







































Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 
18-24 

18 

 

 

 

Article 

Water footprint assessment of animal-based 

and plant-based products in Iran 
Youssef Kassem1,2, Hüseyin Gökçekuş2, Javad Karimi Kouzehgarani2* 

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia (via Mersin 10, 
Turkey), Cyprus 
2Department of Civil Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia 
(via Mersin 10, Turkey), Cyprus 

A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 03 May 2022  
Received in revised form 
03 June 2022 
Accepted 07 June 2022 
 
Keywords: 
Water footprint, Blue Water, Green Water,  
Grey Water, Food production, Iran 
 
*Corresponding author 
Email address:  
javad.karimi.kou@gmail.com  
 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.futech.1.2.2 

A B S T R A C T 
 

In recent years, the majority of the Middle Eastern nations have been suffering 
from water scarcity, and Iran is not an expectation in this matter. The mean 
annual precipitation of the country is in the vicinity of 250 mm, which is 
considerably lower than the global rainfall average (almost 67% lower) and 
with a total internal renewable water resource (IRWR) of 128 billion cubic 
meters (BCM) which forms only less than 0.50% of the total global water 
resources. A number of critical waterbodies have already dried up or shrunk 
considerably. Therefore, Iran is suffering from both physical water scarcity and 
mismanagement of water resources. The agriculture and livestock sectors, as 
the most water-intensive industries in Iran, have difficulties meeting the water 
requirements in order to maintain their normal activities. In the past two 
decades alone, more than 50% of the nation’s reservoir capacity was extracted 
and consumed in the agricultural sector. In this study, we evaluate the water 
footprint (Blue water footprint, Green water footprint, and Grey water 
footprint) of 11 main food categories and their production from 2010 to 2019, 
along with the annual population growth. During the decade, vegetables with 
143.3603871 million liters was the most water-intensive product, followed by 
wheat and fruits production, 118.755447 million liters and 115.5299726 
million liters, respectively. The results of this study indicate that animal-based 
products require the highest amount of water volume for production, but it is 
plant-based products (vegetables, fruits, and grains, in particular, that are 
consuming the highest amount of water in the country). 
 

 

 
1. Introduction  

Currently, malnutrition and hunger are among the most 
critical issues around the globe. For decades, the situation of 
world hunger was witnessing slightly more positive trends, 
but in recent years, the trends have been changed for the 
worse [1]. As a result of the COVID 19 pandemic, in 2020, 
between 720 and 800 million people in the world were 
undernourished. The numbers indicate a significant jump in 
comparison with the year 2014, in which 607 million people 
were affected by undernourishment [2]. However, 
malnutrition is much more complex than hunger, which is a 
result of a lack of access to food. Malnutrition in all its 
shapes, including hunger, deficiencies in vitamins and 
minerals, food insecurity, overweight, obesity, and over-
consumption, is a concerning problem not only among 
developing nations but also among those in developed 

countries [3]. Among all the factors that could possibly affect 
the global food production patterns - for instance: land use, 
energy availability, technological advances, and farm 
management - freshwater resources directly determine the 
efficiency of the agricultural sector [4]. Forty percent of the 
total food production is made on irrigated farms [5]. With a 
constant increase in the population and income levels, it is 
projected that food demand will go up around 85% by the 
year 2050. It is often questioned whether there are adequate 
water resources to supply the immensely increasing food 
demand [6]. The vast majority of recent studies indicate 
water scarcity on a global level. Many parts of the world are 
facing difficulties in supplying the water required by 
different sectors [7, 8]. The water crisis is expected to 
expand as a result of climate change which leads to more 
severe weather conditions such as frequent floods and 

 

 

Future Technology 

Open Access Journal 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.1.2.2 

 

 

 

August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 18-24 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/futech 

 

ISSN 2832-0379 

https://fupubco.com/fuen
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.1.2.2
https://fupubco.com/futech
https://fupubco.com/


Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 18-24 

19 

 

droughts and alterations in precipitation patterns [9]. 
Approximately 70% of the world’s total freshwater is being 
consumed by the agricultural sector [5]. A large number of 
regions have already reached their natural resources 
limitations, especially for water resources, and thus in order 
to be able to produce the public dietary demand, some 
mitigation strategies are required [4]. 

