Available online at www.HighTechJournal.org  

HighTech and Innovation  
Journal 

Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

 

 

236 

 

ISSN: 2723-9535 

 

Assessment of Fresh Water Reallocation by Treated Wastewater 

for Irrigation 

Mohammad A. Tabieh 1* , Emad K. Al-Karablieh 1 , Tala H. Qtaishat 1 ,                            

Amer Z. Salman 1 , Nael H. Thaher 1 , Nehaya K. Al-Karablieh 2 , Madi T. Al-Jaghbir 3 , 

Tharaa M. Al-Zghoul 4 , Ahmad  I. Jamrah 4  

1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, School of Agriculture, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan. 

2 Department of Plant Protection, School of Agriculture and Hamdi Mango Center for Scientific Research, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan. 

3 Department of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan. 

4 Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan. 

Received 26 November 2024; Revised 16 February 2025; Accepted 23 February 2025; Published 01 March 2025 

Abstract 

This study investigates the economic feasibility and farmer acceptance of utilizing treated wastewater (TWW) for 

agricultural irrigation in the Northern Jordan Valley (NJV). Despite its potential to mitigate water scarcity, concerns about 

soil health, crop yield, and land utilization hinder widespread adoption. The research measures farm profitability and 

farmers' willingness to embrace TWW through various blending scenarios with traditional surface water sources, 

incorporating a yield response function to salinity within the profit function. Results reveal that TWW adversely affects 

salt-sensitive crops like citrus, with net profit declining from US$ 8,666/ha at 0% TWW to US$ 5,152/ha at 100% TWW. 

Conversely, crops such as date palms and olives maintain stable profitability, with date palms showing minimal variation 

around US$ 20,370/ha. Economic indicators highlight substantial profit declines for crops like peppers, which drop to US$ 

714/ha at 100% TWW. The net value added for citrus decreases from US$ 0.81/m³ to US$ 0.46/m³, while date palms 

increase from US$ 1.36/m³ to US$ 1.41/m³, indicating resilience to salinity. Farmers' willingness to pay for water varies, 

exceeding US$ 0.70/m³ for tomatoes and peppers, while olives remain below US$ 0.14/m³. These findings underscore the 

importance of understanding crop-specific responses to TWW blending and emphasize a holistic approach that considers 

both economic viability and environmental impacts for sustainable agricultural practices. 

Keywords: Agricultural Sustainability; Crop Sensitivity; Economic Feasibility; Irrigation Management; Profitability; Salinity; Treated 

Wastewater; Yield Response Function. 

 

1. Introduction 

Agriculture is the largest consumer of water worldwide, accounting for approximately 70% of global water use [1-

3]. Given this significant demand, wastewater reuse presents a promising alternative for sustaining water availability in 

the agricultural sector. Although the practice of using wastewater for irrigation dates back to ancient times, particularly 

in arid and semi-arid regions, its adoption remains limited in some areas. This is often due to a perceived abundance of 

 
* Corresponding author: m.tabieh@ju.edu.jo 

 
http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2025-06-01-016 

➢ This is an open access article under the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

© Authors retain all copyrights. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8158-1692
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9721-5109
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2700-6686
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9798-9681
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0996-5234
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0121-1443
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1355-4240
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2925-1957
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0224-844X


HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

237 

 

water resources or insufficient infrastructure and investment [2, 3]. Arid regions are experiencing an increasing disparity 

between water supply and demand [4]. Urban water demand continues to rise, with cities frequently receiving priority 

in freshwater allocations, often to the detriment of irrigated agriculture. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 

region, agriculture remains the largest water-consuming sector but yields the lowest economic return per unit of water 

used, posing a significant challenge for sustainably meeting both current and future water requirements [5, 6]. To address 

this growing gap in irrigation water availability, governments across the MENA region are actively promoting the reuse 

of treated wastewater (TWW) as a strategic solution [7]. 

The use of TWW in agriculture presents a viable alternative for reducing freshwater (FW) demand while enhancing 

soil quality, potentially decreasing or even eliminating the need for fertigation. However, TWW irrigation poses risks of 

contamination from hazardous substances [8], organic micropollutants, and pathogenic microorganisms [9, 10]. Farmers 

and stakeholders are particularly concerned about its potential negative impacts on soil health, land use, and crop 

production [11]. Improper management of TWW irrigation can threaten public health and the environment due to its 

microbial and toxic components. Although good agricultural practices can help mitigate environmental impacts and 

contamination, concerns remain regarding soil quality degradation, crop growth limitations, increased salinity, clay 

dispersion, and pathogen presence [12]. 

Wastewater reuse has gained recognition as a sustainable solution to water scarcity; however, its adoption is often 

challenged by public perception, health concerns, and regulatory limitations. While many acknowledge water shortages, 

there is a general lack of awareness regarding water sources and treatment processes. Public acceptance of water reuse 

differs across regions. There is strong support in drought-affected areas, but significant hesitation remains for 

applications involving direct human contact [13]. Addressing these concerns and enhancing public understanding is 

essential for promoting wastewater reuse, especially in MENA countries, where research and regulations remain limited 

[14]. 

Jordan ranks among the most water-deprived countries globally [15], with future predictions indicating a worsening 

situation due to increasing temperatures, reduced precipitation, and runoff. Currently, Jordan's renewable water resources 

satisfy about two-thirds of the population's overall water demands, while groundwater extraction exceeds its natural 

recharge rate. The per capita renewable water resources in Jordan are under 65 cubic meters annually, which is only one-

fifth of the United Nations' lowest standard for water scarcity [15]. By 2040, climate change simulations predict a 

reduction in precipitation by 10 to 15 mm (13-20% less) compared to current levels, with more severe droughts 

anticipated. In response to these challenges, Jordan has formulated a water substitution and reuse policy that emphasizes 

the use of TWW as an alternative water source [16]. 

1.1. Agriculture’s Water Consumption 

Agriculture consumes approximately 52% of Jordan's total water resources [17] and about 70% of its groundwater, 

despite contributing only around 4% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [18]. However, agriculture plays a crucial 

socio-economic role and holds significant political importance. Since 2011, the sector's contribution to the economy has 

been steadily increasing, partly due to the rise in vegetable and fruit-tree production. Water conservation is a lower 

priority for farmers in the Northern Jordan Valley (NJV) compared to those in highland areas. The NJV is a vital irrigated 

zone, contributing approximately 40% to the agricultural GDP [19]. Representing more than 50% of the irrigated area 

in the region, it significantly constrains farmers' water allocation. The government has boosted and expanded irrigation 

infrastructures in the NJV, leading farmers to adopt new irrigation and cropping systems, such as plastic houses, drip 

irrigation, plastic protection, fertilizers, and new seed varieties. 

1.2. Reuse of Treated Wastewater 

Jordan has been utilizing TWW for agricultural purposes for four decades. According to the “National Water Strategy 

2023-2040,” all TWW is designated for irrigation use, with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) establishing 

wastewater treatment plants across the country to implement this strategy [20]. Currently, TWW constitutes 30% of 

Jordan's irrigation water and about 15% of the total water budget [17, 21]. The composition of wastewater in Jordan is 

somewhat distinct compared to other countries, with higher raw wastewater strength due to lower average domestic 

water consumption per capita [22, 23]. Additionally, Jordan's wastewater is relatively low in toxic pollutants such as 

heavy metals and organic micro-pollutants. Nonetheless, existing regulations restrict the direct application of treated 

effluent for irrigation in agriculture, specifically for fodder crops and fruit trees, prohibiting its use for all types of 

vegetables [24, 25]. Even though the effluent quality from most treatment plants in Jordan is suitable for restricted 

irrigation, there is a cultural tendency among farmers and decision-makers to impose even stricter limitations. Policies 

aim to replace fresh surface water in the NJV's irrigation systems with TWW, permitting agricultural expansion only 

where such water is available [26, 27]. Plans are underway to increase TWW delivery from 135 to 240 million cubic 

meters (MCM) and to reallocate withdrawn fresh water (FW) from irrigation to domestic supply. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

238 

 

1.3. Risks and Regulation of Treated Wastewater Use 

The attempt to curtail fresh surface water with TWW in Jordan’s agricultural practices entails several significant 

risks: such as employing TWW for irrigation purposes, which raises concerns regarding potential health hazards due to 

residual pathogens, chemicals, and heavy metals if the treatment process does not sufficiently eliminate these 
contaminants [28]. To ensure public health and the safe use of TWW in agriculture, the Jordan Standards and Metrology 

Organization (JSMO) developed and issued the Jordanian Standards 893/2021 [24, 25], as displayed in (Table1), which 

are based on World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines [29]. These standards and regulations strictly prohibit the 

use of TWW for irrigating any type of vegetables [25]. The regulation places significant emphasis on water quality 

parameters from an agronomic perspective, introducing stricter limits on Total Suspended Solids (TSS), recognizing the 

critical role of TSS in preventing clogging in drip irrigation systems. 

The JS 893/2021 standard for wastewater discharge and reuse represents a significant step forward in promoting 

sustainable water management practices in Jordan. While the stricter regulations on nitrogen and phosphorus levels are 

crucial for protecting environmental and public health, they also pose considerable challenges in terms of increased 

treatment costs, economic impacts on agriculture, and the feasibility of compliance, as shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Current Jordanian standards (JS 893/2021) for reclaimed domestic wastewater for irrigation purposes 

Parameter Unit 

Jordanian permissible limits for the reuse of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation purposes  

Class A (Parks, playgrounds, and 

sides of roads inside the cities) 

Class B (Fruit trees, sides of roads 

outside the cities, and green areas) 

Class C (Industrial crops, 

field crops, and forest crops) 

Class D  

(Cut flowers) 

Discharge into streams 

or water bodies 

pH SU 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 

BOD5 mg/l 30 100 200 15 60 

COD mg/l 100 200 300 50 150 

TDS mg/l 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 

TSS mg/l 50 100 100 15 60 

NO3-N- mg/l 16 16 16 16 20 

TN mg/l 70 70 70 70 70 

PO4
--P mg/l 10 10 10 10 5 

Cl- mg/l 500 500 500 500 500 

HCO3- mg/l 400 400 400 400 400 

Na+ mg/l 230 230 230 230 200 

Mg+ mg/l 100 100 100 100 60 

Ca+ mg/l 230 230 230 230 200 

SAR Unitless 9 9 9 9 6 

E. coli MPN/100ml 100 1000 - 1.1 1000 

The increasing reuse of TWW has diverse economic ramifications, particularly concerning yield, productivity, and 

farmers' willingness to invest in this resource. Incorporating TWW may initially offer advantages in augmenting yield 

and productivity through an alternative irrigation water source [30]. However, the prolonged use of TWW might cause 

adverse effects on soil quality, potentially leading to reduced agricultural output and subsequently impacting farmers' 

income. Financial implications are also pertinent, as while TWW may present a cost-effective irrigation alternative 

compared to FW, there are associated costs with adapting infrastructure to utilize reclaimed water. Such expenses could 

strain the finances of smaller-scale farmers, potentially limiting their ability to invest in this technology [31]. 

