Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Grey water footprint assessment at the river basin level: Accounting

method and case study in the Segura River Basin, Spain
Francisco Pellicer-Martínez ∗ , José Miguel Martínez-Paz
Water and Environment Institute, University of Murcia, Edificio D. Campus de Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Measurement and monitoring of the pollution in continental waters is one of the main challenges in
Received 11 May 2015 water resources management as pollution is the principal cause of degradation of aquatic ecosystems,
Received in revised form 13 August 2015 leading to the subsequent reduction of ecosystem services. The grey water footprint (GWF), defined as the
Accepted 19 August 2015
volume of fresh water required to assimilate the load of pollutants discharged into water, is an indicator
Available online 29 September 2015
used to measure the degree of water pollution in a homogeneous unit. The GWF allows examination and
contrast of the impacts of different pollutants located in different geographical areas, although it can also
Keywords:
be used to compare the contamination impact with other types of impacts, such as the water extraction
Grey water footprint
Water resources management
in aquifers. Although the potential and the foundations of the GWF formulation are well developed, the
Decision support system existing methodologies for calculating the GWF are still in an initial stage, which complicates matters
Wastewater treatment when dealing with complex cases due to the newness of this indicator. This paper aims to develop a
Water reuse methodology that is appropriate for the comprehensive evaluation of the GWF at the river basin level.
Segura River Basin The methodology proposed considered the load of pollutants discharged in a basin, simulating the
anthropised water cycle. This simulation, conducted by combining a hydrological model and a decision
support system, enabled the calculation of GWF under present and future scenarios and/or the ex-ante
analysis of the impact of different river basin management policies (e.g., wastewater treatment, water
reuse, the joint use of surface and groundwater). Owing to all these advantages, the GWF is a highly useful
indicator within the framework of integrated water resources management. The GWF assessment in the
Segura River Basin (South-eastern Spain) highlighted both the validity and the general applicability of
the methodology. The basin under study is affected by serious pollution issues and is one of the most
complex exploitation systems in Europe. Additionally, fostering of the use of natural water resources,
wastewater treatment actions, water reuse, desalinisation and external transfers are performed in this
basin. The results indicate that the GWF of the Segura River Basin is greater than its renewable water
resources, making it markedly unsustainable in both the short- and medium-term.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction biodiversity and the ability of aquatic ecosystems to provide valu-

Increasing pollution of the world’s inland water, at both the sur-
face and groundwater levels, is one of the main issues to be tackled
by water resources management (Bouwer, 2000). An increase in
nutrient loading or in the discharge of organic compounds, pesti-
cides or heavy metals into water bodies (EC, 2000) has a negative
impact on aquatic ecosystems (Schwarzenbach et al., 2006). One
of these threats to water quality is the eutrophication of sur-
face waters, which leads to the overload of anthropogenic organic
matter and nutrients in the water (Smith et al., 1999), reducing
able ecosystem services for the population (Carpenter et al., 1999).
Pollution can make water bodies unusable for domestic, industrial
and irrigation purposes, both at present and in the future. This con-
sequence of pollution is especially accentuated in aquifers, where
pollutants neither degrade nor are easily removed and hence accu-
mulate (Dotsika et al., 2011). The problem worsens in areas affected
by water scarcity, where there is great pressure on water use and
pollutants are less diluted due to the reduced streamflows (Liu et al.,
2012).
Most countries1 conduct periodic analyses of the pollutant
concentrations in their water bodies, to aid the elaboration, if