Currently, the Middle East is considered one of the most 
vulnerable regions when it comes to the water crisis. The 
Consequences of the water shortage vary from economic 
issues to political tensions over the possession of 
groundwater resources [10-12]. Iran, as the second-largest 
nation in size and third largest in population in the Middle 
East, is dealing with serious water scarcity, which has 
caused water pollution, shrinkage or total dry up of water 
bodies, decrease in quality and quantity of crops, drinking 
water shortage, interruptions in the wildlife and 
ecosystems, and changes in migration patterns which often 
is considered the only option for the people living in the 
most water-stressed area. The mean annual precipitation in 
Iran is in the vicinity of 250 mm, which is considerably lower 
than the global rainfall average (almost 67% lower) and 
with a total internal renewable water resource (IRWR) of 
128 billion cubic meters (BCM), which forms only less than 
0.50% of the total global water resources [5]. The current 
drought trends in Iran decreased the precipitation when 
compared to the mean precipitation of the past four decades. 
Due to the climate of the country, the evaporation and 
transpiration rates are noticeably high; thus, only about one-
quarter of the total precipitation finds its way to surface 
water resources [13], and because of that not many 
perennial streams with a steady flow throughout the year 
can be found in Iran. Moreover, the unbalanced timing and 
location of the precipitation can be considered another 
noteworthy factor. The North of Iran (provinces located near 
the Caspian Sea) enjoy more than three-fourths of the total 
precipitation, while these provinces include only a tiny part 
of the country, and to exacerbate the situation, only one-
fourth of the precipitation happens in the crop-growing 
season [13]. This means that the majority of Iranians reside 
in regions in which their lives, from crop yields to potable 
water, highly depend on groundwater resources. The rapid 
growth of the population and its uneven distribution add 
more stress to the densely populated areas. Some water 
infrastructures in Iran date back to thousand years ago, and 
the country has a prominent history in this regard as a result 
of this fact, the access to the available groundwater is fairly 
easy, and it has already been consumed more than what it 
should have been [14, 15]. In fact, Iran can be mentioned as 
one of the leading groundwater consumers in the world [16]. 

By well over 60% of the total water supply, 
groundwater is the prominent supplier of freshwater in the 
nation. The largest share of this amount is used for 
agricultural purposes [17]. In the past two decades alone, 
more than 50% of the nation’s reservoir capacity was 
extracted and consumed in the agricultural sector. Without 
changing the current consumption patterns for 
groundwater resources, in the near future, Iran will face a 
number of serious issues such as food deficit, social 
inequality, and internal and external conflicts over water 
resources [18]. On the other hand, the lack of proper water 
resources management is rising concern. Many old and new 
aquatic infrastructures are established without the 
adequate consideration, and there are more private and 
public organizations involved in decision making regarding 
the water resources than it should be, and it led to a very 

poor relationship between development and sustainability 
and often, the economic spectrum outweighs the resource 
preservation when it comes to water resources management 
[19]. A large number of studies emphasize the fact that the 
leading factor behind the current dry ups or shrinkage of 
some vital waterbodies in Iran is the lack of suitable 
freshwater management. The considerable shrinkage of 
Lake Urmia, which is located in the north west of the country 
and is regarded as the largest lake in the region, is a good 
example of poor management consequences in Iran [20, 21]. 
The issues that worsen the water crisis in the agricultural 
sector including, but are not limited to, more attention 
towards irrigated farming and less on rainfed crops, low 
levels of education among farmers, which leads to not 
adopting more advanced agricultural technologies, very low 
and affordable water price as well as energy price compared 
to other countries, heavy international sanctions which 
trigger the policymakers to choose food self-sufficiency over 
food import. From 1980 to 2010, food production increased 
by almost 170% to meet the needs of the ever-increasing 
population in the country. To make this decision into 
practice, providing the necessary water resources for the 
agricultural sector has been more focused on while the 
water consumption patterns and trends have mostly been 
neglected [22]. In this article, we evaluate the water 
footprint (WF) of the most produced items, both plant-based 
and animal-based groups, to detect the largest water 
consumers in the food industry during the last decade 
(2010-2019). The items are categorized in 11 main 
categories based on the frequency of consumption and the 
national production rates. 