1.4. Long-Term Effects of Treated Wastewater Use and Agricultural Sustainability 

The initial benefits of using TWW as an irrigation source may decrease over time because of the buildup of salts and 

contaminants in the soil [30]. This accumulation can elevate soil salinity levels, adversely affecting crop growth and 

productivity. As a result, farmers may experience reduced yields or even crop failures, directly impacting their income 

and livelihoods. The economic repercussions of decreased yield due to increased TWW usage and resulting soil salinity 

are substantial. Farmers heavily rely on consistent and robust yields for their income generation. The decline in crop 

productivity resulting from soil salinization not only threatens their financial stability but also amplifies the financial 

risks associated with agricultural activities, .and may impede farmers' ability to invest in necessary agricultural inputs or 

adapt to alternative cultivation methods. 

In the near future, developing water resources in the NJV should focus on alternative water sources, such as rainwater 
harvesting, desalination of brackish water, and the reuse of TWW, increasing the storage of surface-water runoff; 
artificial recharge, where feasible, and, most importantly, sustaining the existing supply levels. Approximately 70% of 

Jordan's fruit and vegetable production originates from the NJV, which is considered the country's food basket. The total 
irrigable area in the NJV is around 36,300 hectares. Farmers receive irrigation water based on the cropping pattern, with 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

239 

 

citrus trees being the most prevalent in the NJV, where the water allocation for citrus is 40 m³ per day per ha-1. The 
primary vegetables grown in the NJV include tomatoes, eggplants, and squash. However, modifying cropping patterns 
requires both technical assistance and political support. One approach is to maintain a limited number of traditional 

water-intensive crops that are essential for local consumption and have high market value, such as bananas, while 
simultaneously transitioning to less water-intensive crops that can better tolerate salt in irrigated water. While the NJV 

constitutes 6% of Jordan's total cultivated area, its contribution to national agricultural production is more significant at 
11%. This suggests that the region exhibits higher productivity on average, indicating potential areas for expansion and 
enhancement in agricultural practices. 

The Department of Statistics (DOS) data indicates that citrus cultivation dominates the NJV, encompassing 5,894 
hectares, representing a substantial 83% of the total citrus cultivation in Jordan [18]. The NJV accounts for 88% of the 
total citrus production, emphasizing its significant contribution to the national yield, which stands at 107,463 tons. In 

contrast, the date palm cultivation in the NJV occupies a relatively smaller area, standing at 3,228 hectares, contributing 
to 7% of Jordan's total palm cultivation. However, the growth rate in the NJV is notably high at 15.1%, indicating a 

burgeoning sector. Similar trends are observed in grapes, where the NJV represents 11% of the total cultivated area, 
showing a growth rate of 10.6%. The production in the NJV contributes to 10% of the national grapes yield, with a 
slightly higher yield of 13.9 tons ha-1. Tomatoes and Peppers exhibit noteworthy trend. Despite a negative growth rate, 

tomatoes cultivation in the NJV covers 5,201 hectares, contributing to 8% of national production, with an impressive 
yield of 90.5 tons/ha. Pepper, with a growth rate of 0.97%, sees a substantial 13% of the NJV's area contributing to 17% 

of the national pepper production, boasting a yield of 51.3 tons/ha. 

1.5. Shifts in Crop Cultivation and Water Management 

Farmers in this region have begun shifting from citrus to other irrigated crops, including date palms and grapes. The 
area enjoys relatively high rainfall, with over 400 mm in the northern parts and around 300 mm in the southern parts. 
Citrus irrigation typically occurs from March to November, with limited irrigation outside this period depending on the 

season’s rainfall. The King Abdullah Canal (KAC) provides the irrigation water, which is divided into two main sections: 
(1) Northern KAC, 65 km long, fed by freshwater and used for both domestic and irrigation needs; and (2) Southern 

KAC, 45 km long, fed by blended water and primarily used for irrigation, though 14.5 km of this section is not fully 
operational. However, approximately 15 to 20 MCM per year of TWW from the Northern region's Wastewater Treatment 
Plants (WWTPs), mainly Wadi Al Arab, Shalalah, Center Irbid, and later Ramtha, is currently unused as it is being 

discharged into the Jordan River. Despite the hydraulic infrastructure being in place since 2016 to utilize this water for 
irrigation in the NJV after blending with freshwater, the quality of the final effluent does not meet the standards and 

specifications for irrigation water, making it unsuitable for citrus irrigation. Both the Jordan Valley Authority (JVA) and 
Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ) are working to expedite the process of improving water quality at the Center Irbid 
WWTP and other Northern WWTPs to enable the use of treated effluents for irrigation in the NJV once they are mixed 

with sufficient freshwater. 

Water salinity can greatly affect citrus production, as citrus trees are highly sensitive to changes in soil and irrigation 
water salinity [32, 33]. Elevated salinity levels in irrigation water or soil can hinder citrus tree growth and overall yield, 

causing osmotic stress and alters nutrient uptake. The presence of salts in the water can disrupt the plant's ability to 
absorb essential nutrients, resulting in stunted growth and smaller fruit. Osmotic stress occurs when the soil's salt 

concentration exceeds that of the plant's roots, reducing water uptake by the tree, which lead to wilting and decreased 
fruit production. High salinity can also interfere with the absorption of key nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and 
magnesium, resulting in nutrient deficiencies that affect fruit quality and size. Water with high salinity is toxic to plants, 

and presents a salinity hazard. Soils with high total salinity levels are referred to as saline soils. High salt concentrations 
in the soil can create a "physiological" drought condition, causing plants to wilt because their roots cannot absorb water, 
despite adequate moisture in the field [34, 35]. The elevated salt content in TWW is typically 1.5–2 times higher than 

that of Fresh Water (FW). This elevated salt content in TWW can contribute to increased soil salinization, sodication, 
and structural changes, potentially resulting in reduced yields for salt-sensitive crops [36, 37]. 

1.6. Impacts of High Salinity Water on Citrus Production 

Citrus irrigated with high-salinity water can experience reduced growth and production [33]. Salinity impacts citrus 

in two main ways: osmotic stress and toxic ion stress. Dissolved salts create an osmotic effect that decreases the 
availability of free (unbound) water, similar to drought stress [33]. Fruit yields decrease by about 13% for each 1.0 dS/m 
increase in the electrical conductivity of the saturated-soil extract (ECe) once soil salinity exceeds a threshold ECe of 

1.4 dS/m [33]. The primary chemical risks associated with TWW reuse for irrigation are excessive concentrations of 
salt, heavy metals, nutrients, toxic organic compounds, and organic matter [33]. Concerns about using TWW for 

irrigation include potential damage to soil quality and crop development, increased salinity, clay dispersion, reduced soil 
hydraulic conductivity, and the presence of pathogens, posing a public health risk [12]. The elevated presence of heavy 
metals in wastewater poses potential risks to both humans and animals, as these metals can accumulate in soils and 

crops. While heavy metals within safe limits in irrigation wastewater may not pose a significant issue, exceeding 
these limits can result in toxicity [38]. Consequently, diligent monitoring of heavy metals concentrations in water, 

soils, and crops becomes imperative when employing TWW for irrigation. Excessive levels of these compounds 
could lead to their accumulation in crops, posing risks to human and animal health. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

240 

 

Several studies in Jordan indicate that farmers are likely to adopt TWW for irrigation if they perceive it as 
economically beneficial, socially acceptable, environmentally sustainable, and as posing little or no health risks [39-42]. 
In Jordan, the wastewater treatment systems do not remove nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). Typically, the 

secondary effluents contain 10 to 50 mg/L of total N and 10 mg/L of P.  The social acceptance of wastewater 
reclamation and reuse in agriculture, particularly among farmers, is influenced by local cultural, religious, and socio-

economic factors. Additionally, economic and technical factors play a crucial role, including water and wastewater 
treatment costs, maintenance expenses, the employment of rural labor, and the structure of irrigation networks and crop 
patterns [43]. Farmers with the option to choose between TWW and other water sources consistently prefer the 

alternatives, despite higher costs due to social stigma and crop restrictions associated with TWW reuse. Therefore, social 
marketing and awareness-raising efforts are crucial in reducing opposition to wastewater reuse [6]. A three-year study 

revealed that nectarines irrigated with TWW exhibited higher quality parameters, antioxidant compounds, and total 
phenolic content than those irrigated with FW, attributed to the substantial nutrient content in TWW. However, the 
number of fruits was lower under TWW treatment, but this reduction was offset by the larger weight of individual fruits 

[44]. 

This research aims to investigate the potential economic impact of replacing FW with TWW in the NJV. Additionally, 
it seeks to assess the economic performance and farm profitability resulting from this reallocation or partial blending of 

the two water sources. Blending TWW with surface water can increase the water supply for farmers in the Northern NJV 
and enhance overall water availability. This study analyzes the economic impact of this approach by evaluating the 

effects of increased water salinity on crop productivity. It assesses crop responses to salinity with TWW mixtures at 
ratios of 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. The analysis involves evaluating crop yields, comparing the financial 
performance of farms using TWW versus FW, and exploring any differences in production costs. 

2. Material and Methods 

Assessing the potential economic increment for farm productivity, farm output, reduced chemical costs, and an 
improved value chain requires a thorough evaluation of the potential increments for gross production, crop yield, and 

suitability of crop cultivation, as a result of reusing TWW. This economic analysis requires precise information about 
farm economics, particularly regarding additional costs and returns at the farm level. Farmers, as decision-makers, 

manage a specific land area, a given water quota, and other restrictions. Creating representative crop budgets and 
cropping patterns for the study area requires simulating the situation before and after reusing additional TWW for 
agriculture, along with improvements to the irrigation system, as illustrated in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 illustrates the step-by-step methodology of this study. The process begins with defining the research 
objective, followed by selecting the study area and collecting relevant data on farm economics, water allocation, crop 
yields, and farmer perceptions. A farm model is developed to simulate various TWW blending scenarios, which are then 

analyzed for the economic implications of the scenarios, crop yield responses, and farmers' willingness to pay for water. 
The study further evaluates the environmental and economic impacts before drawing conclusions and providing policy 

recommendations for sustainable wastewater reuse in agriculture. 

 

Figure 1. Methodological framework for assessing the economic feasibility reusing TWW for irrigation 

Setting Research 
Objective 

Select Study Area 

Collect 
Socioeconomic 
and Farms Data

Develop Farm 
Model

Define Blending 
Scenarios

Conduct 
Economic 
Analysis

Simulate Crop 
Yield Response to 

Salinity

Assess Farmers’ 
Willingness to Pay 

(WTP)

Evaluate Economic 
and Environmental 

Impacts

Draw Conclusions 
and Policy 

Recommendations



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

241 

 

2.1. Study Area 

The NJV study area extends from 31o 40.8' N to 32o 19.7' N latitude and from 35o 32.7' E to 35o 40' E longitude, with 

an elevation ranging from -200 m below mean sea level (bmsl) in north to about -300 m bmsl in the south. The total area 

for the NJV included in this study is more than 182 km2 as shown in Figure 2. 