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 868 887 605. 1

The Water Information System for Europe (WISE http://water.europa.eu/)
E-mail address: francisco.pellicer@um.es (F. Pellicer-Martínez). includes, among others, three links to essential databases that show the status of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.032
1470-160X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1174 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183
necessary, of action plans aimed at the reduction of pollution –
if the thresholds set by law are crossed (Sartorius et al., 2011).
Nevertheless, even though there is a wide range of measurements
and pollutants considered for the analyses, there are hardly any
sets of homogenous indicators which allow the comparison of the
pollution impacts across different geographical areas (Jiao et al.,
2013). The grey water footprint (GWF) is one of these indicators.
The GWF is part of the total water footprint, which is composed
of colours in green, blue and grey (Hoekstra and Chapagainl, 2008;
Hoekstra et al., 2009). The green water footprint is the volume of
rainwater consumed during the production process (agricultural
and forestry products). The blue water footprint is the volume of
surface and groundwater consumed as a result of the production of
a good or service. The GWF is defined as the volume of freshwater
that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on natural
background concentrations and existing ambient water quality
standards (Hoekstra et al., 2011). So, the GWF converts the impact
of pollution on water resources into a homogeneous unit: fresh
water volume (although the GWF is measured in volume, it does not
indicate water consumption or water scarcity). Thus, the environ-
mental impacts produced by different pollutant discharges in water
bodies with distinct natural conditions and under different quality
standards can be compared. In contrast, the maximum pollutant
concentrations allowed and the current levels of contamination
are different in each country and they cannot be compared.
Additionally, the sustainability of the pollution can be studied
with the GWF indicator. This analysis consists of the determination
of whether the water body is able to assimilate the pollution load
received while maintaining the required quality standards. For this
purpose, the GWF in a water body is related to the flow passing
through it. If the flow is higher than the GWF, the water body can
bear the pollution load that it receives (Hoekstra et al., 2011). On
the other hand, if the flow is lower than the GWF, the pollution is
not sustainable and must be reduced (Liu et al., 2012). Thus, the
GWF has become a sustainability indicator in wastewater manage-
ment. For this purpose, the GWF must be calculated in the territorial
unit of the relevant water resources management authority, which
is usually the river basin (EC, 2000), so as to assess the pollution
management of a given territorial unit (Fulton et al., 2014).
Notwithstanding the great potential of the GWF as a sustainabil-
ity indicator for water pollution at the territorial level, there are few
examples of the calculation of the GWF of a river basin (Zeng et al.,
2012; Zhi et al., 2015). The existing practical cases tackle the prob-
lem only partially (de Miguel et al., 2015): only an overall value is
determined for the whole river basin, disregarding the spatial and
temporal distribution of the GWF value, which is key to identifying
polluted water bodies and the periods when pollution occurs (Liu
et al., 2012). The scarcity of developments at the territorial level
is due to several reasons: the relative newness of water footprint
indicators (WF); the lack of a clear application methodology; and
the large volume of data required for the GWF calculation, which
is not available in all basins.
The primary aim of this work was to develop a methodology for
the comprehensive GWF assessment of a river basin within a frame-
work of integrated water resources management, starting from the
standard formulation of the GWF (Hoekstra et al., 2011) in the pol-
lutant discharges delivered into the basin. The pollutant discharges
were determined by the complete simulation of the anthropised
this issue in the countries of the European Union: (1) The Water Data Centre sup-
ported by the European Environment Agency (EEA), (2) The Water Statistics website,
hosted at Eurostat and (3) The Monitoring of pollutants campaigns for surface water
or within the aquatic environment, conducted by the Institute for Environment
and Sustainability (JRC – European Commission) in cooperation with a network of
laboratories.
water cycle, performed by combining a hydrological model and a
decision support system (DSS). This technique allowed us to know
how the different types of pollutant discharge are distributed in
time and space – and hence to assign a GFW value to every water
body in the basin, at both the surface and groundwater levels –
and to find out when the major pollution problems arise. Wastew-
ater treatment and water reuse were taken into account in the
simulation of the anthropised water cycle, so their impacts on the
reduction of the GWF were also taken into consideration.
The methodology was applied in the Segura River Basin (SRB),
in South-eastern Spain. The SRB shows serious pollution prob-
lems in its surface and groundwater bodies (Grindlay et al., 2011)
and is among the most complex river basins in Europe as far as
management is concerned. The SRB displays some peculiarities:
its groundwater resources are highly regulated, there is extensive
use of groundwater (Martínez-Paz and Perni, 2011) and alternative
resources are employed, such as transfers with two neighbouring
basins (Kroll et al., 2013), reuse of treated wastewater (Rodenas and
Albacete, 2014) and coastal desalination plants (Lapuente, 2012).
Therefore, this case study presents nearly all the sources of pollu-
tants and resources that can be found in a river basin; so, beyond its
particular interest, this study was intended to set some guidelines
for the application of the methodology in further studies.
2. Methodology
The methodology proposed (Fig. 1) consists of two consecutive
stages:
(1) Simulation of the anthropised water cycle for a river basin, using
the spatial and temporal distribution of all the flows.
(2) Assessment of the GWF of the flows related to pollutant dis-
charges. These flows are obtained in the previously mentioned
simulation. In this stage the type of water body that receives the
discharge is taken into account, and the effects of wastewater
treatment and reuse are also considered.
As a way of introduction, some of the methodological underpin-
nings of both stages are depicted below. They will be dealt with in
greater detail in the development of the practical case.
2.1. Simulation of the anthropised water cycle
The simulation of the anthropised water cycle, which is the first
stage of this methodology, provides all the flows that take place in
a river basin. Among these flows are all the returns of the demands
and the reuse volume, both of which are used in the GWF assess-
ment.
This simulation is developed by combining a hydrological model
with a decision support system (DSS). The hydrological model
determines the water resources of a river basin, establishing the
proportions of the rainfall that become surface runoff and aquifer
recharge – taking into account spatial and temporal distribution
(Pellicer-Martínez and Martínez-Paz, 2014). Also, the DSS mod-
els simulate the water network of infrastructure and water uses,
taking as inputs the water resources in the form of time series pro-
vided by the hydrological model (Bolgov and Levit-Gurevich, 2013).
In the DSS, all water demands are set and the resources are dis-
tributed among them, prioritising according to the type of use and
the topology of the water network. When there are not enough
resources, there will be a deficit in the demands with the lowest
priority (Paredes-Arquiola et al., 2014).
There is a wide range of hydrological models available for the
evaluation of water resources (Devi et al., 2015). These are water
balance models, normally at the monthly scale, which determine
 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183
Hydrological Decision Support
Model System
1. Simulation of the anthropized water cycle
Fig. 1. General methodological scheme.
natural streamflows and aquifer recharges, based on climate vari-
ables and basin features (geometry, edaphology, lithology, soil uses,
vegetation, etc.). Depending on the quality of the information avail-
able and the objective of the study, they can be applied, from a
lower to a greater degree of detail, as lumped (Pellicer-Martínez
and Martínez-Paz, 2015), semi-distributed (Pellicer-Martínez and
Martínez-Paz, 2014) and distributed models. Among the dis-
tributed models, SWAT (Meaurio et al., 2015) and MIKE-SHE (Larsen
et al., 2014) are very well-known. The results that they provide are
series of natural streamflows at key locations of the river network,
such as dams, confluences of rivers and aquifer recharges.
The DSSs in water resources management are formulations
that simulate the integrated system of resources of a river basin
(Andreu et al., 2009). They simplify the part of the water cycle
that is human-controlled, preserving the interrelations between
its main components: rivers, dams, aquifers, intakes, uses, desali-
nation plants, etc. (Pulido et al., 2013). The DSSs forecast how the
river basin management would be affected by possible actions in
the basin (Hernandez et al., 2014), which is why DSSs are exten-
sively used for water planning in most basins where there are data
available. They provide, as results in the form of series, the main
flows and volumes related to the system of water resources, such
as return flows (pollutant discharges), treated wastewater flows,
reused flows, supply of the demands, streamflows and volumes
stored in reservoirs. The return flows, treated wastewater flows
and reused flows are directly related to the GWF.
In this work the specific models used were SIMPA, as the hydro-
logical model (Garcia-Barron et al., 2015), and Optiges, as the DDS
(Hernandez et al., 2014). Both models have been tested previously
in the study area (CHS, 2013a), and their main characteristics are
described in the case study. So, it is worth noting that in this stage
other types of hydrological models and DSSs can be implemented
in different river basins, so as to use the tools that have been tested
in them already.
2.2. Grey water footprint of a river basin
The GWF of a river basin is calculated by adapting the standard
formulation of the GWF of a process (Eq. (1)), defined by Hoekstra
et al. (2011), since it is designed to address a punctual discharge of
a single substance into a water body.
L reaches the water bodies and the total flows that return from urban
GWF =
cmax − cnat
where
• L is the pollutant load (mass).
• cmax is the maximum acceptable concentration of the substance
(mass/volume).
1175
Return flows from water demands: GWF of a River Basin
• Untreated volume discharged
• Reused treated volume
• Treated volume discharged
Modification of the
standard formulation of
the WF calculation
Pollutant concentrations
2. Estimation of the GWF of a river basin
• cnat is the natural concentration that would occur if there were
no human influence (mass/volume).
The GWF in a river basin must take into consideration that:
• Values of natural and maximum acceptable pollutant concentra-
tions vary across the water bodies in a basin.
• Pollutant discharges carry more than one substance – the GWF
value being determined by the critical pollutant (Hoekstra et al.,
2011; Wang and Wu, 2014; Morera et al., 2015), for this substance
requires the largest water volume in order to be assimilated.
• The temporary nature of pollutant discharges is due to the
monthly simulation of the anthropised water cycle for a period
of time, at least one year.
Once the adjustments are implemented, the formulation of the
GWF in a river basin is as follows (Eq. (2)):
 Q [j, t] · (c [j, k, t] − c [x, k, t]) 
eff eff nat
GWF[j, x, t] = max[k] (2)
cmax [x, k, t] − cnat [x, k, t]
where
• GWF[j,x,t]: maximum GWF caused by pollutant k carried by dis-
charge j into the water body x in the month t (volume/time). So,
Eq. (2) is applied for each pollutant in a discharge, and the maxim
value obtained is GWF.
• Qeff [j,t]: discharge flow j in the month t (volume/time).
• ceff [j,k,t]: concentration of pollutant k in discharge j in the month
t (mass/volume).
• cmax [x,k,t]: maximum acceptable concentration of pollutant k in
discharge j in the water body x in the month t (mass/volume).
• cnat [x,k,t]: natural concentration of pollutant k in discharge j in
the water body x in the month t (mass/volume).
The urban wastewater treatment is a process that reduces pol-
lutant loading, and direct reuse of treated urban wastewater for
irrigation (Grindlay et al., 2011) prevents pollutants from reach-
ing water bodies. So, in order to incorporate their effects on the
GWF, Eq. (2) is modified. For this purpose, the concentration value
(ceff [j,k,t]) of pollutant k in each discharge j in the month t is replaced
in Eq. (2) by an equivalent concentration (CEq [j,k,t]), which rep-
resents the relationship between the pollutant load that really
(1)
demands (Fig. 2). To determine the pollutant load, the simulated
urban return flows Qeff [j,t] are divided into treated flows (QT [j,t])
and untreated flows (QNT [j,t]). The treated flows (QT [j,t]) are also
divided, into directly reused flows (QT–R [j,t]) and non-reused flows
(QT–E [j,t]). The GWF is generated by untreated flows (QNT [j,t]) and
by treated flows that are not reused directly (QT–E [j,t]). The data
flows necessary for this assessment are provided by the simulation
1176 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183