2. Literature Review 

To date, most studies focused on a single crop when it 
comes to WF assessment, and there are few articles that 
evaluated the water footprint of the food production sector 
in Iran as a whole. Therefore, in this section of the paper, 
both studies were reviewed to provide a broad vision of 
what has been done so far. In a recent study in 2021 by 
Soltani et al., which is one of the largest studies on its kind in 
Iran, it was concluded that growing wheat has the highest 
WF among the crops and meat production has the highest 
WF among the entire food production items [23]. Another 
study used the WF data for 26 crops in 30 provinces from 
1980 to 2010. The results of the study revealed a more than 
120% jump in water consumption in the agricultural sector 
and a more than 170% increase in food production in those 
period and suggested special attention to the location and 
time of plantation could decrease the total WF of crops in 
Iran [22]. Another research paper done by Qasemipour et al., 
for South Khorasan as the case study indicated that food 
production (crops and livestock production) activities are 
the number one water consumer in this rigid area. More than 
95% of the total WF goes to these two groups. The 
persistence of such activities has led to 200% water scarcity 
which is drastically higher than the global sustainability 
standards [24]. Movahednejad et al., which analyzed the 
water footprint of the poultry industry in Iran, believe the 
reason that the virtual water footprint of poultry production 
is far beyond the global mean is not in the white meat 
production systems and technologies but it is more related 
to the WF of the crops that are fed to domesticated birds and 
as a solution, importing poultry feed is suggested which 
provides more variety in choices and less stress on water 
resources [25]. D. Vanham analyzed the water footprint for 
Austrian dietary patterns. In this study, four different diet 



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 18-24 

20 

 

categories (the current diet, the healthy diet, the vegetarian 
diet, and the combined diet – which is a combination of 
healthy and vegetarian diets) were studied. The results 
revealed that all these dietary patterns when compared to 
the current diet, could decrease the water consumption for 
agricultural products significantly. Among all the analyzed 
diets, the vegetarian diet showed the least water 
consumption rate [26]. In the same year, in another study, 
Vanham et al. [27] analyzed the European Union diets in the 
same four categories and concluded that animal products 
require the highest amount of water for production, and the 
EU can shift from a net viral water importer with the current 
and the healthy diets to net viral water exporter with 
vegetarian and combination diets . In another study in India, 
five dietary patterns were analyzed: 1) rice and lower 
diversity, 2) rice and fruit, 3) wheat and pulses, 4) wheat, 
rice and oils 5) rice and meat. The results indicated that rice-
oriented diets consume a higher amount of green water 
while wheat-oriented diets consume more blue water. 
Moreover, the rice and meat diet showed the highest blue 
and green water footprint [28]. A recent study done in 
Mexico demonstrated the relationship between different 
diets and water consumption. The study revealed a strong 
relationship between diets high in calories and high WF and 
also showed that Mexican diets are 55% higher in water 
footprint in comparison with the world's healthy diet [29]. 
Kassem et al. focused on Danish diets and revealed that 
animal-based consumption in Denmark is considerably 
higher than and fruit and vegetable consumption is lower 
than in the rest of the EU. The study suggested shifting from 
red meat to insects as a source of protein has a noticeable 
positive impact on the water footprint for agricultural 
products in Denmark [30]. Tom et al. [31] in their research 
indicated that reducing caloric intake from the current US 
diet to gain normal weight declines the blue WF by nine 
percent while shifting the current food mix to the USDA 
recommended dietary patterns increases the blue WF by 
16% and the third scenario which is reducing caloric intake 
and shifting to USDA recommended food mix increases the 
blue WF by 10%. The reason behind this reverse increase is 
that USDA recommendations contain a higher amount of 
fruit, vegetables, and dairy products consumption [31]. The 
findings of research which was conducted to compare the 
WF of American and Mediterranean diets in the US and Spain 
demonstrated that regardless of the production’s location, 
Mediterranean diet save water resources up to 29% in 
comparison with the American diet. Moreover, the study 
concluded that diets containing a higher amount of fruits, 
vegetables, and seafood could save more water resources 
[32]. 