 

Figure 2. location of the study areas 

This study focuses on the northern district of the NJV, where the JVA’s water-allocation rules apply as shown in 

Figure 3. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

242 

 

 

Figure 3. Reuse cycle of treated wastewater 

The NJV experiences a warm winter, averaging a minimum temperature of 13°C in January, and a hot summer, with 

August temperatures peaking at an average of 32°C. The region receives approximately 400 mm of rainfall annually. 

This warm climate supports significant agricultural activity, making the area a key producer of vegetables (such as 

tomatoes and okra), bananas, citrus fruits, grapes, and date palms. Soil surveys and maps indicate that the irrigated land 

is characterized by deep, fine to medium-textured soils with low salinity, which are well-suited for most irrigated crops. 

Irrigation primarily takes place west of the KAC on farm units developed by the JVA. Additionally, rained cultivation 

of cereals and olive trees is common on the lands east of the KAC. 

Currently, about 60% of the irrigated area is irrigated with 'blended TWW,' while less than 31% is irrigated with FW. 

The remaining 9% is still alternately irrigated with both waters, FW and 'blended TWW.' It should be stressed that the 

entire NJV is expected to be completely irrigated with 'blended TWW' within the next few years, an objective that is 

likely to be achieved in the near future in light of the increasing TWW amounts from As-Samra WWTP, in addition to 

the utilization of the combined effluent from the three WWTPs in northern NJV: the Central Irbid, Shalaleh, and Wadi 

Arab WWTPs. The special significance of wastewater reuse in the NJV lies in the substitution of FW with sufficient 

'blended TWW.' In doing so, the sustainability of agriculture and the availability of FW for drinking water are both 

secured in the NJV. 

2.2. Building a Farm Model 

To assess the economic impact of TWW utilization for irrigation in the NJV, we developed comprehensive enterprise 

budgets for the primary crops cultivated in the region, including citrus, date palms, bananas, and various vegetable crops 

that can benefit from TWW irrigation. These budgets are based on the most reliable estimates of returns and costs for 

2023. The farm model specifically focuses on mature orchard crops, including citrus, grapes, olives, and other fruit trees. 

In constructing the enterprise budgets, we established two scenarios: the "Business as Usual" (BAU) scenario, which 

reflects existing farming conditions without TWW, and the "Project" scenario, which incorporates TWW reuse. The 

latter scenario accounts for expected changes in yield response to salinity, reduced fertilizer costs, and increased water 

consumption due to the supply augmentation from treated effluents. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

243 

 

For each crop, the budget tables include columns for both scenarios, allowing for a direct comparison of farm income 

before and after implementing TWW reuse. Total returns (US$/ha) are calculated based on average farm-gate prices 

(US$/ton) for the main products and by-products, alongside the average yield for each crop (ton/ha). These prices are 

derived from published data and supplemented by local farmer interviews. Total variable costs (TVC), primarily 

operational expenses, were obtained through interviews with farmers at the pilot site during the 2022-2023 crop years. 

TVC encompasses all expenses related to variable inputs necessary for crop production, including fertilizers, seeds, 

pesticides, water, labor, electricity, and repairs. Additionally, total fixed costs (TFC) were assessed, which include land 

rent or, if owned by the farmer, quasi-land rent, depreciation of capital assets (such as buildings and machinery), 

maintenance of irrigation networks, costs associated with plastic houses, amortization of seedlings for fruit trees, and 

interest on capital investments. 

2.3. Building the Scheme Models and Blending Scenarios 

The Jordan Valley Authority (JVA) is advancing plans to reallocate surface FW with TWW in the NJV. Although 

the necessary hydraulic infrastructure is in place, the current quality of TWW does not meet Jordanian irrigation water 

standards. To rectify this, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) is rehabilitating four existing WWTPs to produce 

treated effluent that complies with these standards, facilitating blending with FW for irrigation. 

This study focuses on evaluating the economic impact of reallocating surface FW with TWW, particularly examining 

how increased salinity levels might influence crop productivity in the NJV. Table 2 presents various TWW blending 

scenarios (S1-S5) and their corresponding effects on agricultural parameters. The scenarios involve mixing ratios of 

TWW to FW expressed as percentages, ranging from 0% to 100%. The blending ratios derived from this methodology 

were recommended in discussions with the MWI as an approach toward a safe blended reuse of TWW, and protecting 

both soil health and crop productivity for economic viability in the NJV. This approach enables the systematic evaluation 

of TWW effects on yield, salinity, and income, thereby providing data-driven limits of sustainable irrigation. Considering 

the existing blending infrastructure and the growing dependence on alternative water supplies, the electrical conductivity 

(ECw) of FW is consistently set at 1117 µS/cm, while TWW has an EC of 1725 µS/cm. 

Table 2. Water quality of irrigation water by blending scenarios 

Parameters Unit BAU S_1 S_2 S_3 S_4 S_5 

Mixing Ratio (TWW/FW) Percent 0% 10% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

FW salinity ECw (µS/cm) 1117 1117 1117 1117 1117 1117 

TWW salinity ECw (µS/cm) 1725 1725 1725 1725 1725 1725 

ECw irrigation water after mixing ECw (µS/cm) 1117 1178 1269 1421 1573 1725 

Added T-N after mixing (mg/L) - 5.97 14.93 29.86 44.78 59.71 

Added T-P after mixing (mg/L) - 0.94 2.35 4.70 7.04 9.39 

Added K+ after mixing (mg/L) - 3.20 7.99 15.98 23.97 31.96 

Saving cost of fertilizers US$ /m3 - 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.21 

Decrease in total fertilizer costs Percent - 5% 13% 25% 38% 50% 

Consequently, the ECw of the irrigation water increases as the proportion of TWW rises. The scenarios detail the 

agricultural outcomes associated with each blending ratio, including the percentage increase in crop yield due to 

enhanced water allocation, the proportional rise in water allocation from TWW mixing, and the resultant decrease in 

fertilizer costs. These parameters offer a comprehensive understanding of the potential agricultural benefits and 

economic implications of TWW utilization. 

TWW serves as a low-strength multi-nutrient fertilizer, containing essential macronutrients such as N, P, and K. 

Nutrient concentrations in TWW vary based on treatment levels and seasonal conditions. Guidelines indicate that farmers 

can save up to 60% on fertilization costs by following technical recommendations for using TWW [34, 45]. In the NJV, 

TWW can meet more than 50% of crop nutrient requirements, though some farmers apply excessive amounts of P and 

K, not accounting for the nutrients present in TWW. The economic value of the macronutrients in TWW available in the 

NJV is estimated at around US$ 3.28 million, with nitrogen comprising 23%, phosphorus 20%, and potassium 57% [45, 

46]. Assuming an average nitrogen content of 60 ppm and applying 1000 mm annually over two seasons, TWW can 

provide approximately 600 kg/ha/year of NO3-N, supplying essential nutrients for crop production along with beneficial 

micronutrients and organic matter. This analysis offers valuable insights for sustainable water resource management and 

agricultural practices in the region [47]. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

244 

 

2.3.1. Simulating Crop Yield Response to Salinity 

To simulate crop yield response to salinity, yield data (ton/ha) were collected from field observations and farmers’ 

interviews, supplemented by the Department of Statistics (DOS) annual report data. Crop yields vary based on production 

season, agricultural technology, and water quality. Table 3 presents a detailed overview of crop planting, production, 

and irrigation water requirements in the study area. This data encompasses a range of crops, including citrus, date palms, 

grapes, olives, bananas, wheat, barley, tomatoes, peppers, squash, and various vegetables. 

In the "Planted Area" column, the total area allocated to each crop is specified. The "Cultivated or Bearing Fruit 

Areas" column distinguishes between actively productive areas and newly planted fruit trees, which, while requiring 

irrigation, have not yet reached maturity. The "Total Production" column quantifies the overall yield from productive 

areas in tons, while the "Average Yield" column indicates yield per unit area. The "Net Irrigation Water Requirements" 

column outlines the amount of water needed for irrigation per unit area, whether productive or not. The "Total Irrigation 

Water Demand" is calculated by multiplying the net irrigation water requirements by the cultivated area for each crop. 

This assessment highlights the significant demand for water resources necessary to sustain agricultural activities, 

emphasizing the critical role of irrigation in enhancing crop yields and ensuring food security. Understanding the total 

annual irrigation water demand for each crop provides valuable insights into overall water usage within the agricultural 

sector, essential for effective water resource management and planning. 

Table 3. Summary of crop planting, production, and irrigation water requirements of the study area 

Crop 
Planted Area 

(ha) 

Cultivated or bearing 

fruit Areas (ha) 

 ------Total 

Production (ton)  

 Average Yield 

(ton/ha) 

Net Irrigation Water 

Requirements (m3/ha) 

Total Irrigation Water 

Demand, annually (MCM) 

Citrus 5,894 4,543 107,463 23.66 7,500 44.206 

Date palm 323 202 3,542 17.55 9,580 3.092 

Grapes 347 167 4,837 28.92 7,000 2.43 

Olive 270 242 762 3.15 4800 1.296 

Banana 136 88 4,628 52.58 11,000 1.496 

Other trees 227 167 3,294 19.72 6,000 1.363 

Wheat 833 797 2,999 3.77 3,500 2.914 

Barley 145 120 372 3.11 3000 0.434 

Other Field crop 316 290 7,808 26.95 4,000 1.265 

Tomatoes 520 520 47,092 90.54 5,050 2.627 

Pepper 349 349 14,521 41.66 4,650 1.621 

Squash 233 233 8,372 36.00 3,250 0.757 

Other Vegetables 1,933 1,933 70,905 36.69 4,200 8.118 

Total 11,525 9,649 276,595     71.619 

Salt tolerance can be quantitatively described by plotting relative yield as a continuous function of soil salinity, 

measured by the electrical conductivity of the saturated soil extract (ECe). Although this response function typically 

follows a sigmoidal relationship, Mass [48] and Maas & Hoffman [49] suggested that within the range of soil salinities 

producing acceptable economic yields, a single linear response function can effectively describe yield responses to 

salinity concentrations above the threshold. They also assumed that yields do not respond to salinity at concentrations 

below the threshold. For soil salinities exceeding the threshold of a given crop, the relative yield (Yr) can be estimated 

for the main crops was simulated response to salinity using Equation 1 [50-52]. 

