.3.1.To estimate
Tone River the annual water withdrawals across the Tone river basin, we collected the water
Basin
withdrawals correspond to the records of municipal, industrial and agricultural consumption in the
period 1985–2013 at 28, 9 and 45 sites, respectively. Observed discharge corresponds to records of
river discharge at the Fukawa station (Figure 1). This station is located at 76.47 km from the river
mouth and has a drainage area equal to 12,458 km2 . Approximately 50 km upstream of the Fukawa
station, the Tone river basin has a bifurcation near the Sekiyado district of the Chiba prefecture.
Environments 2018, 5, 105 6 of 14

The bifurcation is the origin of the Edo River. We adjusted the observed discharge of the Fukawa
station by adding the observed discharge at the Sekiyado district and considering the changes of flow
due to reservoir operation.
Changes of flow due to reservoir operation were calculated using inlet and outlet flows of the
Yagisawa, Naramata, Fujisawa, Aimata, Sonohara, Shimokubo, Kusaki, Watarase, Kawaji, Kawamata,
Ikari, and Yunishigawa dams [36,37]. The location of the dams is also shown in Figure 1.
The available blue water for the whole basin, which has a drainage area of 16,840 km2 ,
was estimated multiplying the ratio of drainage areas (i.e., 16,840 km2 divided by 12,458 km2 ) and the
adjusted observed discharge.
We calculated basin-average monthly (Pm) and annual precipitation (Pa) using the records of
the Japan’s Automated Meteorological Data Acquisition System dense network of meteorological
stations [38]. The records of the stations were previously spatially interpolated to have a gridded
dataset with a horizontal resolution of 0.05◦ × 0.05◦ .
The water withdrawals and the available blue water were calculated for two scenarios, one with
IBT from the Tone river basin to the Arakawa river basin and another without.

2.3.2. Arakawa River Basin

To estimate the annual water withdrawals across the Arakawa river basin, we collected the water
withdrawals correspond to the records of municipal, industrial and agricultural consumption in the
period 1985–2009 at 29, 7 and 8 sites, respectively.
Observed discharge corresponds to records of river discharge at the Yorii station for the Arakawa
River and the Sugama station for one of its afluents. The point where the affluent meets the river has a
drainage area equal to 2018 km2 . We adjusted the total observed discharge by considering the changes
of flow due to reservoir operation. Changes of flow due to reservoir operation were calculated using
inlet and outlet flows of the Urayama, Takizawa, Futase, Kakkaku, and Arima dams [36]. The location
of the dams is shown in Figure 1.
The available blue water for the whole basin, which has a drainage area of 2940 km2 , was estimated
multiplying the ratio of drainage areas (i.e., 2940 km2 divided by 2018 km2 ) and the adjusted observed
discharge. We calculated basin-average monthly (Pm) and annual precipitation (Pa) as it was done for
the Tone river basin. As it was done for the Tone river basin, the water withdrawals and the available
blue water were calculated for two scenarios, one with IBT and another without.

2.4. The Inclusion of Inter-Basin Transfer in the Definition of the Characterization Factors
The inclusion of the volume of transferred water in the selected water-stress characterization
factors depends on whether water stress is being assessed for the sending-basin or for
the receiving-basin.
For the Tone river basin (i.e., sending basin), the transferred water can be considered either as
water withdrawn that does not return to the original course (consumptive use) or as a reduction of the
available water. Thus, one possibility is to add the volume of transferred water (T) to the volume of
total withdrawals (W), in which case the expression of BWS is modified as shown in Equation (1), the
other possibility is to subtract the transferred water from the available blue water (Q), in which case the
expression of BWS is modified as shown in Equation (2). For the Arakawa river basin (i.e., receiving
basin), the transferred water is an increase of the available blue water (Q), in which case the expression
of BWS is modified as shown in Equation (3).

Ws W+T
BWSs = = (1)
Qs Q

Ws W
BWSs = = (2)
Qs Q−T
Environments 2018, 5, 105 7 of 14

where BWSs is BWS of the sending-basin, Ws is the volume of water withdrawals of the sending-basin
(m3 y−1 ), and Qs is the available blue water of the sending-basin (m3 y−1 ).

Wr W
BWSr = = (3)
Qr Q+T

where BWSr is BWS of the receiving-basin, Wr is the volume of water withdrawals of the receiving-basin
(m3 y−1 ), and Qr is the available blue water of the receiving basin (m3 y−1 ).
The quantities of water availability and demand for the other characterization factors in the cases
with and without IBT were modified accordingly.