3. Methodology 

The dietary data used in this paper are collected from 
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
(FAOSTAT)’s Food Balance Sheets (FBS) [33] for the period 
2010-2019. The total water footprint of 11 main food 
categories that have the highest impact on water 
consumption in the country was included in this study. 
Given the fact that it is not possible to have a precious 
estimation of water footprint related to fish and other 
seafood, all the seafood consumption was converted to 
poultry which is the closest to seafood regarding the 
nutrients value and affordability. In order to calculate the 
water footprint for a certain crop, the sum of blue water 
footprint, green water footprint, and grey water footprint 
must be calculated. In most similar recent studies, only blue 

and green water are summed as the total water footprint of 
a crop. The reason is, technically, nowadays, in many parts 
of the world, especially the water-stressed regions, grey 
water is being restored and used for other purposes [34]. 
However, since in Iran, still a considerable amount of grey 
water is not being restored for reuse purposes, grey water is 
also included in evaluating the total WF of products. The 
data used in water footprint calculation were taken from 
Water Footprint Assessment Manual [35]. 

𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐 = 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 + 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐 𝑏𝑙𝑢𝑒                      (1)            

𝑊𝐹𝑏𝑙𝑢𝑒 =
𝐶𝑊𝑈𝑏𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑌
 (2) 

𝑊𝐹𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 =
𝐶𝑊𝑈𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛

𝑌
           (3) 

𝐶𝑊𝑈𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 is the green component in water use (m3) 

𝐶𝑊𝑈𝑏𝑙𝑢𝑒  is the blue component in water use (m3) 

Y is the crop yield 

4. Results and Discussion 

What is critical in analyzing the trends of the water 
footprint of products in a country is to consider the 
population changes throughout the studied period. As 
Figure 1 indicates, Iran faced an upward trend each year 
from 2010 to 2019 period. In 2010 the population was 
estimated at 73 million, while at the end of the decade, the 
nation’s population became more than 82 million. This is 
clear that population growth has a direct relationship with 
food demand. 

 
Figure 1. Population trend in Iran (1000) 2010-2019 

In this study, 11 main categories were used for water 
footprint calculation. The division was based on the most 
consumed products and dietary habit of Iranians and some 
groups include other sub items in which the calculation was 
based on the dominant ingredient of that product. For 
instance, normally, in many countries pork production 
leaves the highest amount of WF impact or grapes for wine 
production is included because of the high amount of wine 
consumption in those countries. Since, Iranian dietary habits 
are heavily influenced by Islamic beliefs and the 
consumption of pork and wine are banned by the 
government, they are excluded from the final evaluation. 
Moreover, the sea food products were replaced by poultry 
products because of their similar nutrient values and 
affordability. 

Figure 2 demonstrates the total WF, Blue WF, Green 
WF, and Grey WF of each studied group. A glance at the 
figure reveals that green water is considerably higher in 
each group compared with blue or grey water footprint. 
Furthermore, it makes it clear that animal-based products 



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 18-24 

21 

 

require a drastically higher amount of water than plant-
based products. Bovine meat, followed by mutton and goat, 
and poultry products are the top three water-intensive 
products of the country. 

 
Figure 2. The water footprint of different products 

(liter/kilogram) 
 
Table 1 (appendix) indicates the consumption rate of 

products per capita during the entire decade. As can be seen, 
consumption of vegetables decreased throughout the 
decade while bovine meat and wheat remained almost 
stable. Among grains, wheat and its products were 
consumed in higher quantities than rice which also requires 
less water for production. In other groups, no significant 
change in trends was observed. Moreover, among all, dates 
require the largest amount of blue water, followed by rice 
and products, sugarcane, and wheat and products. For green 
water footprint, the animal sources are significantly larger 
in water shares than field crops. To produce one kilogram of 
bovine meat, 14490.1 liters of green water is consumed, 
while the blue water footprint of this product is only 3.76 
liter per kilogram. 

Table 2 (Appendix) shows the total amount of 
production in each group broken down into years and the 
total water consumption in each year and each group 
separately. For each year, the population changes were 
considered. During the decade, vegetables with 
143.3603871 million liters was the most water-intensive 
product, followed by wheat and fruits production, 
118.755447 million liters and 115.5299726 million liters, 
respectively. Mutton and goat meat, bovine meat, and eggs 
left the least water footprint impact on the national water 
resources. As regards the water consumption trends in the 
decade, no relation was found. The total average food 
production WF fluctuated during this period, with 2014 
being the most water-intensive year (49.5015487 million 
liters) for the agricultural sector during this period. 