𝑌�̂�𝑗 =   100 − 𝑏 (𝐸𝐶𝑒 − 𝑎)  (1) 

where 𝑌�̂�𝑗 is the expected as relative crop yield reduction due to salinity for crop j, b is the slope of the curve as yield 

loss per unit-increase in salinity, a is constant for salinity threshold value, and ECe is the soil electrical conductivity 

measured by dS/m as a means average root zone salinity of the saturation extract of the soil. The relationship between 

soil salinity and water salinity (ECe = 1.5 ECw) assumes a 15–20 percent leaching fraction [49-50]. In Table 4, the 

percentage of crop yield reduction due to increased water salinity is provided for various crops at different blending 

ratios. This table highlights the relationship between water salinity and crop yield, showing how different crops respond 

to varying levels of salinity in irrigation water. For instance, citrus crops, which are particularly sensitive to salinity, 

exhibit a yield reduction of up to 14.2% when exposed to 100% TWW. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

245 

 

Table 4. Percentage of crop yield reduction due to increased water salinity [39, 42-44] 

Blending ratio 

Crops 

(a) Threshold 

(ECe) dS/m 

(b) Slope % per 

dS/m 

Percentage of crop yield reduction response to water salinity by increasing 

blending ratios 

0% 10% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Citrus 1.5 13.1 2.3% 3.5% 5.3% 8.3% 11.3% 14.2% 

Date palm 4 3.6 - - - - - - 

Grapes 1.5 9.6 1.7% 2.6% 3.9% 6.1% 8.3% 10.4% 

Olive 4.5 11 - - - - - - 

Banana 1.7 10 - 0.7% 2.0% 4.3% 6.6% 8.9% 

Other trees 3.65 20.4 - - - - - - 

Wheat 5.9 3.8 - - - - - - 

Barley 8 5 - - - - - - 

Other Field crop 1.5 5.7 1.0% 1.5% 2.3% 3.6% 4.9% 6.2% 

Tomatoes 2.5 9.9 - - - - - 0.9% 

Pepper 1.5 14 2.5% 3.7% 5.6% 8.8% 12.0% 15.2% 

Squash 3.2 16 - - - - - - 

Other Vegetables 3.2 16 - - 1.0% 3.2% 5.4% 7.6% 

Soil salinity significantly restricts citrus production in many regions worldwide. Although specific data on fruit yields 

in response to salinity in Jordan are limited, studies [53-57] indicate that grapefruit, lemons, and oranges are among the 

most sensitive agricultural crops. Citrus fruit yields decrease by approximately 13% for each 1.0 dS m−1 increase in the 

electrical conductivity of the ECe once soil salinity exceeds a threshold ECe of 1.4 dS m−1 [48]. In citriculture, an 

electrical conductivity (EC) over 3 dS m−1 and a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) over 9 in saturated soil extract are 

considered critical for the survival of the cultivation. Additionally, chlorine concentration values above 355 ppm are 

unsuitable for growing citrus [58]. Citrus growth and fruit yield have been negatively affected under soil salinity of 2 dS 

m−1, with a 13% decrease in fruit yield observed per each 1 dS m−1 salinity increase above 1.4 dS m−1, the threshold 

value for electrical conductivity in saturated soil extract [59]. Furthermore, threshold salinity levels in the rhizosphere 

of orange trees cv. Valencia have been reported at ECs of 2.5 to 3.5 dS m−1 [60]. In lemon trees of cv. Verna, the toxic 

threshold for salinity stress syndromes varies with the rootstock used; for sour orange, Cleopatra mandarin, and 

macrophylla, the threshold values are 1.53, 2.08, and 1.02 dS m−1, respectively [61]. 

2.3.2. Simulating Crop Gross Margin and Profit Response to Salinity 

Enterprise budgets are mainly used to itemize the returns for an enterprise’s products and the costs of the inputs 

required for production activities, to evaluate enterprise efficiency, to estimate the benefits and costs for major changes 

in production activities, to provide the basis for a total farm plan, and to provide non-farmers with information about the 

costs incurred to produce crops [62]. Enterprise budgets could serve as a management and decision-making guide for 

current and prospective entrepreneurs. Working at the farm level, enterprise budgets are desirable to estimate returns and 

costs for the same farm. However, enterprise budgets reflect the average, or typical, conditions when working on a 

national or regional level. The profit from individual crops (𝜋𝑗) are represented in Equation 2. 

𝜋𝑗 = 𝑃𝑗 . (𝑌𝑗 . (1 − �̂�𝑟𝑗)) − 𝑃𝑤 . 𝑄𝑤 − ∑ 𝑃𝑖 . 𝑋𝑖𝑖 − TFC  (2) 

where, Yj refers to the quantity of product j, 𝑌�̂�𝑗 is the percentage of crop yield reduction due to salinity level, Xi stands 

for the quantity of inputs i, i = l, 2, ..., n; including the quantity and price of fertilizers, Pj and Pi are the prices of products 

and inputs, respectively, and Qw, Pw denotes the quantity and price of the water input use based on estimated net 

irrigation water requirements (IWR), and TFC represent the total fixed costs. 

2.3.3. Simulating Water Values Response to Salinity 

The importance of valuing irrigation water and to get insight in the value of water to support policy decision making 

about efficient allocation of water among competing water demand sectors, determining the socio-economic impacts of 

water allocation decisions and rational investment decision in water infrastructure of water supply and distribution 

system. To determine the return per cubic meter of irrigation water, one would typically calculate the economic returns 

generated from agricultural production (e.g., crop yield, revenue from harvested crops) divided by the total volume of 

water used for irrigation. This calculation provides insight into the economic efficiency of water usage in agriculture and 

can inform decision-making at both the individual farm and policy levels [63]. One of the common methods to determine 

the economic value if water is the Residual Imputation Method (RIM) [64]. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

246 

 

The RIM assesses the incremental contribution of each input in a production process [63]. When appropriate prices 

are assigned to all inputs except one, the remaining total value of the product is attributed to the residual input, which, 

in this case, is water [63, 65, 66]. Residual valuation assumes that if all markets are competitive, except for the water 

market, the Total Value of production (TV= 𝑃𝑗 . 𝑌𝑗) exactly equals the opportunity costs of all inputs. The opportunity 

costs of non-water inputs are assumed to be their market prices (or estimated shadow prices). The residual value is 

obtained by subtracting the non-water input costs from the total annual crop revenue, which equals the gross margin. 

The water-related contribution is calculated by subtracting the water costs from the gross margin. This residual can be 

interpreted as the maximum amount the farmer could pay for water while still covering the production costs [67]. 

It represents the at-site value of water. The shadow price (value) of water can be calculated as the residual, which is 

the difference between the total value of the output (TVP) and the costs of all non-water inputs used in production. This 

residual, obtained by subtracting non-water input costs from the total annual crop revenue, indicates the maximum 

amount a farmer could pay for water while still covering production costs, representing the water’s at-site value. The 

water’s marginal value (VMPw) is estimated, with average values used in this study as a proxy for the marginal value 

[68-70]. 

Pw = ((𝑃𝑗  .  𝑌𝑗  (1 −  �̂�𝑟𝑗)) − ∑ Pi Xi)
n
i=1 Qw⁄   (3) 

Water values based on the Gross Value Added (GVA): The GVA represents the difference between the gross output 

of the farm minus intermediate consumption. The resulting water productivity allows for determining the farmers’ supply 

curve of the agricultural products in the short run. The farmer is willing to pay that price of water to avoid losses in the 

short run and to recover the variable cost. All the fixed cost does not recover and lost. Pw can be interpret as is the 

shadow price of water, i.e., the net benefit imputed as the value per unit of additional one cubic meter of water input 

[34]. Therefore, the above Equation 3 is used to estimate the economic value of water for each crop. 

Net profitability (NP) is a key measure that reflects the surplus or profit generated from agricultural production after 

accounting for all costs, both direct and indirect, including depreciation and the opportunity cost of invested capital. This 

measure serves as a proxy for total pre-tax profit income and provides insight into the economic efficiency of water 

consumption, as well as farmers' ability to pay for water. When farmers adjust the value they assign to water, it can lead 

to an equilibrium in the long run, resulting in what is termed "normal profit." In this context, normal profit occurs when 

total sales revenue equals the total costs incurred, which means that farmers are not earning excess returns beyond 

covering their expenses. This situation indicates that there are no additional rewards for bearing the risks and 

uncertainties inherent in agricultural business operations. Despite this, farmers can expect to achieve a normal rate of 

return on their invested capital. 

To estimate the economic value of water for each crop, the equation referenced (Equation 4) is utilized. This equation 

corresponds to the maximum willingness of irrigators to pay per unit of water for that specific crop, reflecting the 

economic realities of water use in agricultural practices [62, 71]. 

Pw = ((𝑃𝑗  .  𝑌𝑗  (1 −  �̂�𝑟𝑗)) − (∑ Pi Xi − TFC))n
i=1 Qw⁄   (4) 

The net irrigation-water requirement (IWR as Qw) is used instead of the crop’s water requirement (CWR) in order to 

measure the irrigation water’s value and to subtract the effective rainfall precipitation’s contribution from the irrigation 

requirements. The IWR was calculated based on the specific crop water requirement (CWR) for the average production 

of fruit, vegetables, and crop patterns for 2022- 2023. For irrigation purposes, the IWR is determined, which is the sum 

of the individual IWR according to Equation 5 [72]. 

𝐼𝑊𝑅𝑗 =  ∑ (𝑘𝑐𝑗 𝑡
𝑇
𝑡=0  .  𝐸𝑇0 . −𝑃𝑒𝑓𝑓 )  (5) 

where kc is the crop coefficient of crop j during the growth stage t, and T is the final growth stage. ET0 is the reference 

evapotranspiration (Penman-Monteith), and Peff is the effective precipitation, taken as 80% of the total annual 

precipitation [73, 74]. 

3. Results and Discussion 

Due to the increasing problem with water shortages in the NJV, the utilization of wastewater, which was once not an 

attractive option, has gained prominence. TWW plays a major role in narrowing the gap between supply and demand for 

the agricultural sector, especially in the NJV. Wastewater reuse and allocation in the NJV (including the MJV) is the 

responsibility of the JVA, which is a regional organization that oversees the development aspects in the NJV including 

water, agriculture, and other services. Farmers in the MJV receive irrigation water based on a weekly quota that is 

organized either by the JVA directly or through the Water Users Association (WUA) that operates under the supervision 

of the JVA. The weekly irrigation water quota is designed based on the crop type, where farmers who grow crops such 

as citrus fruit or bananas receive a larger water quota than farmers growing vegetables. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

247 

 

When the indirect (mixed) wastewater reuse program was initially introduced in the MJV, a significant obstacle 

emerged as farmers experienced damage to their citrus fruit plantations, leading them to replace them with alternative 

crops. This setback coincided with the inadequate quality of effluent from the As-Samra wastewater treatment plant. 

Consequently, MJV farmers directly linked the utilization of wastewater for irrigation with the loss of their traditional 

farming practices. The transition from citrus fruit plantations to vegetable crops also resulted in a decrease in the water 

allocation provided by the JVA. Despite notable enhancements in the effluent quality from the upgraded As-Samra plant, 

a negative perception of wastewater reuse persists among farmers throughout the NJV [31]. 

In NJV, water services have been heavily subsidized to meet the escalating cost of providing water [75]. The irrigation 

water tariff in NJV, which is an increasing block water tariff, the TWW which is priced at fixed rate of 0.014 US$/m3. 

