water

Review
The Water Footprint of Global Food Production
Mesfin M. Mekonnen 1, * and Winnie Gerbens-Leenes 2
1 Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,
AL 35401, USA
2 Integrated Research on Energy, Environment and Society (IREES), University of Groningen, Nijenborg 6,
9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 26 July 2020; Accepted: 25 September 2020; Published: 26 September 2020


Abstract: Agricultural production is the main consumer of water. Future population growth, income
growth, and dietary shifts are expected to increase demand for water. The paper presents a brief
review of the water footprint of crop production and the sustainability of the blue water footprint.
The estimated global consumptive (green plus blue) water footprint ranges from 5938 to 8508 km3 /year.
The water footprint is projected to increase by as much as 22% due to climate change and land
use change by 2090. Approximately 57% of the global blue water footprint is shown to violate the
environmental flow requirements. This calls for action to improve the sustainability of water and
protect ecosystems that depend on it. Some of the measures include increasing water productivity,
setting benchmarks, setting caps on the water footprint per river basin, shifting the diets to food items
with low water requirements, and reducing food waste.

Keywords: agriculture; food production; sustainable diet; food waste; water sustainability

1. Introduction
Agriculture is by far the largest user of water. Agricultural production needs to increase by
almost 50% by 2050 compared to 2012 to meet the rising demand for food, fiber, and biofuels. This is
probably going to require more water. Most of the increase in agricultural production is expected
to occur in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where the agricultural output will need to more
than double by 2050 [1]. The expected increase in the rest of the world is around 30%. Agricultural
production has increased by 260% between 1961 and 2018 [2]. During the same period, the harvested
crop area increased by 47%, suggesting that 113% of the increase in production is linked to an increase
in crop yield. The increase in crop yield between 1961 and 1990 was 72%, but between 1991 and
2018, the increase was 43%, indicating that yields are now rising at a slower rate than in previous
decades [2]. The increase in crop yields was largely due to increased irrigation, improved crop varieties,
agrochemical inputs, and improved soil and water management. However, the increase in crop
productivity is not expected to continue indefinitely. In most parts of the world, yields for major crops
have begun to stagnate [3,4]. Climate change, soil degradation, and salinization of irrigated areas
will potentially limit future increases in production. Ray et al. [5] have shown that with the current
rate of yield increase, it is not possible to meet the expected food demand by 2050. They have argued
that some level of cropland expansion is needed to meet the food production deficits but at a higher
environmental cost to biodiversity.
The amount of food available for human consumption is affected by the allocation of crops to
other nonfood uses such as animal feed, bioenergy, and industrial uses. Globally, only 67% of the crop
produced (by mass) or 55% of the calories produced is available for direct human consumption [6].
The remaining crop was allocated to animal feed (24% by mass) and other industrial use, including

Water 2020, 12, 2696; doi:10.3390/w12102696 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 2696 2 of 12

bioenergy (9% by weight). Animal production is less efficient than crop production in converting feed
to human edible food [7–10]. As a result, only 12% of the 36% of the global calories used for animal
feed will ultimately contribute to human diets [6].
In 2011, the global water footprint (WF) of agricultural production was 8362 km3 /year (80% green,
11% blue, and 9% grey) [11]. World water demand is expected to increase by 20%–30% between 2010
and 2050 [12]. Demand for land and water resources has increased significantly, and these resources
are expected to be scarcer in the future. Efficient water management in agriculture is needed to meet
the growing demand for food and reduce poverty and hunger in a sustainable manner. The question
is how the world will feed the global population without further impacting the freshwater and
ecosystems. Several researchers have advocated for sustainable intensification [10,13–16], dietary
changes, and reduction of food waste and loss [17–19] to feed the world. A number of studies have
shown the value of virtual water trade in global water saving, reducing water scarcity, and it will
help to reduce the risk of water scarcity [20–23]. This paper provides a brief review of the WF of food
production, the water demand for different food products and diets, and the WF of food loss and
waste. Finally, the paper presents the unsustainability of the current crop production showing the
contribution of the main crops and countries toward the unsustainable blue WF.