5. Conclusion 

From the findings of this research, it can be concluded 
that food production is a heavy burden on the water 
resources in Iran. The green water footprint for animal-based 
products in most categories is higher than plant-based crops, 
while the blue water footprint for field crops is larger in 
portion in comparison with animal protein production. 
Despite the fact that animal-based sources have a higher 
overall water footprint compared with plant-based sources, 
the total water consumption in vegetables, fruits, and grains 
is considerably higher in Iran. The reason is the lack of 
affordability of such products by individuals with below the 
average incomes and also Iranian dietary patterns being rich 
in fibers and vegetables. One solution to minimize the water 

footprint in food production is to import these high demand 
products from less-stressed regions and to control the 
population growth as an overall strategy to decrease the 
environmental impacts of food production in the country. 

Ethical issue 
Authors are aware of and comply with best practices in 

publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. Authors adhere to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets 

were generated or analyzed during the current study. 

Conflict of interest 

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. 

Authors’ contribution 

All authors of this study have a complete contribution to 

manuscript writing. 

References 

[1]   Organization, W.H., The state of food security and 

nutrition in the world 2019: Safeguarding against 

economic slowdowns and downturns. Vol. 2019. 

2019: Food & Agriculture Org. 

[2] Sachs, J., et al., Sustainable development report 2021. 

2021: Cambridge University Press. Available from: 

www.sdgindex.org/reports/sustainable-

development-report-2021/ 

[3] Webb, P., et al., Hunger and malnutrition in the 21st 

century. bmj, 2018. 361. Available from: 

www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2238.full 

[4] Damerau, K., K. Waha, and M. Herrero, The impact of 

nutrient-rich food choices on agricultural water-use 

efficiency. Nature Sustainability, 2019. 2(3): p. 233-

241. 

[5] AQUASTAT. FAO's Global Information System on 

Water and Agriculture. 2019; Available from: 

https://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/. 

[6] Dinar, A., A. Tieu, and H. Huynh, Water scarcity 

impacts on global food production. Global Food 

Security, 2019. 23: p. 212-226. 

[7] Liu, J., et al., Water scarcity assessments in the past, 

present, and future. Earth's future, 2017. 5(6): p. 545-

559. 

[8] Jury, W.A. and H.J. Vaux Jr, The emerging global water 

crisis: managing scarcity and conflict between water 

users. Advances in agronomy, 2007. 95: p. 1-76. 

[9] Schewe, J., et al., Multimodel assessment of water 

scarcity under climate change. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 2014. 111(9): p. 3245-

3250. 

[10] Joodaki, G., J. Wahr, and S. Swenson, Estimating the 

human contribution to groundwater depletion in the 

Middle East, from GRACE data, land surface models, 

and well observations. Water Resources Research, 

2014. 50(3): p. 2679-2692. 

[11] Wolf, A.T. and J.T. Newton, Case study transboundary 

dispute resolution: Multilateral Working Group on 

https://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/


Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 18-24 

22 

 

Water Resources (Middle East). Transboundary 

Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD), Oregon State 

University.[Available at http://www. 

transboundarywaters. orst. edu/.], 2007. 

[12] Amery, H.A. and A.T. Wolf, Water in the Middle East: a 

geography of peace. 2010: University of Texas Press. 
Available from: 

https://books.google.com.cy/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N

JUQAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=Water+in+the

+Middle+East:+a+geography+of+peace.+2010&ots=4

4TmTiQ4MA&sig=eWV8ooxR_lZQEEKB1BQ1eIFdCo

w&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Water%20in%20the

%20Middle%20East%3A%20a%20geography%20of

%20peace.%202010&f=false  

[13] Alemohammad, S.H. and S. Gharari. Qanat: An ancient 

invention for water management in Iran. in found in 

Proceedings of Water History Conference, Delft, The 

Netherlands. 2017. 

[14] Brown, L.R., Water tables falling and rivers running 

dry. Earth Policy Institute, Washington DC, 2007. 