But with rising economic pressures, increasing fuel prices, and demands for financial resources, calls for full cost 

recovery are gaining momentum. Decision-makers are thus torn between the pressures to meet water authorities’ 

demands for expansion and maintenance, and public pressure to restrict water prices, particularly for poor people. Water 

pricing is one of the measures to potentially establish effective demand management to use water efficiently and 

sustainably. Appropriate and adequate operation and maintenance of water systems is necessary to enable them to meet 

the current and future requirements for distributing water. 

The average tariff billed per cubic meter of irrigation water in 2022 ranged between (0.011 to 0.022 US$/m3), with a 

total average of 0.017 US$/m3. Based on billed water volume, the average operation and maintenance costs per cubic 

meter billed are about US$ 0.17 per m3. The average revenue per cubic meter billed of irrigation water for all-purpose is 

only US$ 0.042 per cubic meter. The JVA is not able to cover its basic operating costs; its revenues fall far short. The 

decline of JVA’s capacity to pay for its operating expenditures has been especially pronounced since 2008. The operating 

margin is highly negative and shows that currently the total revenues, including pumping revenues, which were not 

charged to WAJ, do not even cover staff costs. The operating cost coverage ratio is less than 30% for all-purpose of 

water use and only 10% of irrigation water [75-77]. 

Water in NJV is charged according to the principle of price discrimination and quota system. In 2004, the JVA revised 

the quota system to better supply of water and crop water requirements [78]. The new quotas correspond to 3,600, 7,650 

and 12,550 m3/haJD for vegetables, citrus and bananas, respectively, i.e., a cut by about 20 to 30%. On a regional scale, 

this generated total FW savings in the northern and middle directorates of approximately 20 MCM. The water saved was 

subsequently reallocated to domestic use in Amman with about 53 MCM in 2010. Quotas are set according to water 

availability and demand patterns. Given that competition for water has increased, the quota system is reviewed on a 

regular basis, according to water availability. 

3.1. Crop Economic Performance by Reallocation of Fresh Water with Treated Wastewater 

The quality of irrigation water plays a crucial role in determining the economic performance of crops. High salinity 

levels can significantly limit the types of crops that farmers can cultivate, adversely affecting both water-use efficiency 

and overall yield while increasing water consumption. Water quality is multidimensional, encompassing factors such as 

chemical concentrations, salinity, bacterial content, organic matter, and temperature. The specific water quality 

indicators that matter most depend on the agricultural activities being performed. For instance, the cultivation of sensitive 

crops like citrus fruits is heavily influenced by salinity levels. A transition from high-quality freshwater to more saline 

water often necessitates a shift in crop selection to varieties that are more tolerant of salt. To measure the economic value 

of water quality, methods such as contingent valuation can be employed. This approach surveys farmers about their 

willingness to pay for improved water quality, enabling the estimation of the economic and societal benefits associated 

with higher-quality water. 

The blending of freshwater with treated wastewater has a significant impact on the gross margins of various crops, 

as illustrated in Table 5. As salinity increases from an electrical conductivity (ECw) of 1117 uS/m to 1296 uS/m, the 

gross margins for citrus crops decline markedly. For example, the gross margin for citrus drops from 10,066 US$/ha at 

0% TWW to 6,538 US$/ha at 100% TWW, reflecting the detrimental effects of increasing salinity on these crops. 

Similarly, sensitive crops like peppers also show reduced profitability under higher salinity conditions. Conversely, crops 

that possess moderate to high salinity tolerance, such as date palms, barley, tomatoes, and olives, exhibit improved 

economic performance when irrigated with TWW. These crops benefit from the nutrient content of TWW, which can 

lead to increased gross margins due to reduced fertilizer costs without a corresponding decline in yield. For instance, 

date palms maintain or enhance their gross margins as the blending ratio of freshwater to treated wastewater increases, 

thanks to the additional nutrients and lower fertilizer expenses. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

248 

 

Table 5. Gross margin (US$/ha) by blending scenarios 

Scenarios S_BAU (0%) S_1 (10%) S_2 (25%) S_3 (50%) S_4 (75%) S_5 (100%) 

Citrus 10,066 9,688 9,128 8,232 7,378 6,538 

Palm 23,954 24,010 24,094 24,248 24,388 24,528 

Grapes 20,300 19,880 19,264 18,284 17,318 16,394 

Olive 1,162 1,176 1,190 1,218 1,232 1,260 

Banana 29,848 29,386 28,392 26,782 25,214 23,688 

Other trees 7,266 7,280 7,308 7,364 7,420 7,476 

Wheat 854 854 868 896 924 938 

Barley 924 924 924 938 952 966 

Other Field crop 8,652 8,526 8,344 8,050 7,756 7,462 

Tomatoes 8,932 8,988 9,086 9,226 9,366 9,184 

Pepper 12,208 11,648 10,836 9,520 8,274 7,084 

Squash 3,206 3,290 3,430 3,654 3,878 4,102 

Other Vegetables 9,856 9,926 9,632 8,946 8,260 7,616 

These values illustrate the varying impacts of TWW blending on crop profitability, highlighting the necessity for 

strategic crop selection and irrigation management. As evidenced, salt-sensitive crops experience declines in gross 

margins due to increased salinity, while salt-tolerant crops can thrive, making it crucial for farmers to adapt their practices 

accordingly to optimize economic returns in the face of water quality challenges. Figure 4 shows the Net Value Added 

(US$/m³) by Blending Scenarios highlight the critical role of strategic crop selection and irrigation management in 

mitigating the economic impacts of water salinity. As evidenced, salt-sensitive crops exhibit a notable decline in gross 

margins as salinity increases, reflecting reduced productivity and profitability under high TWW blending ratios. 

Conversely, salt-tolerant crops maintain stable or even enhanced economic returns, demonstrating their adaptability to 

saline irrigation conditions. 

 

Figure 4. Net value added (US$/m3) by blending scenarios 

Table 6 summarizes the net profit values (US$/ha) for various crops across a range of blending scenarios, from 0% 

TWW to 100% TWW. These scenarios reflect incremental increases in the proportion of TWW used for irrigation, 

providing a framework to evaluate the financial returns per hectare for each crop under varying water management 

strategies. 

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

0% -10% -25% -50% -75% -100%

S_BAU S_1 S_2 S_3 S_4 S_5

U
S

$
/m

3

Citrus Palm Banana Tomatoes



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

249 

 

Table 6. Net profit (US$/ha) by blending scenarios 

Scenarios S_BAU (0%) S_1 (10%) S_2 (25%) S_3 (50%) S_4 (75%) S_5 (100%) 

Citrus 8,666 8,288 7,742 6,846 5,978 5,152 

Palm 20,370 20,426 20,510 20,650 20,790 20,944 

Grapes 18,228 17,808 17,192 16,212 15,246 14,322 

Olive 462 476 490 518 532 560 

Banana 23,814 23,352 22,358 20,748 19,180 17,654 

Other trees 6,146 6,160 6,188 6,244 6,300 6,356 

Wheat 518 532 546 574 588 616 

Barley 770 770 770 784 798 812 

Other Field crop 7,518 7,392 7,210 6,916 6,622 6,328 

Tomatoes 6,482 6,538 6,622 6,762 6,902 6,734 

Pepper 5,838 5,292 4,466 3,164 1,904 714 

Squash 2,170 2,254 2,394 2,618 2,842 3,066 

Other Vegetables 9,100 9,170 8,876 8,190 7,504 6,860 

The data reveal distinct patterns in how net profit is affected by changes in the blending ratio of FW and TWW. For 

crops such as citrus, grapes, and bananas, there is a notable decline in net profit as the proportion of TWW increases. 

For instance, the net profit for citrus drops from US$ 8,666/ha at 0% TWW to US$ 5,152/ha at 100% TWW. This decline 

may be attributed to reduced crop quality and marketability associated with the use of TWW, highlighting the sensitivity 

of these crops to water quality changes. In contrast, crops like date palms, olives, wheat, and barley exhibit relatively 

stable net profit values across different blending scenarios. For example, the net profit for date palms shows minimal 

variation, remaining around 20,370 US$/ha at 0% TWW and slightly increasing to 20,790 US$/ha at 75% TWW. This 

stability suggests that these crops are less sensitive to changes in water quality or have lower associated input costs for 

irrigation. However, certain crops, including peppers and squash, experience significant decreases in net profit with 

increasing proportions of treated wastewater. The net profit for peppers declines sharply from 5,838 US$/ha at 0% TWW 

to 714 US$/ha at 100% TWW, indicating a high sensitivity to changes in water quality. This highlights the need for 

careful management and potential adjustments in cultivation practices for these sensitive crops to maintain profitability. 

Overall, the findings from the net profit analysis underscore the importance of considering both water quality and 

economic viability when implementing water management strategies in agriculture. While some crops demonstrate 

resilience to varying water quality, others require more meticulous approaches to ensure profitability. This analysis can 

inform decision-making processes related to crop selection, water resource management, and agricultural sustainability 

in regions facing water limitations. Table 7 shows the value added of water by increasing the bleeding percentage of 

TWW. 

Table 7. Net value added (US$/m3) by blending scenarios 

Scenarios S_BAU (0%) S_1 (10%) S_2 (25%) S_3 (50%) S_4 (75%) S_5 (100%) 

Citrus 0.81 0.78 0.73 0.63 0.55 0.46 

Palm 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 

Grapes 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.49 0.46 0.42 

Olive 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.17 

Banana 1.34 1.32 1.26 1.18 1.09 1.01 

Other trees 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.63 

Wheat 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.24 

Barley 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 

Other Field crop 1.83 1.81 1.76 1.69 1.64 1.57 

Tomatoes 1.76 1.78 1.79 1.82 1.85 1.82 

Pepper 2.62 2.51 2.32 2.04 1.78 1.53 

Squash 0.98 1.01 1.05 1.12 1.19 1.26 

Other Vegetables 2.35 2.37 2.30 2.13 1.97 1.81 

In Table 7, the net value added (in US$/m³) is presented for different crops under varying blending scenarios of TWW 

and FW. The results indicate that surface water has the highest average value for crops such as peppers, minor vegetable 

crops, and annual field crops, with a peak net value of 2.1 US$/m³. Conversely, citrus crops display a notable decline in 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

250 

 

net value added as the proportion of TWW increases, starting at 0.81 US$/m³ at 0% TWW and decreasing to 0.46 US$/m³ 

at 100% TWW. This trend highlights the sensitivity of citrus to the salinity levels commonly found in treated wastewater. 

In contrast, crops such as date palms, tomatoes, and olives show varying responses to increased blending ratios. For 

example, date palms exhibit a consistent increase in net value added from 1.36 US$/m³ to 1.41 US$/m³, suggesting a 

resilience to salinity and a beneficial response to nutrient content in TWW. 