3. Results
For the Tone river basin, Table 2 shows the computed local estimates and their standard deviations
(SD) for the calculation of characterization factors, including the case with IBT (using the possibilities
of computation shown in Equations (1) and (2) and the case without). The average annual precipitation
of the Tone river basin from 1985 to 2013 was 1458 mm y−1 . The average available blue water was
estimated as 16,397 million m3 y−1 , while it decreased a 8% to 15,082 million m3 y−1 considering IBT
by the Equation (2). The annual water withdrawals increased by IBT with the Equation (1), from 4509
to 5824 million m3 y−1 , respectively. The human water consumption of the Tone river basin was
estimated to be 1384 million m3 y−1 without IBT and 2695 million m3 y−1 with IBT. The environmental
water requirements of the Tone river basin were 946 million m3 y−1 .

Table 2. Computed local estimates of variables with and without IBT (inter-basin transfer) for the Tone
river basin (1985–2013).

With IBT SD (StanDard With IBT

Variable SD Without IBT SD
(Equation (1)) DeviatIons) (Equation (2))
Annual Precipitation,
1458 178 1458 178 1458 178
Pa (mm y−1 )
Annual Withdrawals,
5824 278.9 4509 238.7 4509 238.7
Ws (Mm3 y−1 )
Available Blue Water,
16,397 3195.4 15,082 3220.8 16,397 3195.4
Qs (Mm3 y−1 )
Transferred Water,
1315 1315 0
T (Mm3 y−1 )
Human Water
Consumption 2695 2695 1384
(Mm3 y−1 )
Environmental Water
Requirements 946 946 946
(Mm3 y−1 )

Figure 3a shows the result of local characterization factors with and without IBT, comparing
with the global estimates. The average value of BWS without IBT was 0.275, while the cases with IBT
estimated by the Equations (1) and (2) had BWSs values of 0.355 and 0.299, respectively. The global
estimate of BWS by Aqueduct resulted in 0.356 and ranked “medium to high” on a five-grade
evaluation [15]. This value gave close agreement with the local estimate by Equation (1) in this
study. The local estimates of characterization factors varied from 0.207 to 1.116 for the cases with
IBT and 0.245 to 1.027 for cases without IBT, while the global estimates varied from 0.284 to 1.267.
On average, the computed characterization factors increased a 28% by IBT.
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

0.245 to 1.027 for cases without IBT, while the global estimates varied from 0.284 to 1.267. On average,
the computed
Environments 2018,characterization
5, 105 factors increased a 28% by IBT. 8 of 14