2. The Water Footprint of Food

2.1. The Water Footprint of Different Food Products

Many global studies have assessed the water needed to produce crops at a high spatial
resolution [24–30]. Estimates of the global consumptive (green plus blue) WF of crop production range
from 5938 to 8508 km3 /year (Table 1). The differences in the WF estimates are due to differences in
the modeling approach, input data, including climate and cultivated area, the number of crops and
their specification, and the models used. In terms of product coverage, Mekonnen and Hoekstra [29]
explicitly estimated the WF of 146 individual crops, while the other authors included 20 or fewer
individual crops and grouped the rest of the crops into two or four major groups. Although the
estimated future global WF related to crop production under climate and land use change [31] was
within the range of the estimates for the current period, Huang, Hejazi, Tang, Vernon, Liu, Chen,
and Calvin [31], projected that the WF under climate and land use change will crease by as much as
22%. The increase in the WF is particularly large for the blue WF, which will increase by 70% by 2090,
due to expansion in global irrigated area.
About 86% of the consumptive WF of crop production was related to the production of crops
that can be used directly for human food consumption [29]. The other 14% was for fodder crops,
fiber, rubber, and tobacco. Some of the food crops, such as maize, rapeseed, palm oil fruit, soybeans,
and sunflower, are also used for biofuel production. This will lower the total WF that is used for
human food consumption.
The total WF related to the production of crops that are used for human consumption across
the world is shown in Figure 1. The WF is very large in the Indus River Basin, most parts of India,
Eastern China, the northeast of the US, the Nile delta in Egypt, the western part of Indonesia, and many
countries in Europe. The pie chart shows the major countries with a large share of the total global WF.
India, China, and the US account for 38% of the total global green, blue, and grey WF.
Water 2020, 12, 2696 3 of 12

Table 1. Estimates of the consumptive water footprint (WF) of global crop production.

Global Water Footprint Related to

Study Period Products Coverage Crop Production (km3 /year)
Green Blue Total
Hoekstra and
1997–2001 164 individual crops 5330 1060 6390
Chapagain [32]
20 individual crops
Siebert and Döll [24] 1998–2002 5505 1180 6685
and 6 major groups
17 individual crops
Liu and Yang [25] 1998–2002 4987 951 5938
and 5 major groups
Hanasaki, Inuzuka, Assumed 1 major
1985–1999 5550 1530 7080
Kanae and Oki [27] crop per grid
Fader, Gerten,
Water 2020, 12, xThammer,
FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
Heinke, Lotze-Campen, 1998–2002 12 crop functional types 6000 923 6923
LuchtAbout
and Cramer
86% of [28]
the consumptive WF of crop production was related to the production of crops
Mekonnen and
that can be used directly for1996–2005
human food consumption [29]. The other 5771
14% was for899
fodder crops, fiber,
146 individual crops 6670
Hoekstra
rubber, [29]
and tobacco. Some of the food crops, such as maize, rapeseed, palm oil fruit, soybeans, and
Rost, Gerten,are
sunflower, Bondeau,
also used for biofuel production. This will lower the total WF that is used for human
Lucht,
food Rohwer and
consumption. 1971–2000 12 crop functional types 7250 1 600–1258 7850–8508 1
Schaphoff [30]
The total WF related to the production of crops that are used for human consumption across the
Huang, Hejazi, Tang,
world is shown in Figure 1.1971–2000
The WF is very large in the Indus River Basin, 4887 most parts
1121of India, Eastern
6008
Vernon, Liu, Chen and
China,Calvin
the northeast 2071–2099 12 crop categories 5440 1909
of the US, the Nile delta in Egypt, the western part of Indonesia, and many 7349
[31]
countries in Europe. 1 Total
The pie chart shows
evapotranspiration the
from major including
cropland, countriesthewith a large period.
non-growing share of the total global
WF. India, China, and the US account for 38% of the total global green, blue, and grey WF.

Figure The
1. 1.
Figure Thetotal
total(green,
(green,blue,
blue,and
andgrey)
grey) WF of food
foodcrops
cropsproduction.
production.The
TheWFWFof of fiber
fiber crops,
crops, rubber,
rubber,
tobacco, and
tobacco, andfodder
foddercrops
cropsisisexcluded.
excluded. The
The pie chart
chart shows
showsthethecontribution
contributionofof countries
countries to to total
total WF.WF.
Data
Data source
source from
from Mekonnenand
Mekonnen andHoekstra
Hoekstra[29].
[29].

The first
The estimate
first estimateofofthe
theWF
WF(cubic
(cubic meter
meter per tonne
tonne ofof crop)
crop)for
for38
38crops
cropsfor
fora alarge
large number
number of of
countries
countries waswas donebybyHoekstra
done Hoekstraand andHung
Hung [33].
[33]. That study
study waswasfurther
furtherimproved
improvedbybyHoekstra
Hoekstra andand
Chapagain by including a large number of primary and processed crop and animal products
Chapagain by including a large number of primary and processed crop and animal products [32,34–36]. [32,34–
36]. Mekonnen
Mekonnen and Hoekstra
and Hoekstra [29] estimated
[29] estimated the green,
the green, blue,
blue, and andWF
grey grey WF meter
(cubic (cubic per
meter per of
tonne tonne of
product)
forproduct) for 354
354 primary andprimary and crop
processed processed crop The
products. products.
WF ofThethe WF of thecrops
primary primary
wascrops
donewas at 5 done at 5
arc-minute
arc-minute
spatial spatial
resolution. Inresolution. In 2012,and
2012, Mekonnen Mekonnen
Hoekstra and Hoekstra
[37] estimated[37]the
estimated the meter
WF (cubic WF (cubic meter of
per tonne
per tonne of product) for 106 animal products classifying the animal production into grazing, mixed,
and industrial systems. Together, these databases are a rich source of data for other WF studies.
Figure 2 presents the WF of selected crop and animal products in terms of physical weight (L/kg)
and nutritional energy content (L/kcal). The WF of food products differs significantly among crop
and animal products. On average, the WF of animal food products is larger than the WF of crop food
products with equivalent nutritional energy value. Especially, beef has a large WF, much larger than
Water 2020, 12, 2696 4 of 12

