Water footprint assessment considering intermediate products: model and a 2016 case study of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Analysing intermediate products within a water footprint (WF) across different economic sectors can show the root causes of water usage and is helpful for water resource management and policy making. However, conventional methods and data for a WF rarely assess the input and output of intermediate products directly and comprehensively. Therefore, this study proposes an approach to access the WF of intermediate products as well as final products in each sector of an economy’s water sustainability profile. An Economic Input‐output‐based Life‐Cycle Assessment (EIO‐LCA) framework is designed for the accounting, which describes the intermediate WF products of each sector in a material‐product network. This method is implemented into a 2016 case study for a comprehensive Chinese WF. The results showed that the total WF of Chinese inhabitants (consumers) in 2016 was 5.76 × 10 11 m 3 , and the top three sectors with the largest WF were agriculture (1.78 × 10 11 m 3 ), food (1.05 × 10 11 m 3 ) and machinery manufacturing (5.68 × 10 10 m 3 ); agriculture provided the largest quantity of virtual water contained in its intermediate product for the other sectors. From the perspective of producers, the total WF of the Chinese economic sectors in 2016 was 5.84 × 10 11 m 3 . The sectors with the largest direct water use were agriculture (2.20 × 10 11 m 3 ), electricity (7.64 × 10 10 m 3 ) and chemical Industry (2.35 × 10 10 m 3 ); and large parts of their direct water usage were consumed to prepare intermediate products for other sectors. The results of this study show that a more inclusive approach provides an enhanced qualitative and resource‐ethical view for water accounting and management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".