QT-R[j,t]
(CT[j,k,t])
QT[j,t]
(CT[j,k,t])

QT-E[j,t] QT-E[j,t]
Qeff[j,t] (CT[j,k,t]) (CT[j,k,t])
Qeff[j,t]
(CEq[j,k,t])

QNT[j,t] QNT[j,t]
(CNT[j,k,t]) (CNT[j,k,t])

Fig. 2. Calculation of the CEq of a pollutant k.

of the anthropised water cycle, and the pollutant concentrations GWF for the whole simulation period, allowing for measurement
are provided by wastewater treatment companies. of the monthly variability of the GWF for the full set of values.
The value of the equivalent concentration (CEq [j,k]) of a pollutant
k in the urban return flow j is calculated by Eq. (3), considering that 
M 
N
GWF[t] = GWFGround [x, t] + GWFSurface [x, t] (7)
every urban return flow has the pollutant concentrations depicted
x=1 x=1
in Fig. 2:
where M is the number of aquifers considered, and N the number
QT−E [j, t] · CT [j, k, t] + QNT [j, t] · CNT [j, k, t] of river stretches.
CEq [j, k, t] = (3)
Qeff [j, t]
3. Case study
Finally, the GWF for the urban return flows affected by wastew-
ater treatment and reuse is estimated by Eq. (4):
The methodology described in the previous section was applied
  to the Segura River Basin (SRB) with a two-fold purpose. On the
Qeff [j, t] · (CEq [j, k, t] − cnat [x, k, t])
GWF[j, x, t] = max[k] (4) one hand, it was used to calculate the GWF in the SRB, which,
cmax [x, k, t] − cnat [x, k, t]
although it is one of the smallest basins in Europe (20,000 km2 ), has
serious pollution issues and highly-complex management (Fig. 3):
The GWF of each water body is calculated by linking it with the
water resources from different sources – surface and groundwa-
monthly urban returns (j) discharged into it. This is feasible due to
ter resources, desalination, transfers and reuse – and multiple uses
the simulation of the anthropised water cycle, which provides the
that compete for the scarce resources (Grindlay et al., 2011; CHS,
spatial distribution of the monthly sets of return flows, j. The GWF
2013a). On the other hand, this case study assessed the robustness
calculation varies from surface water to groundwater due to their
and applicability of the methodological novelties proposed, serving
differing hydrological behaviours.
as a guide for their implementation.
Pollutants are assumed to be constant in streamflows since
Comprehensive information on the SRB can be found in Grindlay
generally there is not enough detailed information to allow more-
et al. (2011) and on the website of the water board of the basin
complex modelling. Additionally, pollutants must not be dimin-
(https://www.chsegura.es/).
ished by biochemical processes along streamflows (Whitehead and
As previously mentioned, the simulation of the anthropised
Lack, 1982). The GWF is defined as the volume that is required to
water cycle was carried out by means of the hydrological model
assimilate the load of pollutants, so this concept already consid-
SIMPA and the DSS Optiges. SIMPA (Gonzalez-Zeas et al., 2012) is
ers the reactions of the pollutants in the water bodies. Therefore,
a distributed model at a monthly time-scale, used by the water
the GWF of a stretch of river (surface water body) in the month t
board of the Segura River Basin to establish the natural water
(GWFSurface [x,t]) is obtained by the sum of all GWFs caused by the
resources available (CHS, 2013a). The DSS Optiges is the optimisa-
m discharges located further upstream (Eq. (5)).
tion module of AquatoolDMA (Paredes-Arquiola et al., 2014), one
of the most-frequently-used platforms of water resources manage-

m

GWFSurface [x, t] = GWFSurface [j, x, t] (5) ment (Salla et al., 2014). This DSS has been used previously in the
SRB (CHS, 2008), as it can recreate the allocation of resources fol-
j=1
lowing the criteria set by the Spanish water planning law (BOE,
As far as groundwater is concerned, the GWF for every aquifer 2008). This DSS aims to distribute water resources among the differ-
(groundwater body) in the month t (GWFGround [x,t]) is calculated ent types of demand by fulfilling the following criteria: (i) respect
as the sum of the GWFs caused by all m discharges into the aquifers of environmental flows in natural courses, as established by the
(Eq. (6)). Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EC, 2000); (ii) distribution of
the water resources available among the different types of demand,

m according to the order of priority, to share the deficits in periods of
GWFGround [x, t] = GWFGround [j, x, t] (6) scarcity; and (iii) storage of the greatest possible volume of water
j=1 in reservoirs, once the first two criteria are met.