Different crops respond uniquely to varying blending ratios of TWW and FW. Sensitive crops like citrus, bananas, 
grapes, and peppers reveal a decreasing trend in net value added as the TWW proportion increases, indicating their 

susceptibility to the quality of irrigation water. On the other hand, crops such as palms, olives, and certain vegetables 

demonstrate stable or increasing trends in net value added across different blending scenarios. Figure 5 shows the Net 
Profit (US$/ha) by Blending Scenarios illustrates the distinct economic responses of various crops to increasing TWW 

proportions in irrigation water. The results highlight the differentiated impact of water quality on crop profitability, 

underscoring the importance of crop selection in salinity-prone environments. Salt-sensitive crops—such as citrus, 
bananas, grapes, and peppers—exhibit a declining trend in net profit per hectare as the proportion of TWW increases, 

suggesting their vulnerability to salinity and water quality changes. This decline reflects reduced yields, potential 
physiological stress, and increased management costs associated with mitigating salt-related damage. 

 

Figure 5. Net profit (US$/ha) by blending scenarios 

This resilience suggests that these crops are better suited to tolerate the increased salinity associated with TWW. The 
differences in responses can be attributed to the specific nutrient requirements of each crop and their ability to utilize 

nutrients present in the irrigation water. The net value added serves as an indicator of the overall economic benefit or 

loss associated with using blended water for irrigation, emphasizing the importance of understanding crop-specific water 
quality needs for optimizing blending ratios. The farmers’ ability to pay (FAP) for water and the water profitability of 
one additional cubic meter of water by reusing wastewater by crop in the NJV is shown in Table 8. 

Table 8. The farmers’ ability to pay for water (US$/m3) 

Scenarios S_BAU (0%) S_1 (10%) S_2 (25%) S_3 (50%) S_4 (75%) S_5 (100%) 

Citrus 0.63 0.59 0.53 0.45 0.36 0.28 

Palm 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.05 

Grapes 0.28 0.27 0.24 0.20 0.15 0.13 

Olive 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 

Banana 0.78 0.77 0.71 0.63 0.55 0.46 

Other trees 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.45 

Wheat 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 

Barley 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 

Other Field crop 1.55 1.53 1.48 1.41 1.34 1.29 

Tomatoes 1.29 1.29 1.32 1.34 1.37 1.33 

Pepper 1.26 1.13 0.97 0.69 0.41 0.15 

Squash 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.94 

Other Vegetables 2.17 2.18 2.11 1.95 1.79 1.64 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

0% -10% -25% -50% -75% -100%

S_BAU S_1 S_2 S_3 S_4 S_5

U
S

$
/m

3

Citrus Palm Banana Tomatoes



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

251 

 

Table 8 delves into farmers' ability to pay for water, showcasing how this metric varies across different crops. The 

data reveals that farmers show the highest willingness to pay for water associated with tomatoes, peppers, and date 

palms, with values exceeding 0.70 US$/m³. In contrast, the ability to pay for olives and cereal crops is significantly 
lower, not surpassing 0.14 US$/m³. Moreover, as the blending ratio increases, the ability to pay for citrus crops declines 

sharply from 0.63 US$/m³ at 0% TWW to 0.28 US$/m³ at 100% TWW, reflecting their vulnerability to the quality of 

TWW. This decline in ability to pay is consistent with the observed decreases in net value added for sensitive crops, 

suggesting that certain crops may have an optimal TWW blending percentage that maximizes profitability. 

The analysis further highlights the resilience of crops such as wheat, barley, and other field crops, which maintain 

relatively consistent net profitability across different water mix percentages. This potential resilience indicates that these 

crops may be less affected by changes in water quality compared to more sensitive varieties. Understanding the 

underlying reasons for the extreme fluctuations in net profit for certain crops exposed to higher percentages of TWW 

can provide valuable insights into their sensitivity to water quality and the associated economic implications. Evaluating 

the trade-offs between water cost savings and crop profitability is essential for informed decision-making. Even if some 

crops demonstrate decreased profitability with increased TWW percentages, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis—

including factors like water expenses, market demand, and yield—might still favor their cultivation. Additionally, long-
term effects on soil quality due to increased use of treated water must be considered, as potential degradation could 

influence future agricultural productivity. 

Our findings align with studies such as Haddadin et al. [79], which estimated water values for different horticultural 

crops in Jordan, showing significant variability based on crop type and irrigation system. Additionally, the AFD study 

[80] using the Seasonal Agricultural Water Allocation System (SAWAS) model found shadow prices for water between 

0.34 US/m³ for blended water and 0.55 US/m³ for fresh water from the King Abdullah Canal (KAC), which aligns with 

our findings regarding farmers’ water valuation. 

Furthermore, the ISSP study [69, 81] estimated farmers' ability to pay for irrigation water using the Residual 

Valuation Approach. Our results confirm their findings that cash crops, such as cucumbers, have the highest water value 

(3.19 US/m³), while field crops like wheat and barley have significantly lower values (0.16 US/m³ and 0.07 US/m³, 

respectively). Additionally, Wolff et al. [82] assessed the economic value of water in Jordan, concluding that agricultural 

water values were much lower than those in the domestic sector (5.5-7 US/m³), reinforcing the economic rationale for 

differentiated water pricing. These comparisons provide a comprehensive contextual analysis of our findings, 

strengthening the validity of our results and their implications for water management policies in Jordan. 

The study highlights the significant impact of TWW irrigation on crop productivity and economic feasibility, 

emphasizing the importance of crop selection when integrating TWW into irrigation strategies. Salt-sensitive crops, such 

as citrus and peppers, exhibit a substantial decline in net profit as the proportion of TWW increases, whereas salt-tolerant 

crops like date palms and olives maintain stable profitability. The economic return per cubic meter of water varies 
significantly across different crops, with citrus and peppers experiencing reduced net value added under high TWW 

conditions, while date palms and tomatoes demonstrate resilience and even improved economic returns due to the 

nutrient content in TWW. These findings underscore the necessity for tailored irrigation policies that optimize water use 

efficiency while sustaining profitability. 

Farmers’ willingness to pay for irrigation water is closely linked to economic viability and crop sensitivity to water 

quality. High-value crops, such as tomatoes and peppers, demonstrate a higher ability to pay, whereas lower-value crops, 

including olives and cereals, necessitate access to lower-cost water sources like TWW to remain viable. As TWW 

proportions increase, the willingness to pay for water declines, particularly for citrus farmers, indicating the economic 

strain associated with increased salinity. To ensure economic sustainability, differentiated pricing strategies for irrigation 

water should be considered, aligning water costs with crop profitability. A tiered pricing model could incentivize efficient 

water use and encourage the cultivation of salt-tolerant crops in regions where freshwater resources are scarce. 

Long-term sustainability concerns arise due to the progressive accumulation of salinity in soils irrigated with TWW. 

Over time, salinity buildup threatens soil structure, leading to clay dispersion and modification, which impair water 

infiltration and root development. Furthermore, the presence of microbial contaminants necessitates stringent monitoring 

to prevent potential risks to agricultural productivity and public health. Regular soil and water quality assessments are 

essential to mitigate these risks, and adaptive irrigation strategies should be employed to manage salinity dynamically. 

The use of soil amendments, such as gypsum and organic matter, can aid in maintaining soil structure and mitigating the 

adverse effects of long-term TWW application. 

The findings of this study emphasize the need for strategic policy interventions to optimize TWW use in agriculture. 

Crop-specific water allocation policies should be developed to regulate the proportion of TWW used for different crops, 

ensuring that salt-sensitive crops receive blended water while salt-tolerant crops can utilize higher proportions of TWW. 

Investments in wastewater treatment infrastructure and blending stations are crucial for improving water quality and 
enabling dynamic mixing based on crop requirements. Additionally, farmer awareness and training programs should be 

implemented to educate agricultural stakeholders on best practices for irrigation, soil management, and salinity control. 

Providing incentives for adopting water-saving technologies, such as precision irrigation and soil amendments, can 

further enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of wastewater reuse. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

252 

 

Finally, it is imperative to assess the environmental impacts of using treated water on different crops and soils. This 

includes examining the potential accumulation of contaminants in crops and the changes in soil quality over time, which 

could affect both crop yield and safety. Overall, the insights gained from Tables 7 and 8 emphasize the necessity of a 

holistic approach to evaluating economic and environmental factors in water reuse practices and crop selection, ensuring 

that agricultural systems remain sustainable and productive in the long term. 

4. Conclusions 

The findings of this study underscore the significant potential of integrating TWW with fresh surface water for 

irrigation in the NJV, particularly in addressing the pressing issue of water scarcity. This approach not only conserves 

valuable freshwater resources but also offers economic benefits by reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers. The study 

highlights that TWW can be a sustainable alternative for irrigation in the Northern Jordan Valley if properly managed. 

While some crops suffer from increased salinity, salt-tolerant crops can thrive, offering economic benefits. Strategic 

irrigation practices, adjusted blending ratios, and targeted policies will be essential to maximize the economic viability 

and environmental sustainability of wastewater reuse. However, the effectiveness and impact of TWW on different crops 

are influenced by various factors, necessitating careful management.  

⚫ The use of TWW in irrigation can conserve substantial amounts of freshwater, which is crucial in the NJV where 

water resources are increasingly limited. The potential reduction in chemical fertilizer costs can further enhance 

the economic viability of this practice. 

⚫ The impact of TWW on crop productivity varies significantly. For instance, citrus crops experience a decline in 

net value added, decreasing from US$ 0.63/m³ at 0% TWW to US$ 0.28/m³ at 100% TWW, indicating their 

sensitivity to increased salinity. In contrast, crops such as date palms and tomatoes show enhanced profitability, 

with their net value added remaining stable or increasing under higher TWW blending ratios. 

⚫ Effective management practices, including the selection of salt-tolerant crop varieties and the implementation of 

appropriate irrigation techniques, can mitigate the negative effects of TWW. Regular monitoring of water quality, 

soil health, and crop performance is essential to ensure sustainable agricultural practices. 

⚫ Increase public awareness and education on proper wastewater management to foster acceptance, promote 

sustainable agriculture, and safeguard public health. 

⚫ Regular monitoring of sodium levels, microbial activity, and crop health is essential to prevent long-term soil 

degradation (salinity, sodicity, structural decline) and plant issues (toxicity, physiological stress). 

⚫ Economic performance indicators highlight that while salt-sensitive crops like peppers may experience a slight 

reduction in farm income due to salinity, salt-tolerant crops such as date palms and barley thrive with TWW, 

showing resilience and maintaining profitability. For example, date palms can achieve net value added of over 

US$ 1.40/m³ when blended appropriately. 

⚫ Future research should focus on optimizing irrigation efficiency and developing innovative water reuse strategies 

to enhance agricultural productivity. Exploring the long-term effects of TWW on soil quality and crop yield will 

be vital for ensuring the sustainability of this practice in the face of increasing food demand in the region. 

Additionally, establishing clear guidelines for crop selection based on salinity tolerance will help maximize the 

economic benefits of using TWW. 

5. Declarations  

5.1. Author Contributions 

Conceptualization, M.T. and E.K.; methodology, E.K.; software, A.S.; validation, A.J., T.Z., and M.J.; formal 

analysis, N.K. and E.K.; investigation, T.Q.; resources, A.J.; data curation, N.K.; writing—original draft preparation, 

E.K.; writing—review and editing, M.T. and T.Z.; visualization, A.S. and N.T.; supervision, M.J.; project 

administration, E.K.; funding acquisition, A.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the 

manuscript. 