Figure 3. Estimated local and global results of each characterization factor with and without IBT for (a)
Figure 3. Estimated local and global results of each characterization factor with and without IBT for
the Tone river basin, (b) the Arakawa river basin.
(a) the Tone river basin, (b) the Arakawa river basin.
For the characterization factors of the Arakawa river basin, Table 3 shows the local estimates of
For the
variables withcharacterization factors
their SD, including theofcase
the with
Arakawa river basin,
IBT (using Table 3 of
the reasoning shows the local
Equation estimates
(3)) and of
the case
variables
without. with their SD,annual
The average including the case with
precipitation wasIBT
1447(using
mm the
y−1reasoning
. The IBT of Equation
increased (3))
the and the blue
available case
without. The average annual
3 − precipitation
1 was 1447
3 − 1 mm y −1. The IBT increased the available blue
water from 3052 million m y to 4412 million m y . The computed characterization factors as local
water from
estimates 3052 million
comparing withmthe
3 y−1 to 4412 million m3 y−1. The computed characterization factors as local
global estimates were shown in Figure 3b. The BWS was 0.387 without
estimates comparing with the global
IBT, while it decreased to 0.268, “medium estimates were considering
to high” shown in Figure 3b. The BWS
IBT, because was 0.387
of increase without
of available
IBT, while it decreased to 0.268, “medium to high” considering IBT, because of
blue water. According to the global estimate by Aqueduct, the BWS of this area is 0.529, “high” in increase of available
blue water.
the five According
categories. to the
Unlike theglobal
case ofestimate byriver
the Tone Aqueduct,
basin, the
the BWS
valuesofof
this area is 0.529, “high”
characterization factorsinwith
the
five
IBT categories. Unlike without
had lower values the case of theThe
IBT. Tone riverestimates
global basin, theofvalues
BWS,ofWSI, characterization
and fwua had factors
higherwith IBT
values
had lower values without IBT. The global estimates of BWS, WSI, and fwua
compared with the results of local estimates in this study. CFAWARE had a value between the local had higher values
compared withand
estimates with the without
results of local
IBT. estimates
Although theinglobal
this study.
estimate CFofAWARE had a value between the local
WSI resulted in the Arakawa river
estimates with and without IBT. Although the global estimate
basin having the maximum level of water stress (1.000) using a global of WSI resulted in themodel,
hydrological Arakawa the river
local
basin having the maximum level of water stress (1.000) using a
estimates both with and without IBT had lower values than the global estimates. global hydrological model, the local
estimates both with and without IBT had lower values than the global estimates.
Table 3. Computed local estimates of variables with and without IBT for the Arakawa river basin
Table 3. Computed local estimates of variables with and without IBT for the Arakawa river basin
(1985–2009).
(1985–2009).
With IBT Without
Variable With IBT(3)) SD Without SD
(Equation IBT
Variable SD SD
Annual Precipitation,
(Equation (3)) IBT
1447 229 1447 229
Pa (mm y−1 )
Annual Precipitation,
1447 229 1447 229
Pa (mm Withdrawals,
Annual y−1)
1181 85.2 1181 85.2
Ws (Mm3 y−1 )
Annual Withdrawals,
1181 85.2 1181 85.2
WAvailable
s (Mm3 y −1)
Blue Water,
3 y−1 ) 4412 1024.7 3052 1020.9
AvailableQBlue
s (Mm Water,
4412 1024.7 3052 1020.9
Qs Transferred
(Mm3 y−1) Water,
3 y−1 ) 1360 0
T (Mm
Transferred Water,
1360 0
T (Mm
Human 3 y−1)
Water Consumption
3 y−1 ) 79 79
(Mm
Human Water Consumption
79 79
(Mm3 yWater
Environmental −1) Requirements
3 y−1 ) 158 158
(Mm
Environmental Water Requirements
158 158
(Mm3 y−1)

4. Discussion
Environments 2018, 5, 105 9 of 14

4. Discussion

4.1. Impact of Inter-Basin Transfer on Characterization Factors

If the global datasets of water availability and demand are a good approximation of the observed
data, the global estimates and the local estimates of the case without IBT should be close. In the case of
the Tone river basin, considering the ranges in which each characterization factor can vary, the global
estimates of all 4 characterization factors can be considered close to the local estimates, and therefore
seem good approximations. However, the mathematical formulations proposed in the assessment
frameworks, we can derive that because the Tone river basin is the largest catchment area in Japan,
some global estimates of the characterization factors may be misleading. For example, in the Aqueduct
assessment framework, the estimation of water withdrawals adopted for calculating BWS utilizes the
total volume of the country and by means of regression determines the volume of each basin based on
population-density-weights [15]. Due to this procedure, the volumes of water withdrawals tend to be
larger than the real ones, and consequently, the global estimate of BWS show a more “water-stressed”
condition than reality. CFAWARE is another good example of the influence of the size of the basin in
the characterization factors [21], where the availability-minus-demand relationship is normalized by
the area of each unit-basin and the volumes of human water consumption (i.e., water demand) come
from a model that employs national scale estimations of water use. Both circumstances may produce
overestimated global estimates of CFAWARE in the Tone river basin.
The two possibilities for including IBT in the computation of the characterization factors yielded
similar results. If we consider that IBT should modify the water withdrawals (Ws ) as shown in
Equation (1), which is equivalent to an increase of 29%, all characterization factors except for fwua
depict a more “water-stressed” basin, which is an expected result. Because fwua is not directly a
function of water withdrawals, calculating with Equation (1) does not alter the result. Alternatively,
if we consider that IBT should modify the available water (Qs ), which is equivalent to a reduction
of 8%, all four characterization factors show a more “water-stressed” basin. Notably, computing
CFAWARE with either equation yields the same result. Because availability-minus-demand is an
absolute measure and not a relative measure as it happened to be for BWS and WSI, having to choose
between Equations (1) or (2) is not source of uncertainty.
Even though the selected characterization factors changed when considering changes of water
supply and demand as a consequence of IBT, the impact in the result of the evaluations is not substantial
for the Tone river basin. For example, the categorization of the local estimates of BWS without IBT
is “medium to high” (between 0.2 and 0.4) in the five-grade evaluation defined by the Aqueduct
framework, which does not change when any of the two with-IBT equations used for calculating the
local estimates of BWS. However, it should be noted that the impact on water footprint characterization
might be more significant if the catchment area of the sending-basin is relatively small or if the volume
of transferred water is substantial.
In the case of the Arakawa river basin, the global and local estimates for the case without IBT
of fwua and CFAWARE are not significantly different, while the global estimates of BWS and WSI
denote a much more “water-stressed” basin. Possible reasons for these outcomes are the fact that the
water availability-to-demand relationship is a relative measure in BWS and WSI and the Arakawa
river basin encompasses one of the most densely populated and industrialized regions of the world
(Tokyo Metropolitan). Considering that IBT modifies the available water (Qr ), which is equivalent to
a substantial increase of 45%, all four characterization factors showed a less “water-stressed” basin.
The average percentage in which all characterization factors are reduced is about 44%. This result
shows how local efforts aimed at alleviating water scarcity have a great impact on the soundness of
water cycle and how global estimates tend to overlook these local efforts. As it was highlighted in the
discussion of the results of the Tone River Basin about the relevance of the catchment area, the fact that
the diverted water into the basin is almost half (45%) of the natural available water (which is a function
of the catchment area) explains the degree of impact that IBT has on the characterization factors.
Environments 2018, 5, 105 10 of 14
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