The above-stated expressions provide the monthly GWF for 3.1. GWF calculation scenarios
every water body during the simulation period. The GWF of the
entire basin for a month t (Eq. (7)) can be obtained from that set With regard to the use of the GWF as a pollution indicator in
of values. The monthly GWFs are aggregated to obtain the annual integrated water resources management, the GWF calculation falls
 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183
Fig. 3. Location and main features of the study area.
within the hydrological planning process, which is regulated by
the WFD in Europe (EC, 2000). For this case study, the scenar-
ios for years 2010, 2015 and 2027 suggested by the Spanish law
(BOE, 2008) were used. The year 2010 is the starting point of the
water planning process used in the case study; the 2015 scenario
takes into account actions planned in the short-term management;
and the 2027 scenario incorporates the long-term, foreseen actions.
Furthermore, the scenario employed in the first hydrological model
of the SRB in 1998 was included with the aim of assessing the
historical evolution of the SRB.
The main data sets for every scenario are depicted in Table 1.
These were compiled for this work using the SRB water board
scenarios (CHS, 2013a). The data required for the 1998 and
2010 scenarios were elaborated from the statistical data of water
consumption, whereas the data needed for the 2015 and 2027
scenarios are water consumption projections in the short- and
long-term, respectively. In these projections, demographic trends,
previsions of building plans for tourism and irrigation expan-
sion were taken into account (CHS, 2013a). The so-called urban
demand includes domestic water supply, tourism and industry,
and is separated from the irrigation demand in the modelling,
which accounts for the larger volume in this case study. The
environmental requirements are the ecological flows and environ-
mental demands, the water required to maintain the wet areas.
These environmental requirements have the highest priority, fol-
lowed by urban demand, and irrigation demands have the lowest
priority.
1177
The natural resources available were simulated for each sce-
nario by SIMPA and were introduced into the Optiges flow network,
designed according to the official data (CHS, 1998, 2013a). This
improves upon the former models (CHS, 2008) in the following
aspects:
(i) All existing demands are regarded.
(ii) Groundwater resources and reuse of treated wastewater are
included.
(iii) Resources from desalination are introduced based on demand
levels rather than as a continuous inflow.
(iv) The simulation period for each scenario accounts for 70 con-
secutive years (1940–2010) at a monthly scale, using the full
set of results provided by the hydrological model SIMPA.
3.2. Data on pollutants
Establishing the pollutants is key to GWF calculation (Eq. (4)).
In this way, the monthly return flows (Qeff ), provided by the sim-
ulation of the anthropised water cycle, are revealed, as well as the
pollutants delivered and their concentrations, which are discussed
below.
Countries regulate the maximum accepted concentrations of the
most-hazardous pollutants in their environmental laws. The val-
ues vary from one country to another and there is a wide range
of maximum allowable concentrations within the EU (Laane et al.,
2005).
1178 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183

Table 1
Average data (Mm3 /year) of the scenarios introduced in the DSS.

Scenarios

1998 2010 2015 2027

Environmental Environmental flowsa 0 0 0 0

requirements Environmental demands 30 32 32 32
Urban
Domestic and tourism 221 249 253 297
Demands
Industry 27 20 21 29
Irrigation 1662 1552 1530 1533
Surface and groundwater 1010 1010 1010 921b
Water resources Desalinationc 0 81 129 334
Transfer 337 337 337 300

Source: Own elaboration based on CHS (1998) and CHS (2013a).

a
Environmental flows are established in all the river stretches (varying between 0.2 and 5.7 m3 /s) except for the river mouth, where a null environmental flow is set,
representing hence no consumption. This does not mean that it is always zero in the river mouth but it has no priority of use.
b
In the 2027 scenario, an 11% reduction of the natural resources is considered due to climate change (BOE, 2008).
c
Maximum desalination capacity of the basin. Desalination volume in the modelling depends on the natural water resources availability. In scarcity years the volume of
water desalination is highest, whereas in wet years the volume decreases due to the natural water resources are used instead of desalinated water, which is more expensive.

Table 2 whereas, if it is delivered to groundwater, only nitrate was used, for

Maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations in Spain.
Pollutant (k) Surface water bodies Groundwater bodies
Biological oxygen <6 mg/L O2 Not applicable
demand (BOD5 )
−
Nitrates <25 mg/L NO3 <50 mg/L
Phosphates <0.4 mg/L PO4 3− Not applicable
Source: Own elaboration based on BOE (2008).
This study incorporated the three main pollutants discharged
by urban wastewater and irrigation return flows: organic matter,
phosphate and nitrate (Morera et al., 2015). The latter two are on
the list of principal pollutants of the EU (EC, 2000), and a specific
directive on agriculture-related nitrate was drafted (EC, 1991).
The concentrations of all three pollutants (cmax ) are restricted
in Spain by three indicators: biological oxygen demand (BOD5 ),
expressed in milligrams of oxygen consumed (O2 ) by organic mat-
ter; the concentration of nitrate (NO3 − ); and the concentration
of phosphate (PO4 3− ). A distinction is made between surface and
groundwater (Table 2). The thresholds set are constant in time, so
the maximum concentration only depends on the type of water
body and the pollutant k. Where a variable maximum concentra-
tion is established (e.g., by month or by season), the variability must
be regarded in the calculation.
Once the pollutants to be covered by this study had been
established, the data on the pollutant concentrations in the main
discharges to the SRB (irrigation and urban return flows) were col-
lected, to obtain the pollutant concentrations in irrigation return
flows (ceff ) and the equivalent concentrations (CEq ) in urban return
flows. For the irrigation returns, concentration values (ceff ) were
taken from the study developed by Dechmi et al. (2013), one of
the most-comprehensive works on irrigation leachates (Table 3).
This type of discharges carries two of the three above-mentioned
substances: nitrate and phosphate. If the return is delivered in sur-
face water, both pollutants were included in the GWF calculation;
there is no explicit restriction for phosphate, as shown in Table 2.
Dechmi et al. (2013) pointed out that the larger the returned
water volume, the lower the concentration of nutrients, due to
increased dilution. Therefore, we used a pollutant concentration
(ceff ) that varied depending on the returned volume in each case,
based on the predominant irrigation system: the maximum con-
centration (ceff max ) was assigned if the return was equal to or less
than 5%; the average concentration (ceff ave ) was used for returns
between 5% and 10%; and the minimum concentration (ceff min ) was
used when the return accounted for more than 10% (Table 3).
High variability in concentrations is usual in irrigation returns,
as proved by other studies (Barros et al., 2012; Causape et al., 2006).
With the aim of assessing the influence of the selected concentra-
tion of nitrate on the final GWF, a sensitivity analysis of the results
obtained was conducted. Nitrate, phosphate and organic matter
were found in the urban returns. The equivalent concentration was
calculated globally (CEq ) for each pollutant for the whole basin (Qeff ,
QT , QT–R ), using the technical information elaborated by the water
board (CHS, 1998, 2013a). The data on the scenarios for years 1998
and 2010 are actual measurements, whereas forecasts made by the
water board were used for 2015 and 2027 (Table 4).
Table 5 shows the concentrations in the untreated return flows
(CNT ) and the treatment efficiency percentages used to determine
the concentrations in the treated return flows (CT ). These data were
taken from the exploitation registers of the management compa-
nies operating the treatment plants of the SRB (ESAMUR, 2013;
EPSAR, 2013). If the discharge was delivered to surface water, all
three pollutants were used in the GWF calculation; whereas, only
nitrate was included in the case of groundwater.
After defining all the variables involved in the calculation of the
equivalent concentration for the whole basin, the CEq of every pol-
lutant (Table 6) was obtained by applying Eq. (3), using the data
previously presented (Tables 4 and 5). These CEq values were used
for every urban return flow simulated in the anthropised water
cycle (Qeff ).

