The FEWSION Database™ is a spatially- and temporally- detailed input-output database describing the FEW system of communities in the United States along with other commodity flows, their resource footprints, and resource dependencies. The FEWSION Database™ Version 1.4 Dataset Documentation and Guide is intended for use in conjunction with the FEWSION Database™ and other associated data products. The FEWSION Database™ Version 1.4 Dataset Documentation and Guide describes the coverage, methods, processing techniques, statistical methods, schemas, source material, file structure, and file formats for the FEWSION Database™ v.1.4.
The goal of the FEWSION Project is to produce FEW data for researchers, decision-makers, and the public. Extracts from the FEWSION Database™ are available to the public through an online visualization system called FEW-View™ where users can visualize U.S. state- and county-level FEW system connections.
Please fill out the form below to request access to the FEWSION Database.
If you are requesting access under a private license, in addition to the form below, please email us directly at fewsion@nau.edu with "FEWSION Database Private License" in the Subject line.
FEW-VIEW™ LICENSE TEXT
FEW-View(TM) and limited extracts from the FEWSION Database™ visualized by FEW-View™ are licensed to the user under the Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)”, Accessible at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. FEW-View(TM) and the FEWSION Database™ are the property of the Arizona Board of Regents.
PUBLIC ACCESS FEWSION DATABASE™ EXTRACTS LICENSE TEXT
Publicly accessible extracts from the FEWSION Database™ are licensed to the user under the Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)”, Accessible at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. The FEWSION Database™ is the property of Northern Arizona University and the Arizona Board of Regents.
PRIVATE ACCESS FEWSION DATABASE LICENSE TEXT
User has been provided with access to the FEWSION Database™. The FEWSION Database™ is the property of Northern Arizona University and the Arizona Board of Regents. The FEWSION Database™ may not be duplicated, reproduced, distributed to third parties, used to create derivative works, displayed publicly, or used for any purpose without express written consent of Northern Arizona University. Your access agreement serves as this express written consent and specifies the allowable uses.
The FEWSION Database™ Glossary is adapted from Rushforth & Ruddell (2018). Included are terms from the FEWSION Database™ v. 1.0, v. 1.1, 1.2, v. 1.3, and v. 1.4. See the FEW-VIEW™ GLOSSARY PAGE HERE.
Agricultural Sector: Economic sector comprised of farm-based activities to grow crops for food or industrial purposes. Irrigation is the primary water using activity in the agricultural sector (Maupin et al., 2014).
Attraction Factor: A fraction used to disaggregate commodity flows on the consumption side. Currently, the FEWSION Database™ uses population as an attraction factor. Each county within a FAF zone is assigned a fraction equivalent to its percent of the total population.
Circularity: The Circularity metric is a specific way of looking at the Dependence data layer for a specific physical unit like tons, dollars, barrels of oil, or GWh, among others. Rather than looking at all of the areas a state or county/county equivalent may depend on, the Circularity metric shows how much a state or county/county equivalent depends on itself. For example, a State purchases 100,000 gallons of gasoline from itself and consumes 200,000 gallons of gasoline overall. Using the Circularity metric, the State’s circularity fraction is 0.5.
County: A county or county equivalent (parish, borough, Washington D.C., or an independent city) is a sub-state geographic scale that is roughly equivalent to the mesoscale.
Dependence: The Dependence metric is a different way of looking at the flow of goods into an area. Instead of measuring flow between an origin and destination in a physical unit like tons, dollars, barrels of oil, of GWh, the Dependence metric is a relative measure of how large a supplier is in a supply chain as a percent from 0 -100%. For example, a State purchases 100,000 gallons of gasoline from another state and consumes 200,000 gallons of gasoline overall. Using the Dependence metric, the State depends on the other state for 50% of its gasoline supply.
Destination: The geographic location where a commodity flow terminates.
Freight Analysis Zone (FAF Zone): A group of counties that represents a metropolitan statistical area, census statistical area, or the remainder of the state (Southworth et al., 2010; Hwang et al., 2016)
Industrial Sector: Economic sector that produces industrial goods. Water use in the industrial sector includes, “fabricating, processing, washing, diluting, cooling, or transporting a product; incorporating water into a product; or for sanitation needs within the manufacturing facility,” (Maupin et al., 2014).