While
it looks IBT
that impacted
the Tone river on basin
the Arakawa river
increased its basin
watertorisk
increase the available
and decreased blue water
soundness and decrease
of water cycle by
the characterization factors, which means decrease water risk and improve the water
IBT. Looking at the quantified effect of IBT, the Arakawa river basin decreased the characterization cycle soundness,
itfactors
looks that
a 44%theonTone river basin
average, whileincreased
the Toneitsriver
water risk increased
basin and decreasedthemsoundness
a 28%. The of availability-minus-
water cycle by IBT.
Looking at the quantified effect of IBT, the Arakawa river basin decreased
demand (AMD) of the Tone river basin without IBT was 0.070 m m month , while it decreased
3 −2 the characterization
−1 factorsa
a9%44% on average, while the Tone river basin increased them a 28%. The availability-minus-demand
to 0.063 m3 m−2 month−1. Considering that both rivers kept AMD considering environmental water
(AMD) of the Tone
requirements riverIBT
through basin
andwithout
that theIBT was 0.070
positive m3 of
impact m−IBT
2 month−1 , while it decreased a 9% to
for Arakawa river basin was larger
0.063 3 − 2
m negative
m month − 1 . Considering that both
than the impact for the Tone river basin,rivers kept
the IBT AMD the
between considering
two river environmental water
basins can be assessed
requirements
as decreasingthrough IBTand
water risk andimproving
that the positive impact ofof
the soundness IBT for Arakawa
water cycle in ariver basin was larger
comprehensive than
manner.
the negative impact for the Tone river basin, the IBT between the two river basins can be assessed as
decreasing water
4.2. Sensibility riskCharacterization
of the and improvingFactors the soundness of water
to Different Sourcescycle in a comprehensive manner.
of Uncertainty
BWS is aofmeasure
4.2. Sensibility that was designed
the Characterization Factors totoDifferent
evaluate the long-term
Sources ratio of water withdrawals to
of Uncertainty
available water (after upstream consumption), reducing the effect of interannual climate cycles and
BWS is a measure that was designed to evaluate the long-term ratio of water withdrawals
short-time variations of flow caused by dams or floodplains. However, since evaluation of water-
to available water (after upstream consumption), reducing the effect of interannual climate cycles
related risks requires the consideration of temporal variability, BWS is usually complemented with
and short-time variations of flow caused by dams or floodplains. However, since evaluation of
other metrics [16]. To have a single parameter that evaluates water availability-to-demand and
water-related risks requires the consideration of temporal variability, BWS is usually complemented
temporal variability as well, other assessment frameworks have included the effect of climate cycles
with other metrics [16]. To have a single parameter that evaluates water availability-to-demand and
in the characterization factors, e.g., WSI. To show the effect of temporal variability in BWS we make
temporal variability as well, other assessment frameworks have included the effect of climate cycles in
the exercise of computing the mean of annual BWS and compare them to the original BWS
the characterization factors, e.g., WSI. To show the effect of temporal variability in BWS we make the
(corresponding to long-term means of availability and demand). Figure 4 shows the annual values of
exercise of computing the mean of annual BWS and compare them to the original BWS (corresponding
available blue water, withdrawals and BWS for cases with IBT and without. In the case without IBT,
to long-term means of availability and demand). Figure 4 shows the annual values of available blue
for which BWS is equal to 0.387, the mean of annual BWS is 0.439. Looking at the variation of available
water, withdrawals and BWS for cases with IBT and without. In the case without IBT, for which BWS
blue water in the analyzed period and considering the definition of BWS the result is coherent. In the
is equal to 0.387, the mean of annual BWS is 0.439. Looking at the variation of available blue water in
case with IBT, for which BWS is equal to 0.268, the mean of annual BWS is 0.281. This result shows
the analyzed period and considering the definition of BWS the result is coherent. In the case with IBT,
that the increase of available blue water in a (45%) almost cancels out the effect of interannual
for which BWS is equal to 0.268, the mean of annual BWS is 0.281. This result shows that the increase
variability if BWS would be calculated annually and misleadingly does not reflect the potential risk
of available blue water in a (45%) almost cancels out the effect of interannual variability if BWS would
of climate variability.
be calculated annually and misleadingly does not reflect the potential risk of climate variability.