Table 3
Pollutant concentrations in irrigation returns.

Pollutant (k) ceff

ceff–max (mg/L) ceff–ave (mg/L) ceff–min (mg/L)

NO3 − 173 67 28
Irrigation returns
PO4 3− 1.180 0.261 0.008

Source: Own elaboration based on Dechmi et al. (2013).

 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183 1179

Table 4
Volumes of urban returns and treated volumes: past, present and future.

Year Return flows (Mm3 /year)

Total (Qeff ) Treated (QT ) Reused (QT–R ) Treated and discharged (QT–E ) Untreated and discharged (QNT )

1998 126.0 86.0 51.0 35.0 40.0

2010 145.1 143.6 82.6 61.0 1.5
2015 146.5 145.0 83.4 61.6 1.5
2027 171.1 169.4 97.4 67.0 1.7

Source: Own elaboration based CHS (1998) and CHS (2013a).

Table 5
Degree of water treatment in the SRB: past, present and future.

Year Concentrations in the untreated Pollutant elimination efficiency of Concentrations in the treated effluent
effluent (CNT ), (mg/L) treatment plants (%) (CT ), (mg/L)

BOD5 NO3 − PO4 3− BOD5 NO3 − PO4 3− BOD5 NO3 − PO4 3−

1998 557 86 57 46 78.0 34.4 7.0

2010 311 96 64 52 12.4 28.8 6.2
80 13
2015 325 99 67 54 3.3 26.4 6.0
2027 325 100 75 60 0.0 20.0 5.2

Source: Own elaboration based on ESAMUR (2013) and EPSAR (2013).

Table 6 4. Results and discussion

Equivalent concentrations (CEq ) in urban return flows.

Year Average equivalent concentrations in each 4.1. The GWF of the Segura River Basin
effluent (CEq ), (mg/L)

BOD5 NO3 −
1998 198.5 35.0
2010 8.4 12.9
2015 4.7 11.9
2027 3.2 9.2
3.3. Natural concentrations (cnat ) of pollutants in water bodies
A large number of water bodies in a river basin are chemically
altered by human activities and quality measurements, to deter-
mine and monitor the pollution levels, commenced when the water
bodies were already altered. That is why data on natural concentra-
tions (cnat ) are not usually available. The lack of information makes
it necessary to estimate the values indirectly, by numerical mod-
elling for instance. Liu et al. (2012) suggested a method linking
natural concentrations to the population density of the study area.
To this end, it was assumed that river basins with population den-
sities equal to or less than 1 inhabitant per 10 km2 are unaltered.
Another drawback is the need to know the temporal variability of
the natural concentration in every water body. Due to the scarcity
of information in this regard, it was assumed to be constant (Liu
et al., 2012).
No numerical modelling was needed in this study as there were
already measurements of the concentrations in the headwaters of
the SRB, where the population density is lower. Therefore, the mea-
surements made in surface water showed that most BOD5 values
and nitrate and phosphate concentrations were around 0 (CHS,
2013b), which allowed the establishment of null values for the
natural concentrations (cnat ) of all three pollutants.
Natural concentrations in the less-altered aquifers from the
headwaters of the Segura River were taken as references for
groundwater flows (Gu et al., 2013). The set of measurements (CHS,
2013c) indicates that a low natural nitrate concentration (cnat ) of
3 mg/L exists in most aquifers of the study area. This value was
established as the natural concentration for groundwater.
As the results showed no temporal variability, the natural pol-
lutant concentrations were considered constant in both the surface
and groundwater water bodies.
PO4 3− The application of the methodology developed in the SRB gave
a total GWF (GWFTotal ) for the present scenario of 1150 Mm3 /year,
6.1
2.8
on average. This value is one of the three components of the total
2.6 WF (green, blue and grey) of 5582 Mm3 /year, on average; this value
2.3 was calculated by Pellicer-Martínez (2014) in a preliminary study.
The other two values are the green WF (3231 Mm3 /year, that repre-
sents the rainwater consumed by agricultural and forestry products
in the SRB), and the blue WF (1201 Mm3 /year, that represents water
resources consumed by urban and irrigation demands). Therefore,
the GWFTotal accounts for 20% of the total WF. This underlines the
importance of the GWF in the total WF, especially when one con-
siders that the GWF value is calculated by taking into account high
rates of water treatment and reuse in the SRB.
Although this GWFTotal value cannot be compared with others,
because there are no previous results, a global sustainability analy-
sis was possible – by comparing this value with the available water
resources in the river basin, which account for 1010 Mm3 /year
(surface and groundwater in Table 1). This analysis indicates that
the GWF is not sustainable since it exceeds the available water
resources, which thus cannot assimilate the total discharges of pol-
lutants in the river basin.
Next, an analysis of the spatial and temporal variability of the
GWFTotal was conducted, as well as its breakdown into different
types of discharges and water bodies. This was possible due to the
simulation of 70 years of the hydrological cycle of the SRB. The
results are presented below.
The calculation of the main statistical data of the annual
GWFTotal revealed that it is very stable, given its variation coefficient
(Table 7). After breaking down this variable into the different types
of discharge, it is noticeable that urban return flows (GWFUrban ),
the main source of the GWFTotal , are also responsible for its low
variability. The stability of the GWFUrban stems from the fact that
the supply of urban demands is better guaranteed than the irriga-
tion demands (GWFIrrigation ), which implies that urban returns are
also stable. The impact on surface water bodies (GWFSurface ), which
is much higher than that on groundwater bodies (GWFGrounwater ),
is due mainly to urban return flows (966 of the 1027 Mm3 /year),
while the impact on groundwater is mainly caused by irrigation
returns (121 of the 182 Mm3 /year).
1180 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183

Table 7
Total GWF for the 2010 scenario. Breakdown into types of discharges and water bodies, and annual basic statistical data for each variable.