Available from: http://www.earth-

policy.org/book_bytes/2007/pb2ch03_ss2 

[15 Moridi, A., State of water resources in Iran. 

International Journal of Hydrology, 2017. 1(4): p. 

111-114. 

[16] Safdari, Z., Groundwater Level Monitoring across 

Iran’s Main Water Basins Using Temporal Satellite 

Gravity Solutions and Well Data. 2021. 

[17] publication, N., Iran is draining its aquifers dry. 

Nature, 2021. 594, 476. Available from: 

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01604-9 

[18] Center), I.I.P.R., An Analysis of Iran’s Water Crisis and 

its Impacts. 2021. Available from: 

https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/report/show/1040201 (In 

Persian) 

[19] Madani, K., Water management in Iran: what is 

causing the looming crisis? Journal of environmental 

studies and sciences, 2014. 4(4): p. 315-328. 

[20] Sharifikia, M., Environmental challenges and drought 

hazard assessment of Hamoun Desert Lake in Sistan 

region, Iran, based on the time series of satellite 

imagery. Natural hazards, 2013. 65(1): p. 201-217. 

[21] Najafi, A. and J. Vatanfada, Environmental challenges 

in trans-boundary waters, case study: Hamoon 

Hirmand Wetland (Iran and Afghanistan). 

International Journal of Water Resources and Arid 

Environments, 2011. 1(1): p. 16-24. 

[22] Karandish, F. and A. Hoekstra, Informing national 

food and water security policy through water 

footprint assessment: the case of Iran. Water, 2017. 

9(11): p. 831. 

[23] Soltani, E., et al., Ecological footprints of 

environmental resources for agricultural production 

in Iran: a model-based study. Environmental Science 

and Pollution Research, 2021. 28(48): p. 68972-

68981. 

[24] Qasemipour, E. and A. Abbasi, Virtual water flow and 

water footprint assessment of an arid region: A case 

study of South Khorasan province, Iran. Water, 2019. 

11(9): p. 1755. 

[25] Movahednejad, E., A. Shokoohi, and H. Ramezani 

Etedali, A study of water footprint in poultry 

products. Iranian Journal of Irrigation & Drainage, 

2020. 14(5): p. 1562-1570. 

[26] Vanham, D., The water footprint of Austria for 

different diets. Water Science and Technology, 2013. 

67(4): p. 824-830. 

[27] Vanham, D. and G. Bidoglio, A review on the indicator 

water footprint for the EU28. Ecological indicators, 

2013. 26: p. 61-75. 

[28] Green, R.F., et al., Greenhouse gas emissions and 

water footprints of typical dietary patterns in India. 

Science of the total environment, 2018. 643: p. 1411-

1418. 

[29] Lares-Michel, M., et al., Eat Well to Fight Obesity… and 

Save Water: The Water Footprint of Different Diets 

and Caloric Intake and Its Relationship With 

Adiposity. Frontiers in nutrition, 2021. 8. 

[30] Kassem, R., M.R. Jepsen, and S.P. Salhofer, The water 

consumption of different diets in Denmark. Journal of 

Cleaner Production, 2021. 286: p. 124938. 

[31] Tom, M.S., P.S. Fischbeck, and C.T. Hendrickson, 

Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas 

emissions for current food consumption patterns and 

dietary recommendations in the US. Environment 

Systems and Decisions, 2016. 36(1): p. 92-103. 

[32] Blas, A., A. Garrido, and B.A. Willaarts, Evaluating the 

water footprint of the Mediterranean and American 

diets. Water, 2016. 8(10): p. 448. 

[33] FAOSTAT, Food Balances (2010-). 2020. Available 

from: www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS/report 

[34] Chenoweth, J., M. Hadjikakou, and C. Zoumides, 

Quantifying the human impact on water resources: a 

critical review of the water footprint concept. 

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2014. 18(6): p. 

2325-2342. 

[35] Hoekstra, A.Y., et al., The water footprint assessment 

manual: Setting the global standard. 2011: Routledge. 