5.2. Data Availability Statement 

The data presented in this study are available in the article. 

5.3. Funding 

This research was financially supported by Deanship of Academic Research at The University of Jordan grant Project 

No. 774/2024, and the Jordanian Higher Council for Science and Technology (HCST) under CYCLOLIVE ID 1997, 

PRIMA call II project. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

253 

 

5.4. Acknowledgments 

The authors extend their gratitude to the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and the Ministry of Agriculture in Jordan 

for providing the data used in this study. Additionally, they appreciate the valuable feedback and insights provided by 

the manuscript reviewers. 

5.5. Institutional Review Board Statement 

Not applicable.  

5.6. Informed Consent Statement 

Not applicable.  

5.7. Declaration of Competing Interest 

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have 

appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 

6. References 

[1] Hajjar, T., Mohtar, R. H., Abou Jaoude, L., & Yanni, S. F. (2025). Treated wastewater reuse for irrigation in a semi-arid region. 

Science of the Total Environment, 966, 178579. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178579. 

[2] Leonel, L. P., & Tonetti, A. L. (2021). Wastewater reuse for crop irrigation: Crop yield, soil and human health implications based 

on giardiasis epidemiology. Science of the Total Environment, 775. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145833. 

[3] Thiloka Edirisooriya, E. M. N., Wang, H., Banerjee, S., Longley, K., Wright, W., Mizuno, W., & Xu, P. (2024). Economic 

feasibility of developing alternative water supplies for agricultural irrigation. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 43, 

100987. doi:10.1016/j.coche.2023.100987. 

[4] Ait-Mouheb, N., Mayaux, P.-L., Mateo-Sagasta, J., Hartani, T., & Molle, B. (2020). Water reuse: A resource for Mediterranean 

agriculture. Water Resources in the Mediterranean Region, 107–136, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-

818086-0.00005-4 

[5] Aziz, R., Dragonetti, G., & Khadra, R. (2025). Integrating Field Data and Modeling for Sustainable Wastewater Irrigation 

Management: Case Studies from Jordan and Palestine. Water (Switzerland), 17(2), 228. doi:10.3390/w17020228. 

[6] Tawfik, M. H., Al-Zawaidah, H., Hoogesteger, J., Al-Zu’bi, M., Hellegers, P., Mateo-Sagasta, J., & Elmahdi, A. (2023). Shifting 

Waters: The Challenges of Transitioning from Freshwater to Treated Wastewater Irrigation in the Northern Jordan Valley. Water 

(Switzerland), 15(7), 1315. doi:10.3390/w15071315. 

[7] Qadir, M., Drechsel, P., Jiménez Cisneros, B., Kim, Y., Pramanik, A., Mehta, P., & Olaniyan, O. (2020). Global and regional 

potential of wastewater as a water, nutrient and energy source. Natural Resources Forum, 44(1), 40–51. doi:10.1111/1477-

8947.12187. 

[8] Abou Jaoude, L., Kamaleddine, F., Bou Said, R., Mohtar, R. H., Dbaibo, R., & Yanni, S. F. (2025). Treated wastewater reuse and 

its impact on soil properties and potato and corn growth. Science of the Total Environment, 958, 178130. 

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178130. 

[9] Al-Hazmi, H. E., Mohammadi, A., Hejna, A., Majtacz, J., Esmaeili, A., Habibzadeh, S., Saeb, M. R., Badawi, M., Lima, E. C., & 

Mąkinia, J. (2023). Wastewater reuse in agriculture: Prospects and challenges. Environmental Research, 236, 116711. 

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2023.116711. 

[10] Renai, L., Tozzi, F., Checchini, L., & Del Bubba, M. (2020). Impact of the use of treated wastewater for agricultural need: 

Behavior of organic micropollutants in soil, transfer to crops, and related risks. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse – Lessons 

Learned in Technological Developments and Management Issues, 103–135. doi:10.1016/bs.apmp.2020.07.008. 

[11] Hamdan, M., Abu-Awwad, A., & Abu-Madi, M. (2022). Willingness of farmers to use treated wastewater for irrigation in the 

West Bank, Palestine. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 38(3), 497–517. 

doi:10.1080/07900627.2021.1908236. 

[12] Urbano, V. R., Mendonça, T. G., Bastos, R. G., & Souza, C. F. (2017). Effects of treated wastewater irrigation on soil properties 

and lettuce yield. Agricultural Water Management, 181, 108–115. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2016.12.001. 

[13] Pathiranage, W. B., Bray, L., Jones, K., Redwine, N., Saralvarez, J., & D’Alessio, M. (2024). Perception and acceptance towards 

water reuse in the Southeast United States: A public survey. Science of the Total Environment, 908, 168224. 

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168224. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818086-0.00005-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818086-0.00005-4


HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

254 

 

[14] Tarawneh, A., Assad, S., Alkhalil, S., & Suleiman, A. (2024). Assessing acceptance of treated wastewater reuse in Jordan: A 

study of knowledge and preferences. Desalination and Water Treatment, 317, 100030. doi:10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100030. 

[15] Hlavaty, H. (2018). Water management initiative: Review of water scarcity ranking methodologies. A Report Prepared for Tetra 

Tech, USAID Water Management Initiative (WMI), Amman, Jordan. 

[16] MWI. (2016). Water Substitution and Reuse Policy. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Amman, Jordan. 

[17] MWI. (2020). Annual Report 2020. Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), Amman, Jordan. 

[18] DOS. (2024). Interactive Database. Department of Statistics (DOS), Amman, Jordan. Available online: https://dosweb.dos.gov.jo 

(accessed on January 2025). 

[19] Central Bank of Jordan. (2018). Monthly Statistical Bulletin. Central Bank of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. 

[20] MWI: National Water Strategy. (2016). National Water Strategy. Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), Amman, Jordan. 

[21] MWI. (2021). Water Budget for the Year 2020. Directorate of Strategic Planning, Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), 

Amman, Jordan. 

[22] Abdulla, F. A., Alfarra, A., Qdais, H. A., & Sonneveld, B. (2016). Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Jordan and 

Suitability for Reuse. Academia Journal of Environmental Science, 4(7), 111–117. doi:10.15413/ajes.2016.0305. 

[23] Abdulla, F., & Farahat, S. (2020). Impact of Climate Change on the Performance of Wastewater Treatment Plant: Case study 

Central Irbid WWTP (Jordan). Procedia Manufacturing, 44, 205–212. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.223. 

[24] Jordanian Standards 893/2021. (2021). Water – Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater: Technical Regulation. Jordan Standards and 

Metrology Organization, Amman, Jordan. 

[25] McCornick, P. G., Amal Hijazi, A. H., & Sheikh, B. (2004). From wastewater reuse to water reclamation: progression of water 

reuse standards in Jordan. In Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: Confronting the livelihood and environmental realities.  

CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom. 

[26] Hussein, I. A. J., Abu‐Sharar, T. M., & Mrayyan, B. (2005). Assessment of the application of treated wastewater and sewage 

sludge in productive agriculture: A case study from northern Jordan. Water and Environment Journal, 19(4), 394-403. 

doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2005.tb00578.x. 

[27] Tawfik, M. (2023). The Contested Nature of Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture Insights from Egypt and Jordan. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.  

[28] Hashem, M. S., & Qi, X. Bin. (2021). Treated wastewater irrigation-a review. Water (Switzerland), 13(11), 1527. 

doi:10.3390/w13111527. 

[29] WHO. (2013). Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater excreta and greywater. Vol. 1: Policy and Regulatory Aspects. World 

Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. 

[30] Alkhaza’leh, H., Abu-Awwad, A., & Alqinna, M. (2023). Effect of Irrigation with Treated Wastewater on Potatoes’ Yields, Soil 

Chemical, Physical and Microbial properties. Jordan Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 14(2), 135–145. 

[31] Hosney, H., Tawfik, M. H., Duker, A., & van der Steen, P. (2023). Prospects for treated wastewater reuse in agriculture in low- 

and middle-income countries: Systematic analysis and decision-making trees for diverse management approaches. 

Environmental Development, 46, 100849. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100849. 

[32] Shammout, M. A. W., Qtaishat, T., Rawabdeh, H., & Shatanawi, M. (2018). Improving water use efficiency under deficit 

irrigation in the Jordan Valley. Sustainability, 10(11), 4317. doi:10.3390/su10114317. 

[33] Janick, J. (2003). Horticultural Reviews (Volume 30). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, United States. 

[34] Abdel-Jabbar, S., Vallentin, A. & Boening-Zilkens, M. (2006). Guidelines for Reclaimed Water Irrigation in the Jordan Valley: 

Practical Recommendations for Farmers and Extension Workers. Jordan Valley Authority (JVA) and Deutsche Geselischaft für 

Technische Zusammenarbeit, Amman, Jordan. 

[35] Hasanuzzaman, M., & Tanveer, M. (2020). Salt and drought stress tolerance in plants: signaling networks and adaptive 

mechanisms. Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40277-8. 

[36] Chen, W., Lu, S., Jiao, W., Wang, M., & Chang, A. C. (2013). Reclaimed water: A safe irrigation water source? Environmental 

Development, 8(1), 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2013.04.003. 

[37] Carr, G. (2011). Water reuse for irrigated agriculture in Jordan: soil sustainability, perceptions and management. Water, Life and 

Civilisation, 415–428, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511975219.025. 

[38] Abdu, N., Abdulkadir, A., Agbenin, J. O., & Buerkert, A. (2011). Vertical distribution of heavy metals in wastewater-irrigated 

vegetable garden soils of three West African cities. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 89(3), 387–397. doi:10.1007/s10705-

010-9403-3. 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=1a9c224e5a61e56f&sxsrf=AHTn8zobvNVLeAh1qX-XwjeUFXoBTktTYA:1741815955196&q=Amman&si=APYL9bu1Sl4M4TWndGcDs6ZL5WJXWNYEL_kgEEwAe0iMZIocdXZoJuHESQpwXc3DjBpiVOm4TbZ33psba-R-AjPRMzHp6M7LyZ2ACfsjH-8opoY_PAEhbuGQC3-vWLudLFL9pgwiVDGNhWfMqgN0o4wmg6YtyX76Gl2EcQZ2LDdOkQad1pIMfqZ9-P7pr8SESFdQ0RsJLllc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir4ZeKwoWMAxVLhf0HHUGMARgQmxMoAHoECCYQAg
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=1a9c224e5a61e56f&sxsrf=AHTn8zobvNVLeAh1qX-XwjeUFXoBTktTYA:1741815955196&q=Amman&si=APYL9bu1Sl4M4TWndGcDs6ZL5WJXWNYEL_kgEEwAe0iMZIocdXZoJuHESQpwXc3DjBpiVOm4TbZ33psba-R-AjPRMzHp6M7LyZ2ACfsjH-8opoY_PAEhbuGQC3-vWLudLFL9pgwiVDGNhWfMqgN0o4wmg6YtyX76Gl2EcQZ2LDdOkQad1pIMfqZ9-P7pr8SESFdQ0RsJLllc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir4ZeKwoWMAxVLhf0HHUGMARgQmxMoAHoECCYQAg
https://dosweb.dos.gov.jo/
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=1a9c224e5a61e56f&sxsrf=AHTn8zobvNVLeAh1qX-XwjeUFXoBTktTYA:1741815955196&q=Amman&si=APYL9bu1Sl4M4TWndGcDs6ZL5WJXWNYEL_kgEEwAe0iMZIocdXZoJuHESQpwXc3DjBpiVOm4TbZ33psba-R-AjPRMzHp6M7LyZ2ACfsjH-8opoY_PAEhbuGQC3-vWLudLFL9pgwiVDGNhWfMqgN0o4wmg6YtyX76Gl2EcQZ2LDdOkQad1pIMfqZ9-P7pr8SESFdQ0RsJLllc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir4ZeKwoWMAxVLhf0HHUGMARgQmxMoAHoECCYQAg


HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

255 

 

[39] Abu Madi, M., Braadbaart, O., Al-Sa’ed, R., & Alaerts, G. (2003). Willingness of farmers to pay for reclaimed wastewater in 

Jordan and Tunisia. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3(4), 115–122. doi:10.2166/ws.2003.0052. 