Basic statistical data (Mm3 /year) GWFTotal Breakdown into discharge type Breakdown into water body type

GWFUrban GWFIrrigation GWFSurface GWFGroundwater

Mean 1150 967 182 1027 122

Maximum 1156 969 187 1032 124
Minimum 1095 947 149 991 104
Range 61 22 39 41 20
Standard deviation 11 4 7 7 4
Variation coefficient 0.010 0.004 0.037 0.006 0.030
n (year) 70

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of the GWFSurface by river stretches and GWFGroundwater by groups of aquifers.

Regarding the spatial distribution of the GWFTotal , the GWFSurface
indicates that the stretches of river closer to the river mouth present
the greatest pollution problems, as this area receives all the surface
pollutant discharges delivered into the river network (Fig. 4). On the
other hand, the aquifers (GWFGroundwater ) that are most affected by
discharges are located in the coastal areas of Campo de Cartagena
and the valleys of the Segura River and Guadalentín River, where
the largest irrigation areas are located (Fig. 4) (Grindlay et al., 2011).
The monthly variation of the GWFTotal is maximal in the summer
months, doubling the minimum values occurring in winter. This
seasonality is the result of the different monthly rates of supply to
both urban consumption and irrigation, which also imply monthly
variation in the returns. Therefore, the largest part of the GWFTotal is
generated in the summer, when the conditions favour eutrophica-
tion – which worsens the negative impact of pollutant discharges
(Carstensen et al., 2007). On the other hand, intra-monthly vari-
ability is not relevant, as most of the GWF is caused by the returns
coming from urban demands, the supply of which is highly guar-
other hand, in groundwater bodies the critic pollutant is nitrate,
since it is the only limited pollutant. This result corroborates the
serious problem caused by existing nutrients in river basins (Liu
et al., 2012), even in basins where water treatment and reuse are
implemented. It also shows that the guidelines for reducing the
GWFTotal need to vary, depending on the type of water body which
receives the discharges.
Finally, the sensitivity analysis of the nitrate concentrations
in the irrigation returns (ceff–max , ceff–med , ceff–min ) indicates that
a simultaneous variation of ±1% in these three concentrations
implies a variation of ±0.16% in the GWFTotal . Thus, the GWFTotal
value is much less sensitive to the nitrate concentration in the irri-
gation returns than to the concentration in the urban return flows.
130
120 Max
Average
110
Mm3/month

anteed (Fig. 5). Min

100
As far as the analysis of pollutants is concerned, the study reveals
critic pollutants in the water bodies. In all surface water bodies, 90
a volume to assimilate each pollutant is calculated (phosphate, 80
nitrate and organic matter). In all cases, phosphate provides the 70
March