Leverage: The Leverage metric is a different way of looking at the flow of goods out of an area. Instead of measuring flow between an origin and destination in a physical unit like tons, dollars, barrels of oil, of GWh, the Leverage metric is a relative measure of how large a supplier is in a supply chain as a percent from 0 -100%. For example, a State sells 100,000 gallons of gasoline to another state and sells 500,000 gallons of gasoline overall. Using the Leverage metric, the state consuming gasoline has leverage over 20% the producing state’s its gasoline supply.
Livestock Sector: Economic sector comprised of the raising of animals for animal products in addition to aquaculture activities. Water use in the livestock sector only includes direct water use at livestock, and related facilities (Maupin et al., 2014).
Mining Sector: Economic sector comprised of mineral producing activities, including metallic and non-metallic ore, in addition to sand and gravel, crude petroleum and natural gas. Water using activities in the mining sector include, “Mining water use is water used for the extraction of minerals that may be in the form of solids, such as coal, iron, sand, and gravel; liquids, such as crude petroleum; and gases, such as natural gas,” (Maupin et al., 2014).
Origin: The geographic location where a commodity flow originates.
Production Factor: A fraction used to disaggregate commodity flows on the production side. Currently, the FEWSION Database™ uses production factors that are specific to the economic sector. Each county within a FAF zone is assigned a fraction equivalent to its percent of the total population.
Power Sector: In the FEWSION Database™, the power sector is comprised of electric generating stations, which includes thermoelectric and non-thermoelectric facilities (renewable energy sources). Water is used at thermoelectric generation stations in addition to hydroelectric facilities.
Resilience: Resilience is a measure of the potential for disruptions in a commodity supply chain. The potential for disruption is estimated by determining if a supply chain is overly reliant on a handful of sources, rather than relying on a diverse set of sources. Resilience is measured from 0 to 1. A score of 0 indicates that a supply chain is heavily reliant on one supplier, and if that supplier is disrupted, it may cause disruptions in supply. A score of 1 indicates that a supply chain relies on a diverse set of suppliers equally.
Virtual Water: Also known as indirect water or embodied water, has been studied as a strategic resource for two decades as it allows geographic areas (country, state, province, city) to access more water than is physically available (Allan, 1998; Allan, 2003; Suweis et al., 2011; Dalin et al., 2012; Dang et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2015; Marston et al., 2015).
Virtual Water Inflows into a Geographic Area (VWIn): The volume of water indirectly consumed to produce goods or services produced outside a geographic boundary of interest for consumption within that geographic boundary of interest.
Virtual Water Outflows from a Geographic Area (VWOut): The volume of water used to produce goods or services that are consumed outside of the geographic boundary of interest.
Virtual Water Balance of a Geographic Area (VWNet): Virtual water Inflows minus virtual water outflows for a geographic boundary of interest.
Water Footprint: The volume of surface water and groundwater consumed during the production of a good or service and is also called the virtual water content of a good or service (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011a).
Water Footprint of Consumption: Water consumption for local use in addition to virtual water import (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011b)
Water Footprint of a Geographic Area (F): The volume of water representing direct water consumption plus virtual water inflows minus virtual water outflows for a geographic boundary of interest. A per-capita water footprint (F`) is F divided by the population within the geographic boundary of interest.
Water Footprint of Production: the total volume of water consumed with a geographic boundary, including water consumption for local use less virtual water export (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011b).
Water Consumption (C): The total volume of water consumed from a water source, when consumption is withdrawals minus return flows. A water source is either surface water or groundwater. The FEWSION Database™ utilizes four consumptive use scenarios based on a withdrawal-based scenario, and minimum, median, and maximum consumptive use scenario. Consumptive use scenarios are based on reports published by the United States Geological Survey (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007).
Vulnerability: In FEW-View, vulnerability is a measure of exposure to drought in a supply chain. Vulnerability is measured from 0 to 1. A score of 1 indicates that a supply chain is heavily reliant suppliers with stressed water supplies. A score of 0 indicates that a supply chain is not heavily reliant suppliers with stressed water supplies. Vulnerability can be visualized as a total for each area (IWSI) and compared to other areas or visualized to show the most vulnerable sources for a single area (IWSIc).
Water Withdrawal (W): The total volume of water withdrawn from a water source. A water source is either surface water or groundwater.
Glossary References
Allan, J.A. (2003). “Virtual water-the water, food, and trade nexus. Useful concept or misleading metaphor?” Water International, 28, 106-113.
Allan, J.A. (1998). “Virtual Water: A Strategic Resource Global Solutions to Regional Deficits.” NGWA: Ground Water, 36, 545-546. 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb02825.x.
