The water footprint of hydroelectricity: a methodological comparison from a case study in New Zealand

Hydroelectricity has been rated to have a large water footprint (WF) on global average. We assessed the WF of hydroelectricity by three different methods using New Zealand as a case study. The first (WF-1) and second (WF-2) methods only consider the consumptive water use of the hydroelectricity generation system, while our third method (WF-3) accounts for the net water balance. Irrespective of the method, the WF of New Zealand’s hydroelectricity was found much smaller than the commonly cited international value of 22 m³ GJ⁻¹. Depending on the method, the national WF ranged from 1.55 m³ GJ⁻¹ (WF-3) to 6.05 m³ GJ⁻¹ (WF-1). The WF- 3 considers the net water balance including rainfall, which is the key driver for replenishing water resources. It provides meaningful information that helps our understanding of the differences of the WF in locations, which are diverse in terms of water resource availability. We highlight the effects of local climatic differences and the structural specifics of a hydroelectricity scheme on the WF. The large variation in the WF of hydropower across New Zealand illustrates the inappropriateness of using global average values. Local values, calculated using our hydrologically rational method, must be used.