Figure 4. Cont.
 Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Environments 2018, 5, 105 11 of 14

Figure 4. Annual volumes of available blue water and withdrawals, and annual BWS (Baseline Water
Figure 4. Annual volumes of available blue water and withdrawals, and annual BWS (Baseline Water
Stress) for the Arakawa river basin. (a) without IBT and (b) with IBT.
Stress) for the Arakawa river basin. (a) without IBT and (b) with IBT.
4.3. Suggestions for Assessing Soundness of the Water Cycle
4.3. Suggestions for Assessing Soundness of the Water Cycle
The development of water footprint assessment has had the intention of designing a single
The development
characterization of water
factor that is ablefootprint assessment
to represent the risk hasofhad
watertheconsumption
intention of designing a single
and the effects of
characterization factor that is able to represent the risk of water consumption
additional midpoint impacts. The following observations are made by comparing the merits and and the effects of
additional midpoint impacts. The following
weaknesses of the different assessment frameworks. observations are made by comparing the merits and
weaknesses of the different assessment frameworks.
• The Aqueduct framework proposed a set of indicators, which can be aggregated into a composite
• factor.
The Aqueduct
However,framework
because the proposed
end-usera is setable
of indicators,
to decide whichwhichindicator
can be aggregated
has more orintolessa
composite factor. However, because the end-user is able to decide which indicator
importance in the assessment of risk, the process is subject to conflict. Thus, it was necessary to has more or
less importance
create a composite in factor
the assessment
that can be ofaccepted
risk, the process is subject to conflict. Thus, it was necessary
UNANIMOUSLY.
to create a composite factor that can be accepted UNANIMOUSLY.
• The four selected characterization factors are able to show the degree of water stress and hence
• The four selected characterization factors are able to show the degree of water stress and hence
are useful for stablishing a TARGET in which consumption of water does not represent a risk.
are useful for stablishing a TARGET in which consumption of water does not represent a risk.
• In this paper, we were able to REPLICATE the process of calculation of the characterization factors
• In this paper, we were able to REPLICATE the process of calculation of the characterization
to validate the global estimates using local data.
factors to validate the global estimates using local data.
• WSI includes the effect of climate variability and to some extent the effect of regulations of
• WSI includes the effect of climate variability and to some extent the effect of regulations of river
river flow. However, the relative measure of demand-to-availability used in its formulation may
flow. However, the relative measure of demand-to-availability used in its formulation may
cause quite disparate results between two basins with similar levels of water consumption and
cause quite disparate results between two basins with similar levels of water consumption and
similar climate variability. Therefore, the developers of fwua and CFAWARE sought to create a
similar climate variability. Therefore, the developers of fwua and CFAWARE sought to create a
characterization factor that would be easy to COMPARE.
characterization factor that would be easy to COMPARE.
•• The Theselected
selectedcharacterization
characterization factors
factors were
were notnot able
able toto reflect
reflect the
the effect
effect of
of IBT
IBTin
inreducing
reducingthethe
stressed
stressed state of the water cycle in the Arakawa river basin. To motivate local actionsimproving
state of the water cycle in the Arakawa river basin. To motivate local actions improving
aa sound
sound water
water cycle,
cycle, the
the assessment
assessment frameworks
frameworks should should allow
allow local
local authorities
authorities and
and other
other
stakeholders to AMELIORATE
stakeholders to AMELIORATE the state. the state.
•• Finally,
Finally,the
thewater
waterfootprint
footprintassessment
assessment process
process should
should be be based
based on on information
information thatthat can
can be
be
measured and stablishes ENGAGEMENTS of the involved stakeholders
measured and stablishes ENGAGEMENTS of the involved stakeholders based on adequate based on adequate
motivations,
motivations,continuity
continuityand andsustainability.
sustainability.
We
Weconclude
concludethat
thatthe
theprocess
processand
andresults
resultsofofregional
regionalwater
waterfootprint
footprintcharacterizations
characterizationsshould
should
have five fundamental requirements (uTRACE).
have five fundamental requirements (uTRACE).
X
 Unanimous.
Unanimous. A result
result that
that encourages
encourages planning
planning based
based onon mutual
mutual consent
consent of
ofstakeholders.
stakeholders.