Archfield, S., Vogel, R., Steeves, P., Brandt, S., Weiskel, P. & Garabedian, S. (2009). “The Massachusetts Sustainable-Yield Estimator: A decision-support tool to assess water availability at ungaged sites in Massachusetts.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, 5227, 2010.
Bialek, J. (1996a). “Identification of source-sink connections in transmission networks.” Power System Control and Management, Fourth International Conference on (Conf. Publ. No. 421), 200-204.
Bialek, J. (1996b). “Tracing the flow of electricity.” IEE Proceedings-Generation, Transmission and Distribution, 143, 313-320.
Bialek, J. & Kattuman, P. (2004). “Proportional sharing assumption in tracing methodology.” IEE Proceedings-Generation, Transmission and Distribution, 151, 526-532.
Brown, C. & Lall, U. (2006). “Water and economic development: The role of variability and a framework for resilience.” Natural Resources Forum, 306-317.
Bujanda, A., Villa, J. & Williams, J. (2014). “Development of Statewide Freight Flows Assignment Using the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3).” Journal of Behavioral Economics, Finance, Entrepreneurship, Accounting and Transport, 2, 47-57.
Castle, S.L., Thomas, B.F., Reager, J.T., Rodell, M., Swenson, S.C. & Famiglietti, J.S. (2014). “Groundwater depletion during drought threatens future water security of the Colorado River Basin.” Geophysical research letters, 41, 5904-5911.
Christian-Smith, J., Levy, M.C. & Gleick, P.H. (2015). “Maladaptation to drought: a case report from California, USA.” Sustainability Science, 10, 491-501. 10.1007/s11625-014-0269-1.
Cohen, S. M., Averyt, K., Macknick, J. & Meldrum, J. (2014). “Modeling Climate-Water Impacts on Electricity Sector Capacity Expansion.” V002T010A007. 10.1115/POWER2014-32188.
Cooley, H. & Gleick, P.H. (2012). “U.S. Water Policy Reform” in: The World's Water Volume 7: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Island Press.
Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2012). “Evolution of the global virtual water trade network.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 5989-5994.
Dang, Q., Lin, X. & Konar, M. (2015). “Agricultural virtual water flows within the United States.” Water Resources Research, 51, 973-986. 10.1002/2014WR015919.
De Jong, G., Gunn, H. & Walker, W. (2004). “National and international freight transport models: an overview and ideas for future development.” Transport Reviews, 24, 103-124.
Diffenbaugh, N.S., Swain, D.L. & Touma, D. (2015). “Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 3931-3936.
Eurek, K., Cole, W., Bielen, D., Blair, N., Cohen, S., Frew, B., Ho, J., Krishnan, V., Mai, T. & Sigrin, B. (2016). “Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2016.” NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
Famiglietti, J.S. & Rodell, M. (2013). “Water in the balance.” Science, 340, 1300-1301.
Galloway, Jr., G. (2011). “A plea for a coordinated national water policy.” Bridge, 41, 37-46.
Gleick, P.H. (2003). “Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century.” Science, 302, 1524-1528. 10.1126/science.1089967.
Gleick, P.H., Christian-Smith, J. & Cooley, H. (2012). “A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy.” OUP USA.
Harris, G A., Anderson, M.D., Farrington, P.A., Schoening, N.C., Swain, J.J. & Sharma, N.S. (2012). “Developing freight analysis zones at a state level: A cluster analysis approach.” In Journal of the Transportation Research Forum (Vol. 49, No. 1, August).
Hillberry, R. & Hummels, D. (2003). “Intranational home bias: Some explanations.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1089-1092.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. & Mekonnen, M.M. (2012). “The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard.” Routledge.
Hoekstra, A.Y. & Wiedmann, T.O. (2014). “Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint.” Science, 344, 1114-1117. 10.1126/science.1248365.
Hwang, H.-L., Hargrove, S., Chin, S.-M., Wilson, D., Lim, H., Chen, J., Taylor, R., Peterson, B. & Davidson, D. (2016). “Building the FAF4 Regional Database: Data Sources and Estimation Methodologies.” In/ edited by: Laboratory, O.R.N., Oak Ridge, TN.
Ingram, D.D. & Franco, S.J. (2012). “NCHS urban-rural classification scheme for counties.” Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research, 1-65.
Joseph, M.A., Charles, J.V., Robert, J.N., Dennis, P.L. & Claudia, P.-W. (2008). “A grand challenge for freshwater research: understanding the global water system.” Environmental Research Letters, 3, 010202.