Available from: 

waterfootprint.org/en/resources/publications/water

-footprint-assessment-manual/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 This article is an open-access article 

distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative 

Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

http://www/


Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 18-24 

23 

 

Appendix 

 

Table 1. Annual product consumption per capita (kilogram), water footprint (cubic meter), population (1000) 

 
Population Products Wheat 

and 
products 

Rice and 
products 

Sugar 
cane 

Vegetables Fruits - 
Excluding 

Wine 

Dates Bovine 
Meat 

Mutton 
& Goat 
Meat 

Poultry 
Meat 

Eggs Milk - 
Excluding 

Butter 

Total WF 1727 2497 1782 322 967 2277 15415 5521 4330 3300 1020 

Green 
WF 

1277 1698 1176 194 727 934 14490 5185 3551 2607 867 

Blue WF 342 499 481 43 147 1252 3.76 330 303 231 82 

Grey WF 207 275 107 85 93 91 0.12 6 476 429 71 

73763 2010 150.63 43.14 10.54 215.26 151.53 10.7 7.46 5.35 22.81 9.39 23.66 

74635 2011 139.5 38.29 10.86 217.73 162.7 10.8 6.88 5.34 24.56 9.05 22.75 

75540 2012 145.93 39.28 9.86 210.47 165.68 11.6 5.85 5.04 24.99 11.2 22.91 

76482 2013 142.23 45.25 17.26 228.17 168.72 10.6 6 4.92 25.7 10.9 25 

77466 2014 155.66 41.25 10.09 207.79 143.93 9.7 5.78 5.18 26.98 9.63 23.02 

78492 2015 158.48 40.95 3.06 198.76 149.3 9.86 6.36 4.44 26.54 9.01 17.63 

79564 2016 158.42 42.25 4.59 183.83 129.23 10.6 6.96 4.79 28.27 9.27 18.04 

80674 2017 156.62 42.55 13.56 127.39 128.11 10.1 7.47 4.83 27.14 7.6 20.47 

81800 2018 154.81 42.38 9.69 119.53 138.74 12.3 6.61 4.24 26.82 8.29 19.78 

82914 2019 155.95 40.29 11.13 138.74 144.19 12.1 6.75 3.42 27.04 8.33 23.24 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

C
o

n
su

m
p

ti
o

n
 (

kg
)

Year

Wheat and products Rice and products Sugar cane

Vegetables Fruits - Excluding Wine Dates

Bovine Meat Mutton & Goat Meat Poultry Meat

Eggs Milk - Excluding Butter



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 18-24 

24 

 

Table 2. Total water consumption of products (million liters) 

 
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Product 

Mean 

Wheat and products 11.11 10.41 11.02 10.88 12.06 12.44 12.60 12.64 12.66 12.93 118.76 

Rice and products 3.18 2.86 2.97 3.46 3.20 3.21 3.36 3.43 3.47 3.34 32.48 

Sugar cane 0.78 0.81 0.74 1.32 0.78 0.24 0.37 1.09 0.79 0.92 7.85 

Vegetables 15.88 16.25 15.90 17.45 16.10 15.60 14.63 10.28 9.78 11.50 143.36 

Fruits - Excluding Wine 11.18 12.14 12.52 12.90 11.15 11.72 10.28 10.34 11.35 11.96 115.53 

Dates 0.79 0.80 0.87 0.81 0.75 0.77 0.84 0.82 1.01 1.00 8.47 

Bovine Meat 0.55 0.51 0.44 0.46 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.54 0.56 5.17 

Mutton & Goat Meat 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.35 0.38 0.39 0.35 0.28 3.70 

Poultry Meat 1.68 1.83 1.89 1.97 2.09 2.08 2.25 2.19 2.19 2.24 20.42 

Eggs 0.69 0.68 0.85 0.83 0.75 0.71 0.74 0.61 0.68 0.69 7.22 

Milk - Excluding Butter 1.75 1.70 1.73 1.91 1.78 1.38 1.44 1.65 1.62 1.93 16.88 

Water Consumption 47.98 48.40 49.31 52.37 49.50 49.01 47.44 44.04 44.43 47.36 
 

 

 

 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

W
at

er
 C

o
n

su
m

p
ti

o
n

 (
m

 li
te

r)

Year

Wheat and products Rice and products Sugar cane Vegetables

Fruits - Excluding Wine Dates Bovine Meat Mutton & Goat Meat

Poultry Meat Eggs Milk - Excluding Butter