July
January

April

November
June
May

September

December
August

October
February

largest volume of fresh water (since relation between pollutant load

(L) and cmax –cnat is the largest). Thus, volume to assimilate phos-
phate can assimilate the other two pollutants. Therefore, phosphate Month
is currently the critic pollutant for surface water in Segura River
Fig. 5. Monthly variability of the GWFTotal : mean of the 70 simulated years and
Basin, as occurs in other basin in Spain (Morera et al., 2015). On the confidence intervals.
 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183
GWF neither water treatment nor reuse
18,000
16,000
GWFTotal (Mm3/year)
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1998
Fig. 6. Evolution of the GWF throughout the different scenarios: considering neither wastewater treatment nor reuse, considering wastewater treatment, and considering
wastewater treatment and reuse.
Table 8
Equivalent concentrations for the scenarios with wastewater treatment (without
reuse).
Year Concentrations in the effluent (CEq , mg/L) if there
were no direct reuse
BOD5 NO3 −
1998 230.0 48.9
2010 15.5 29.3
2015 6.5 26.9
2027 3.2 20.6
4.2. Evolution and forecast of the GWFTotal in the SRB
The results obtained for the four scenarios were compared in
order to analyse the historic evolution of the GWFTotal . In the first
time interval, from 1998 until 2010, the GWFTotal was reduced by
up to 2842 Mm3 /year, on average, proving the key role of water
treatment and reuse in pollutant reduction. In the 2015 scenario,
a GWFTotal of 1102 Mm3 /year is foreseen, which represents a 4%
reduction with respect to 2010. The trend is downward between
1998 and 2015, when it is predicted that the GWFTotal will start
to increase, to 1192 Mm3 /year in 2027. The determinants of this
upward trend in the future are the increase in the urban demand
and the difficulty in improving the rates of water treatment and
reuse that have been achieved so far (Tables 6 and 7). Fig. 6 shows
this evolution graphically (GWFTotal with wastewater treatment
and reuse).
Given the weight of the wastewater treatment and reuse, their
impact on the GWFTotal is assessed in absolute terms. To this
end, the four scenarios analysed are reconsidered with two new
hypotheses: (i) neither wastewater treatment nor reuse exist in
the basin (null QT and QT–R ); and (ii) only wastewater treatment
is performed in the basin (null QT–R ). The equivalent concentra-
tions used in hypothesis (i) are those of the untreated discharges
(Table 5), and the data in Table 8 are employed for hypothesis (ii).
The calculations show that the GWFTotal of the SRB would
be 13,000 Mm3 /year in the 2010 scenario and would exceed
16,000 Mm3 /year in 2027, in the absence of wastewater treatment
and direct reuse processes. This analysis reveals that these two
actions combined can reduce the present GWFTotal by up to 91%.
The simulations carried out considering only wastewater treat-
ment showed that this action generates the largest reduction of the
GWFTotal : more than 50% for 1998 and more than 80% for the other
scenarios.
According to the previous calculations, the GWFTotal is reduced
even more if treated wastewater is directly reused. For the 2010,
2015 and 2027 scenarios, direct reuse of treated wastewater
1181
GWF with water treatment GWF with water treatment and reuse
2010 2015 2027
reduces the GWFTotal by around 1200 Mm3 /year, equivalent to a
halving of the GWFTotal obtained if water was only treated and not
reused. The analysis demonstrates that, even though the reduction
of the GWFTotal by reuse is lower than the effect of treatment, the
reductions due to water reuse are greater than the water resources
PO4 3− of the SRB as a whole (Table 7). This underlines that water reuse is
8.9 key to diminishing the impact of pollution on the water bodies of
6.3 a river basin.
6.1
5.3
5. Conclusions
This paper proposes a methodological approach for the assess-
ment of the Grey Water Footprint (GWF) at the river basin level
(Zeng et al., 2012), the territorial unit of water resources man-
agement. The flows (discharges) causing the GWF are identified
at the spatial and temporal levels by a comprehensive simulation
of the anthropised hydrological cycle combined with a hydrolog-
ical model and a decision support system. The transformation of
these flows into the GWF requires the adaptation of the standard
formulation of the indicator in order to embrace the particulari-
ties of a river basin, overcoming some of the restrictions imposed
by the indicator (Wang and Wu, 2014; Morera et al., 2015). These
include discharges with other pollutants, in addition to the criti-
cal pollutant used in the calculation of GWF, and the presence of
wastewater treatment (Morera et al., 2015) and reuse processes in
the river basin. The methodology proposed not only calculates the
total GWF in a river basin but also establishes the spatial and tempo-
ral distribution of the GWF, allowing the identification of areas and
periods with greater pollution impact on water bodies (Liu et al.,
2012), the most-hazardous discharges, and the water bodies that
are more sensitive to pollution.
Regarding this case study, the majority of the GWF is generated
by urban returns despite the fact that agricultural demand is much
larger in volume than urban demand. The wastewater treatment of
the urban returns reduces the GWF notably (Morera et al., 2015).
However, the results show that it is very difficult to obtain a null
GWF in a river basin due to the difficulty in diminishing the con-
centrations of nutrient pollutants. In addition, this paper reveals
the importance of the direct reuse of treated wastewater. Direct
reuse halves the GWF of the river basin studied, so this action can
be useful in river basins which include irrigated areas. In summary,
the results obtained in this case study suggest some guidelines for
general application. First, the GWF cannot be disregarded in the cal-
culation of the WF at the territorial level under any circumstances,
not even in river basins with high levels of wastewater treatment
and direct reuse. Second, urban return flows have an important
1182 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183
influence on the GWF values, even when agricultural demands are
much larger in volume – which is the case for the SRB.
Lastly, the formulation of the GWF used in this paper enables the
direct use of the GWF as an additional indicator in the water plan-
ning processes within the framework of integrated water resources
management (IWRM) (Hiscock et al., 2002; Conca, 2006). Rather
than a mere static information tool, the GWF can be a criterion in
the decision-making process in the pollution management of a river
basin (Fulton et al., 2014) as well as a tool for the ex-ante assessment
of the effectiveness of pollution monitoring programmes.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments, suggestions and positive feedback. All remaining errors,
however, are solely the responsibility of the authors.
This paper is a result of the research project 19342/PI/14 funded
by “Fundación Séneca-Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región
de Murcia” in the framework of PCTIRM 2011-2014.
References
Andreu, J., Ferrer-Polo, J., Perez, M.A., Solera, A., 2009. Decision support system for
Drought planning and management in the Jucar River Basin, Spain. In: 18th
World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling
and Simulation: Interfacing Modelling and Simulation with Mathematical and
Computational Sciences, pp. 3223–3229.
Barros, R., Isidoro, D., Araguees, R., 2012. Irrigation management, nitrogen fertil-
ization and nitrogen losses in the return flows of La Violada irrigation district
(Spain). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 155, 161–171.
BOE, 2008. Orden ARM/2656/2008, de 10 de septiembre, por la que se aprueba
la instrucción de planificación hidrológica. In: Ministerio de Medio Ambi-
ente y Medio Rural y Marino, Boletín Oficial del Estado. n◦ 71. Madrid, pp.
12820–12821.
Bolgov, M.V., Levit-Gurevich, L.K., 2013. Tasks and functions of a decision support
system for water resources management in the Lower Volga. Water Resour. 40
(5), 544–553.
Bouwer, H., 2000. Integrated water management: emerging issues and challenges.
Agric. Water Manag. 45, 217–228.
Carpenter, S.R., Ludwig, D., Brock, W.A., 1999. Management of eutrophication for
lakes subject to potentially irreversible change. Ecol. Appl. 9 (3), 751–771.
Carstensen, J., Henriksen, P., Heiskanen, A.S., 2007. Summer algal blooms in shallow
estuaries: definition, mechanisms, and link to eutrophication. Limnol. Oceanogr.
52 (1), 370–384.
Causape, J., Quilez, D., Araguees, R., 2006. Irrigation efficiency and quality of irrigation
return flows in the Ebro River Basin: an overview. Environ. Monit. Assess. 117
(1–3), 451–461.
CHS, 1998. Plan Hidrológico de la Cuenca del Segura. Confederación Hidrográfica del
Segura. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid.
CHS, 2008. Esquema provisional de Temas Importantes de la Demarcación Hidro-
gráfica del Segura. Confederación Hidrográfica del Segura. Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Murcia.