Kennedy, C.A., Stewart, I., Facchini, A., Cersosimo, I., Mele, R., Chen, B., Uda, M., Kansal, A., Chiu, A., Kim, K.-g., Dubeux, C., Lebre La Rovere, E., Cunha, B., Pincetl, S., Keirstead, J., Barles, S., Pusaka, S., Gunawan, J., Adegbile, M., Nazariha, M., Hoque, S., Marcotullio, P.J., González Otharán, F., Genena, T., Ibrahim, N., Farooqui, R., Cervantes, G. & Sahin, A.D. (2015). “Energy and material flows of megacities.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 5985-5990. 10.1073/pnas.1504315112.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A.N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C. L., Schneider, S.H., and Taylor, W.W. (2007). “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems.” Science, 317, 1513-1516. 10.1126/science.1144004.
Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G. & Hallett, K. (2012). “Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature.” Environmental Research Letters, 7, 045802.
Macknick, J., Cohen, S., Newmark, R., Martinez, A., Sullivan, P. & Tidwell, V. (2015). “Water constraints in an electric sector capacity expansion model (No. NREL/TP-6A20-64270).” National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
Mann, M.E. & Gleick, P.H. (2015). “Climate change and California drought in the 21st century.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 3858-3859.
Marston, L., Konar, M., Cai, X. & Troy, T.J. (2015). “Virtual groundwater transfers from overexploited aquifers in the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 8561-8566. 10.1073/pnas.1500457112.
Marston, L., Ao, Y., Konar, M., Mekonnen, M.M., and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2018). “High-Resolution Water Footprints of Production of the United States.” Water Resources Research, n/a-n/a. 10.1002/2017WR021923.
Maupin, M.A., Kenny, J.F., Hutson, S.S., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L. & Linsey, K.S. (2014). “Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010.” U.S. Geological Survey, 2330-5703.
Mayer, A., Mubako, S. & Ruddell, B.L. (2016). “Developing the greatest Blue Economy: Water productivity, fresh water depletion, and virtual water trade in the Great Lakes basin.” Earth's Future, 4, 282-297.
McManamay, R.A., Nair, S.S., DeRolph, C.R., Ruddell, B.L., Morton, A.M., Stewart, R.N., Troia, M.J., Tran, L., Kim, H. & Bhaduri, B.L. (2017). “U.S. cities can manage national hydrology and biodiversity using local infrastructure policy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201706201.
McNutt, M. (2014). “The drought you can’t see.” Science, 345, 1543. 10.1126/science.1260795.
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011a). “National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption.” UNESCO-IHE.
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011b). “The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 1577.
Michener, W.K., Brunt, J.W., Helly, J.J., Kirchner, T.B., & Stafford, S.G. (1997). “Nongeospatial Metadata for the Ecological Sciences.” Ecological Applications, 7(1), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269427
Mubako, S.T., Ruddell, B.L. & Mayer, A.S. (2013). “Relationship between water withdrawals and freshwater ecosystem water scarcity quantified at multiple scales for a Great Lakes watershed.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139, 671-681.
Office of Management and Budget. (2017). “North American Industry Classification System.” U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.
Ruddell, B.L., Gao, H., Pala, O., Rushforth, R. & Sabo, J. (In Press 2019). “Infrastructure and the FEW Supply Chain.” In Saundry, P. & Ruddell, B.L., (eds.), The Food, Energy, Water Nexus. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Used with permission of the authors.
Rushforth, R.R. & Ruddell, B.L. (2018). “A spatially detailed and economically complete blue water footprint of the United States.” Hydrology and Earth System Science. https://doi. org/10.5194/hess-2017-650
Rushforth, R. & Ruddell, B. (2017). “National Water Economy Database, version 1.1.” In/edited by: Rushforth, R., Hydroshare.
Rushforth, R.R. & Ruddell, B.L. (2016). “The vulnerability and resilience of a city's water footprint: The case of Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.” Water Resources Research, 52, 2698-2714.
Rushforth, R. & Ruddell, B. (2015). “The Hydro-Economic Interdependency of Cities: Virtual Water Connections of the Phoenix, Arizona Metropolitan Area.” Sustainability, 7, 8522.
Rushforth, R.R., Adams, E.A. & Ruddell, B.L. (2013). “Generalizing ecological, water and carbon footprint methods and their worldview assumptions using Embedded Resource Accounting.” Water Resources and Industry, 1, 77-90.
Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H.-P., Harnik, N., Leetmaa, A., Lau, N.-C., Li, C., Velez, J. & Naik, N. (2007). “Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America.” Science, 316, 1181-1184. 10.2307/20036337.
Seager, R., Goddard, L., Nakamura, J., Henderson, N. & Lee, D.E. (2014). “Dynamical Causes of the 2010/11 Texas–Northern Mexico Drought.” Journal of Hydrometeorology, 15, 39-68. 10.1175/jhm-d-13-024.1.
Seager, R., Hoerling, M., Schubert, S., Wang, H., Lyon, B., Kumar, A., Nakamura, J. & Henderson, N. (2015). “Causes of the 2011–14 California Drought.” Journal of Climate, 28, 6997-7024. 10.1175/jcli-d-14-00860.1.
Shaffer, K. & Runkle, D.L. (2007). “Consumptive Water, Use Coefficients for the Great Lakes Basin and Climatically Similar Areas.” U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Southworth, F., Davidson, D., Hwang, H., Peterson, B. E. & Chin, S. (2010). “The freight analysis framework, version 3: Overview of the FAF3 National Freight Flow Tables.” Prepared for Office of Freight Management and Operations, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Suweis, S., Konar, M., Dalin, C., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A. & Rodriguez‐Iturbe, I. (2011). “Structure and controls of the global virtual water trade network.” Geophysical Research Letters, 38.
Troy, T.J. (2019). “Appendix A: Naturalized Water Flows.” In Rushforth R.R. & Ruddell, B.L. The FEWSION Database™ Version 1.0: Dataset Documentation and Guide.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages -- Data Files.” https://www.bls.gov/cew/datatoc.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019a). “2012 CFS Public Use Microdata File.” https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2012/econ/cfs/2012-pums-files.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019b). “SCTG2 Commodity Code List.” https://bhs.econ.census.gov/bhsphpext/brdsearch/scs_code.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). “2016 FIPS Codes.” https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2016/demo/popest/2016-fips.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2019). “County-level Oil and Gas Production in the U.S.” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-level-oil-and-gas-production-in-the-us/
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2012). “Census of Agriculture.” https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2019). “U.S. Natural Gas Consumption by End Use.” http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2017). Form EIA-923. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). “Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID).” https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated-database-egrid
U.S. Geological Service. (2003, 2005). “Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plants in the United States.”
Viswanathan, K., Beagan, D., Mysore, V. & Srinivasan, N. (2008). “Disaggregating Freight Analysis Framework Version 2 Data for Florida: Methodology and Results.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2049, 167-175. 10.3141/2049-20.
Vörösmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J. & Lammers, R.B. (2000). “Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth.” Science, 289, 284-288.
Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Liermann, C.R. & Davies, P.M. (2010). “Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity.” Nature, 467, 555-561. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/abs/nature09440.html#supplementary-information
Vörösmarty, C.J., Hoekstra, A.Y., Bunn, S.E., Conway, D. & Gupta, J. (2015). “Fresh water goes global.” Science, 349, 478-479. 10.1126/science.aac6009.
Water Footprint Network: WaterStat Database. (2019). https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/waterstat/
Weiskel, P.K., Vogel, R.M., Steeves, P.A., Zarriello, P.J., DeSimone, L.A. & Ries, K.G. (2007). “Water use regimes: Characterizing direct human interaction with hydrologic systems.” Water Resources Research, 43, n/a-n/a. 10.1029/2006WR005062.
Weiskel, P.K., Brandt, S.L., DeSimone, L.A., Ostiguy, L.J. & Archfield, S.A. (2010). “Indicators of streamflow alteration, habitat fragmentation, impervious cover, and water quality for Massachusetts stream basins.” U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
Weiskel, P.K., Wolock, D.M., Zarriello, P.J., Vogel, R.M., Levin, S.B. & Lent, R.M. (2014). “Hydroclimatic regimes: a distributed water-balance framework for hydrologic assessment, classification, and management.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3855-3872. 10.5194/hess-18-3855-2014.
Water productivity, total (constant 2010 US$ GDP per cubic meter of total freshwater withdrawal): Access: 10 September, 2017. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.GDP.FWTL.M3.KD
Zetland, D. (2011). “The End of Abundance: Economic Solutions to Water Scarcity.” Aguanomics Press.
Zhao, X., Liu, J., Liu, Q., Tillotson, M. R., Guan, D. & Hubacek, K. (2015). “Physical and virtual water transfers for regional water stress alleviation in China.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1031-1035. 10.1073/pnas.1404130112.