[40] Choukr-Allah, R. (2010). Wastewater treatment and reuse. In Arab environment: water: sustainable management of a scarce 

resource. Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED), Beirut, Lebanon. 

[41] Qadir, M., Wichelns, D., Raschid-Sally, L., McCornick, P. G., Drechsel, P., Bahri, A., & Minhas, P. S. (2010). The challenges 

of wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 561–568. 

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.11.004. 

[42] Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). Decentralized Wastewater Management in Jordan. Federal 

Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, Bonn, Germany. 

[43] Salgot, M., Vergés, C., & Angelakis, A. N. (2003). Risk assessment in wastewater recycling and reuse. Water Supply, 3(4), 301–

309. doi:10.2166/ws.2003.0076. 

[44] Pedrero, F., Camposeo, S., Pace, B., Cefola, M., & Vivaldi, G. A. (2018). Use of reclaimed wastewater on fruit quality of 

nectarine in Southern Italy. Agricultural Water Management, 203, 186–192. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2018.01.029. 

[45] Carr, G., Potter, R. B., & Nortcliff, S. (2011). Water reuse for irrigation in Jordan: Perceptions of water quality among farmers. 

Agricultural Water Management, 98(5), 847-854. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.011. 

[46] Vallentin, A. (2006). Agricultural Use of Reclaimed Water - Experiences in Jordan. Water Practice and Technology, 1(2), 

wpt2006040. doi:10.2166/wpt.2006040. 

[47] Pescod, M. (1992). Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture - FAO irrigation and drainage paper 47. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 

[48] Maas, E. V. (1993). Salinity and citriculture. Tree Physiology, 12(2), 195–216. doi:10.1093/treephys/12.2.195. 

[49] Maas, E. V., & Hoffman, G. J. (1977). Crop Salt Tolerance—Current Assessment. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage 

Division, 103(2), 115–134. doi:10.1061/jrcea4.0001137. 

[50] Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1985). Water quality for agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome, Italy. 

[51] Grieve, C. M., Grattan, S. R., & Maas, E. V. (2011). Plant Salt Tolerance. Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management, 

405–459, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, United States. doi:10.1061/9780784411698.ch13. 

[52] Maranville, J. W., Baligar, V. C., Duncan, R. R., & Yohe, J. M. (1993). Proceedings of the Workshop on Adaptation of Plants 

to Soil Stresses. University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Lincoln, United States 

[53] Vila Verde, D. dos S., Mendes, M. I. de S., Nobre, L. V. da C., Souza, A. da S., dos Santos, K. C. F., & Soares Filho, W. dos S. 

(2024). In vitro tolerance of citrus rootstocks under saline stress. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 156(1), 13. 

doi:10.1007/s11240-023-02627-y. 

[54] Panigrahi, P. (2023). Impact of deficit irrigation on citrus production under a sub-humid climate: a case study. Water Supply, 

23(3), 1177–1188. doi:10.2166/ws.2023.074. 

[55] Oubelkacem, A., Scardigno, A., & Choukr-Allah, R. (2020). Treated Wastewater Reuse on Citrus in Morocco: Assessing the 

Economic Feasibility of Irrigation and Nutrient Management Strategies. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 

16(6), 898–909. doi:10.1002/ieam.4314. 

[56] Bilal, H. M., Zulfiqar, R., Adnan, M., Umer, M. S., Islam, H., Zaheer, H., ... & Ahmad, I. (2020). Impact of salinity on citrus 

production; A review. International Journal of Applied Research, 6(8), 173-176. 

[57] Levy, Y., & Syvertsen, J. (2003). Irrigation Water Quality and Salinity Effects in Citrus Trees. Horticultural Reviews, 30, 37–

82. doi:10.1002/9780470650837.ch2. 

[58] Simpson, C. R., Nelson, S. D., Melgar, J. C., Jifon, J., King, S. R., Schuster, G., & Volder, A. (2014). Growth response of grafted 

and ungrafted citrus trees to saline irrigation. Scientia Horticulturae, 169, 199–205. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2014.02.020. 

[59] Murkute, A. A., Sharma, S., & Singh, S. K. (2005). Citrus in terms of soil and water salinity: A review. Journal of Scientific and 

Industrial Research, 64(6), 393–402.  

[60] Al-yassin A. (2004). Influence of Salinity on Citrus: a Review Paper. J Central European Agriculture, 5(4), 263–272.  

[61] Cerda, A., Nieves, M., & Guillen, M. G. (1990). Salt tolerance of lemon trees as affected by rootstock. Irrigation Science, 11(4), 

245–249. doi:10.1007/BF00190540. 

[62] Greaser, G. & Harper, J. (1994). Agricultural alternatives: Enterprise budget analysis. Cooperative Extenstion, Penn State 

College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania, United States. 



HighTech and Innovation Journal         Vol. 6, No. 1, March, 2025 

256 

 

[63] Young, R. A., & Loomis, J. B. (2014). Determining the Economic Value of Water. Routledge, New York, United States. 

doi:10.4324/9780203784112. 

[64] Menezes, F. M., Capodeferro, M. W., Smiderle, J. J., & Guimarães, P. E. (2022). Estimating Efficient Water Prices in the Sao 

Marcos River Basin: A Residual Imputation Approach. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 148(5), 6022001. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0001538. 

[65] Hellegers, P., & Davidson, B. (2010). Determining the disaggregated economic value of irrigation water in the Musi sub-basin 

in India. Agricultural Water Management, 97(6), 933–938. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.01.026. 

[66] Speelman, S., Farolfi, S., Perret, S., D’Haese, L., & D’Haese, M. (2008). Irrigation water value at small-scale schemes: Evidence 

from the North West Province, South Africa. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(4), 621–633. 

doi:10.1080/07900620802224536. 

[67] Scheierling, S., Treguer, D. O., & Booker, J. F. (2016). Water Productivity in Agriculture: Looking for Water in the Agricultural 

Productivity and Efficiency Literature. Water Economics and Policy, 2(3), 1650007. doi:10.1142/S2382624X16500077. 

[68] Kiprop, J. K., Lagat, J. K., Mshenga, P., & Macharia, A. M. (2015). Determining the economic value of irrigation water in Kerio 

Valley Basin (Kenya) by residual value method. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 6(7), 102-108. 

[69] Ashfaq, M., Jabeen, S., & Baig, I. A. (2005). Estimation of the economic value of irrigation water. Journal of Agriculture & 

Social Sciences, 1(3), 270-272. 

[70] Tabieh, M., Al-Karablieh, E., Salman, A., Al-Qudah, H., Al-Rimawi, A., & Qtaishat, T. (2015). Farmers’ Ability to Pay for 

Irrigation Water in the Jordan Valley. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 07(15), 1157–1173. 

doi:10.4236/jwarp.2015.715095. 

[71] Al-Karablieh, E. K., Salman, A. Z., Al-Omari, A. S., Wolff, H. P., Al-Assa'd, T. A., Hunaiti, D. A., & Subah, A. M. (2012). 

Estimation of the economic value of irrigation water in Jordan. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2(5B), 487. 

[72] Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water 

requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. 300(9), D05109, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.  

[73] FAO (2021). CropWat 0.8. Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.  Available online: 

https://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/cropwat/en/ (accessed on January 2025). 

[74] Al-Bakri, J. T., Shawash, S., Ghanim, A., & Abdelkhaleq, R. (2016). Geospatial techniques for improved water management in 

Jordan. Water (Switzerland), 8(4), 132. doi:10.3390/w8040132. 

[75] van den Berg, C., & Al Nimer, S. K. H. A. (2016). The Cost of Irrigation Water in the Jordan Valley. World Bank Group, 

Washington, United States. doi:10.1596/k8697. 

[76] Al-Assa'd, T. A., Al-Karablieh, E. K., Salman, A. Z., & Wolff, H. P. (2011, October). Recognizing the Economic Value of 

Domestic Water in Jordan as a Way for Appropriate Setting of Water Pricing. Proceedings of the 1st Water and Environment 

International Conference, 26-29 October, 2011, Marrakech, Morocco. 

[77] Wolff, H. P., Al-Karablieh, E., Al-Assa’d, T., Subah, A., & Salman, A. Z. (2012). Jordan water demand management study: On 

behalf of the Jordanian Ministry of Water and Irrigation in cooperation with the French Development Agency (AFD). Water 

Science and Technology: Water Supply, 12(1), 38–44. doi:10.2166/ws.2011.114. 

[78] Salman, A., Al-Karablieh, E., & Haddadin, M. (2008). Limits of pricing policy in curtailing household water consumption under 

scarcity conditions. Water Policy, 10(3), 295–304. doi:10.2166/wp.2008.040. 

[79] Haddadin, M. J. (2006). Water resources in Jordan: evolving policies for development, the environment, and conflict resolution. 

Resources for the Future. Routledge, New York, United States. doi:10.4324/9781936331604. 

[80] IRMO. (2011). Water Demand Management in Mediterranean Countries: Thinking outside the water box! Croatian case study. 

Blue Plan Regional Activity Center UN, IRMO, Zagreb, Croatia 

[81] AFD. (2011). Jordan water demand management study. Water demand management in Mediterranean countries: Thinking 

outside the water box. Jordan case study. Diagnostic Report – Final. French Agency of Development, Amman, Jordan. 

[82] Wolff, H. P., Al-Karablieh, E., Al-Assa’d, T., Subah, A., & Salman, A. Z. (2012). Jordan water demand management study: on 

behalf of the Jordanian Ministry of Water and Irrigation in cooperation with the French Development Agency (AFD). Water 

Supply, 12(1), 38–44. doi:10.2166/ws.2011.114. 

https://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/cropwat/en/