CHS, 2013a. Borrador del Plan de Cuenca de la Demarcación del Segura. Con-
federación Hidrográfica del Segura. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y
Medio Ambiente, Murcia.
CHS, 2013b. Monitoring and analysis: surface water quality (in Spanish), http://
www.chsegura.es/chs/cuenca/redesdecontrol/calidadenaguassuperficiales/
CHS, 2013c. Monitoring and analysis: groundwater quality (in Spanish), http://www.
chsegura.es/chs/cuenca/redesdecontrol/calidadenaguassubterraneas/
Conca, K., 2006. Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Politics and Global
Institution Building. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
De Miguel, A., Hoekstra, A.Y., García-Calvo, E., 2015. Sustainability of the water
footprint of the Spanish pork industry. Ecol. Indic. 57, 465–474.
Dechmi, F., Claverís-Laborda, I., Balcells-Oliván, M., Isidoro-Ramírez, D., 2013. La
calidad de los retornos de riego en Riegos del Alto Aragón (Huesca, España). In:
XXXI Congreso Nacional de Riegos, Orhiuela, Alicante, 18 a 20 de Junio de 2013,
http://hdl.handle.net/10532/2311
Devi, G.K., Ganasri, B.P., Dwarakish, G.S., 2015. A review on hydrological models.
International conference on water resources, coastal and ocean engineering
(ICWRCOE’15). Aquat. Proc. 4, 1001–1007.
Dotsika, E., Poutoukis, D., Kloppmann, W., Raco, B., Psomiadis, D., 2011. Distribution
and origin of boron in fresh and thermal waters in different areas of Greece.
In: Scozzari, A., El Mansouri, B. (Eds.), Water security in the Mediterranean
region: an international evaluation of management, control, and governance
approaches. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C-Environmental Secu-
rity, pp. 209–228.
EC, 1991. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the pro-
tection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.
JOCE L375 on 31 December 1991.
EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council estab-
lishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. OJ L
327 on 22 December 2000.
EPSAR, 2013. Management reports 2011 (in Spanish). Entidad Pública de
Saneamiento de Aguas Residuales de la Comunidad Valenciana. In: Conselleria
d’Agricultura, Pesca, Alimentació i Aigua. Generalitat Valenciana, http://www.
epsar.gva.es/sanejament/quienes-somos/INFORME-DE-GESTION.pdf
ESAMUR, 2013. Exploitation registers (in Spanish). Entidad de Saneamiento y Depu-
ración de Aguas Residuales de la Región de Murcia, http://esamur.com/
Fulton, J., Cooley, H., Gleick, P.H., 2014. Water footprint outcomes and policy rel-
evance change with scale considered: evidence from California. Water Resour.
Manag. 28 (11), 3637–3649.
Garcia-Barron, L., Camarillo, J.M., Morales, J., Sousa, A., 2015. Temporal analysis
(1940–2010) of rainfall aggressiveness in the Iberian Peninsula basins. J. Hydrol.
525, 747–759.
Gonzalez-Zeas, D., Garrote, L., Iglesias, A., Sordo-Ward, A., 2012. Improving runoff
estimates from regional climate models: a performance analysis in Spain.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16 (6), 1709–1723.
Grindlay, A.L., Zamorano, M., Rodríguez, M.I., Molero, E., Urrea, M.A., 2011.
Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive: integration of
hydrological and regional planning at the Segura River Basin, southeast Spain.
Land Use Policy 28 (1), 242–256.
Gu, B., Ge, Y., Chang, S.X., Luo, W., Chang, J., 2013. Nitrate in groundwa-
ter of China: sources and driving forces. Glob. Environ. Change 23 (5),
1112–1121.
Hernandez, M.A., Amador, A., Sanchez, S.T., Solera, A., 2014. Integrated water man-
agement in the Tambula-Picachos Sub-Basin, Guanajuato, Mexico. Tecnol. Cienc.
Agua 5 (6), 159–165.
Hiscock, K.M., Rivett, M.O., Davison, R.M., 2002. Sustainable Groundwater Develop-
ment. Geological Society Special Publications, London 193, 344.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagainl, A.K., 2008. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s
Freshwater Resources. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2009. Water Foot-
print Manual: State of the Art 2009. Water Footprint Network, Enschede, the
Netherlands.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2011. The Water
Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London,
UK.
Jiao, W.J., Min, Q.W., Cheng, S.K., Li, W.H., 2013. The waste absorption foot-
print (WAF): a methodological note on footprint calculations. Ecol. Indic. 34,
356–360.
Kroll, S.A., Ringler, N.H., De las Heras, J., Gomez-Alday, J.J., Moratalla, A.,
Briggs, R.D., 2013. Analysis of anthropogenic pressures in the Segura Water-
shed (SE Spain), with a focus on inter-basin transfer. Ecohydrology 6 (5),
878–888.
Laane, R.W.P.M., Brockmann, U., Liere, L.V., Bovelander, R., 2005. Immission targets
for nutrients (N and P) in catchment and coastal zones: a North Sea assessment.
Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 62 (3), 495–505.
Lapuente, E., 2012. Full cost in desalination. A case study of the Segura River Basin.
Desalination 300, 40–45.
Larsen, M.A.D., Refsgaard, J.C., Drews, M., Butts, M.B., Jensen, K.H., Christensen, J.H.,
Christensen, O.B., 2014. Results from a full coupling of the HIRHAM regional
climate model and the MIKE SHE hydrological model for a Danish catchment.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18 (11), 4733–4749.
Liu, C., Kroeze, C., Hoekstra, A.Y., Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., 2012. Past and future trends
in grey water footprints of anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to
major world rivers. Ecol. Indic. 18, 42–49.
Martínez-Paz, J.M., Perni, A., 2011. Environmental cost of groundwater: a contingent
valuation approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. 5 (3), 603–612.
Morera, S., Corominas, L., Poch, M., Aldaya, M., Comas, J., 2015. Water footprint
assessment in wastewater treatment plants. J. Clean. Prod., http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.102.
Meaurio, M., Zabaleta, A., Uriarte, J.A., Srinivasan, R., Antigüedad, I., 2015. Evaluation
of SWAT models performance to simulate streamflow spatial origin. The case of
a small forested watershed. J. Hydrol. 525, 326–334.
Paredes-Arquiola, J., Solera, A., Martinez-Capel, F., Momblanch, A., Andreu, J., 2014.
Integrating water management, habitat modelling and water quality at the basin
scale and environmental flow assessment: case study of the Tormes River, Spain.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 59 (3–4), 878–889.
Pellicer-Martínez, F., PhD dissertation (in Spanish) 2014. Huella Hídrica y Plan-
ificación Hidrológica: Aplicación en la Demarcación Hidrográfica del Segura.
University of Murcia, Spain.
Pellicer-Martínez, F., Martínez-Paz, J.M., 2014. Assessment of interbasin groundwa-
ter flows between catchments using a semi-distributed water balance model. J.
Hydrol. 519, 1848–1858.
Pellicer-Martínez, F., Martínez-Paz, J.M., 2015. Contrast and transferability of param-
eters of lumped water balance models in the Segura River Basin (Spain). Water
Environ. J. 29 (1), 43–50.
Pulido, M., Alvarez-Mendiola, E., Andreu, J., 2013. Design of efficient water pric-
ing policies integrating basinwide resource opportunity costs. J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manag. 139 (5), 583–592.
Rodenas, M.A., Albacete, M., 2014. The River Segura: reclaimed water, recovered
river. J. Water Reuse Desalin. 1, 50–57.
Salla, M.R., Paredes-Arquiola, J., Solera, A., Andreu, J., Pereira, C.E., Alamy, J.E., De
Oliveira, A.L., 2014. Integrated modeling of water quantity and quality in the
Araguari River Basin, Brazil. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 42 (1), 224–244.
 F. Pellicer-Martínez, J.M. Martínez-Paz / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1173–1183
Sartorius, C., Hillenbrand, T., Walz, R., 2011. Impact and cost of measures to reduce
nutrient emissions from wastewater and storm water treatment in the German
Elbe River Basin. Reg. Environ. Change 11 (2), 377–391.
Schwarzenbach, R.P., Escher, B.I., Fenner, K., Hofstetter, T.B., Johnson, C.A., von Gun-
ten, U., 2006. The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313
(5790), 1072–1077.
Smith, V.H., Tilman, G.D., Nekola, J.C., 1999. Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutri-
ent inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ. Pollut.
100 (1–3), 179–196.
Wang, L., Wu, X., 2014. Careful considerations when reporting and evaluating the
grey water footprint of products. Ecol. Indic. 41, 131–132.
1183
Whitehead, P.G., Lack, T., 1982. Dispersion and Self-Purification of Pollutants in
Surface Water Systems. UNESCO Technical Papers in Hydrology, 23. UNESCO,
Paris.
Zeng, Z., Liu, J., Koeneman, P.H., Zarate, E., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. Assessing water
footprint at river basin level: a case study for the Heihe River Basin in northwest
China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16 (8), 2771–2781.
Zhi, Y., Yang, Z., Yin, X., Hamilton, P.B., Zhang, L., 2015. Using gray water foot-
print to verify economic sectors’ consumption of assimilative capacity in a river
basin: model and a case study in the Haihe River Basin, China. J. Clean. Prod. 92,
267–273.