X Targetable.
Targetable. A
A value
value that
thatreflects
reflectssound
soundwater
watercycle
cycleand
andcancanbe
beset
setas
astarget.
target.

X Replicable. A transparent
Replicable. transparent evaluation
evaluation based
based on
on scientific
scientific knowledge
knowledge that
thatcan
canbebevalidated.
validated.
Environments 2018, 5, 105 12 of 14

X Ameliorable. A concise evaluation of the water cycle state encourages practical solutions.
X Comparable. A result that can be fairly compared in spite of climatological or spatial differences.
X Engageable. A value that reflects the level of compromise towards achieving the target.

5. Concluding Remarks
The effect of IBT on the soundness of the water cycles (i.e., water footprint characterization) in two
major river basins in Japan was evaluated using four characterization factors and observed data: BWS,
WSI, fwua, and CFAWARE . The following is a summary of the contents and results of the evaluation:

X Due to approximations and assumptions about small-scale variability of water supply and
demand, global estimates of characterization factors fail to represent the actual local conditions
that might have been changed to improve the soundness of water cycles.
X In large basins with no surface water conveyances or other changes of freshwater sources,
the global estimates of characterization factors can be a good approximation of the estimates
calculated with local data and observations.
X Changes in the existing water stores and natural freshwater courses such as meltwater from
glaciers, desalination in coastal regions, and IBT need to be included in the characterization of
water-related risk assessments. When the change in supply is substantial, such as the Arakawa
river basin receiving a volume equal to 45% of its natural supply from the Tone River, the global
estimates of the selected characterization factors depicted a more “water-stressed” condition.
X We resulted that the IBT between the Tone and Arakawa river basins decreased water risk and
improve the soundness of water cycle from averaged results of characterization factors in a
comprehensive manner.
X The existing characterization factors were designed to evaluate the water-related risks for specific
simplified conditions. However, appropriate risk assessments need to consider spatiotemporal
variations of the availability-to-demand relation. With current ambiguity in the definition of
some characterization factors, it is difficult to include local water surface conveyances such
as IBT. Moreover, with a simple exercise we show how the effect of temporal variability can
be ameliorated with changes of supply producing misleading results of the potential risk of
climate variability.
X Good practices towards a sound water cycle should be based on assessments that provide
uTRACE results.

Author Contributions: Conceived and designed the experiments, S.Y. and T.O. (Taikan Oki); Contributed data
collection and analysis design, T.O. (Toshio Okazumi), Y.I. and M.Y.; Performed the experiments and analysed the
data, K.N., T.K., D.O., A.M., and M.G.-G.; Wrote the paper, S.Y. and M.G.-G.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research is a part of the activities by the Secretariat of Water Cycle Policy Headquarters
in Cabinet Secretariat, Japan.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed
on 8 May 2018).
2. Sustainable Development Goal 6. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6 (accessed
on 8 May 2018).
3. Postel, S.L.; Daily, G.C.; Ehrlich, P.R. Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 1996, 271,
785–788. [CrossRef]
4. Oki, T.; Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 2006, 313, 1068–1072.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Environments 2018, 5, 105 13 of 14

5. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water the United Nations World Water
Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018.
6. Brutsaert, W. Hydrology: An Introduction; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
7. Responding Properly to Issues on Water Resources. Available online: http://www.mlit.go.jp/
tochimizushigen/mizsei/water_resources/contents/responding_properly.html (accessed on 8 May 2018).
8. Taniguchi, M. The Basic act on the water cycle with groundwater. J. Groundwater Hydrol. 2015, 57, 83–90.
[CrossRef]
9. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual:
Setting the Global Standard; Earthscan: London, UK, 2011.
10. Water Footprint Network Website. Available online: http://waterfootprint.org/en/ (accessed on 10 May 2018).
11. ISO. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
12. ISO. ISO 14046 Environmental Management, Water Footprint—Principles, Requirements and Guidelines;
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
13. Shiklomanov, I.A. Appraisal and assessment of world water resources. Water Int. 2000, 25, 11–32. [CrossRef]
14. Oki, T.; Yano, S.; Hanasaki, N. Economic aspects of virtual water trade. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 044002.
[CrossRef]
15. World Resources Institute AQUEDUCT Water Risk Framework; WRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
16. The Water Risk Filter. Available online: http://waterriskfilter.panda.org/ (accessed on 11 May 2018).
17. Global Water Tool. Available online: https://www.wbcsd.org/Clusters/Water/Resources/Global-Water-Tool
(accessed on 11 May 2018).
18. Water Risk Monetizer. Available online: https://www.waterriskmonetizer.com (accessed on 11 May 2018).
19. Pfister, S.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4098–4104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Yano, S.; Hanasaki, N.; Itsubo, N.; Oki, T. Water scarcity footprints by considering the differences in water
sources. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9753–9772. [CrossRef]
21. Boulay, A.; Bare, J.; Benini, L.; Berger, M.; Lathuillière, M.J.; Manzardo, A.; Margni, M.; Motoshita, M.;
Núñez, M.; Pastor, A.V.; et al. The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints:
Assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
2018, 23, 368–378. [CrossRef]
22. Gassert, F.; Shiao, T.; Luck, M. Colorado River Basin Study; Working Paper; World Resources Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
23. Gassert, F.; Luo, T.; Shiao, T.; Luck, M. Yellow River Basin Study; Working Paper; World Resources Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
24. Gassert, F.; Luo, T.; Shiao, T.; Luck, M. Yangtze River Basin Study; Working Paper; World Resources Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
25. Gassert, F.; Rai, P.; Reig, P.; Luck, M. Mekong River Basin Study; Working Paper; World Resources Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
26. Reig, P.; Gassert, F.; Luck, M. Orange-Senqu River Basin Study; Working Paper; World Resources Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
27. Luo, T.; Krishnan, D.; Sen, S. Parched Power, Water Demands, Risks, and Opportunities for India’s Power Sector;
Working Paper; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
28. Long-Term Plans for Water Resources. Available online: http://www.mlit.go.jp/tochimizushigen/mizsei/
water_resources/contents/long-term_plans.html (accessed on 17 May 2018).
29. Musashi Suiro. Available online: https://www.water.go.jp/kanto/musasi/summary/index2.html
(accessed on 3 September 2018).
30. AQUEDUCT Measuring and Mapping Water Risk. Available online: http://www.wri.org/our-work/
project/aqueduct (accessed on 11 May 2018).
31. Brown, A.; Matlock, M.D. A Review of Water Scarcity Indices and Methodologies; White Paper #106;
The Sustainability Consortium: Arkansas, AR, USA, 2011.
32. ISO Environmental Management—Water Footprint—Illustrative Examples on How to Apply ISO 14046;
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
Environments 2018, 5, 105 14 of 14

33. Rosenbaum, R.K.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Boulay, A.M.; Fantke, P.; Laurent, A.; Núñez, M.; Vieira, M. Life cycle
impact assessment. In Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice; Hauschild, M., Rosenbaum, R., Olsen, S., Eds.;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
34. Nilsson, C.; Reidy, C.A.; Dynesius, M.; Revenga, C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large
river systems. Science 2005, 308, 405–408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Yano, S.; Hanasaki, N.; Itsubo, N.; Oki, T. Potential impacts of food production on freshwater availability
considering water sources. Water 2016, 8, 163. [CrossRef]
36. Database of Dams. Available online: http://mudam.nilim.go.jp/home (accessed on 7 June 2018).
37. Basin Development Plan of Tone River System. Available online: http://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp/river/shihon/
index00000038.html (accessed on 7 June 2018).
38. AMeDAS. Available online: https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/amedas/amedas.html
(accessed on 31 July 2018).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).