product) for 106 animal products classifying the animal production into grazing, mixed, and industrial
systems. Together, these databases are a rich source of data for other WF studies.
Figure 2 presents the WF of selected crop and animal products in terms of physical weight (L/kg)
and nutritional energy content (L/kcal). The WF of food products differs significantly among crop
and animal products. On average, the WF of animal food products is larger than the WF of crop food
products with equivalent nutritional energy value. Especially, beef has a large WF, much larger than
WFs of pork or chicken meat. However, animal feed of cows mainly consists of roughages from pasture
land
Water that
2020, are
12, xnot
FORhuman edible, while pigs and chickens consume crops from high-quality arable4 land
PEER REVIEW of 12
that humans can also eat [37,38].

Figure 2. The WF of selected crop and animal products: (a) WF in a liter of water per kg of product,
Figure 2. The WF of selected crop and animal products: (a) WF in a liter of water per kg of product,
(b) WF in a liter of water per kcal of nutritional energy contained in the product. Data source from
(b) WF in a liter of water per kcal of nutritional energy contained in the product. Data source from
Mekonnen and Hoekstra [29] and Mekonnen and Hoekstra [37].
Mekonnen and Hoekstra [29] and Mekonnen and Hoekstra [37].
The first attempt to systematically quantify the WF of aquaculture was made by Pahlow et al. [39].
The first
The study attempt
showed to the
that systematically
average WFquantify the WF offed
of commercially aquaculture was made
fish was 1974 by Pahlow
m3 /tonne et al.
(83% green,
[39].blue,
9% The study
and 8%showed
grey).that
Thethe average
study WFout
points of commercially
that aquafeedfed fish was 1974
production couldm place
3 /tonneconsiderable
(83% green,
9% blue, and 8% grey). The study points out that aquafeed production could
pressure on the water system in the form of water consumption and pollution. These pressures onplace considerable
pressure
the on thesystem
freshwater water system in the form
from aquafeed of watershould
production consumption
be takenandintopollution.
account inThese
orderpressures on
to develop
the freshwater
aquaculture system
more from aquafeed production should be taken into account in order to develop
sustainably.
aquaculture more sustainably.
2.2. The Water Footprint of Different Diets
2.2. The Water Footprint of Different Diets
In the next decades, the global demand for animal and processed food products is expected to
In the
increase next decades,
[16,40]. the global
These dietary shiftsdemand for animal
will influence and processed
the water, foodand
energy, land, products
carbonisfootprints
expected of
to
increaseThe
people. [16,40]. These
recent FAOdietary
and WHOshiftsreport
will influence the water, energy,
defines Sustainable Healthyland,
Dietsand “ . . . dietary
as carbon footprints of
patterns
people. The recent FAO and WHO report defines Sustainable Healthy Diets as “… dietary
that promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact;patterns
that promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact;
are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable” [41]. The document further
underlines the need for national food-based dietary guidelines to take the social, cultural, economic,
ecological, and environmental circumstances of the country into consideration.
A large number of studies suggested that a healthy diet with reduced amounts of animal-based
food products will have a corresponding benefit in terms of reducing environmental impacts and
Water 2020, 12, 2696 5 of 12

are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable” [41]. The document further
underlines the need for national food-based dietary guidelines to take the social, cultural, economic,
ecological, and environmental circumstances of the country into consideration.
A large number of studies suggested that a healthy diet with reduced amounts of animal-based
food products will have a corresponding benefit in terms of reducing environmental impacts and
resource use [18,40,42–49]. Hoekstra was among the first that studied the effect of diet on the WF of
consumption [42,43]. On average, the WF of animal food products is much larger than WFs of crop
food products with equivalent nutritional energy value, as shown by Mekonnen and Hoekstra [37].
The average WF per calorie for beef was 20 times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. Per unit of
protein, the WF of beef was 6 times larger than the WF of pulses. Therefore, replacing animal-based food
products with the nutritionally equivalent plant-based products will reduce the WF of consumption.
Hoekstra [43] showed that replacing meat-based diets by nutritionally equivalent plant-based diets
would reduce the overall WF of consumption by 36% in industrial countries and by 15% in developing
countries. Vanham, Mekonnen, and Hoekstra [47] showed that the WF of EU28 food consumption will
reduce by 23% by shifting from current to healthy and by 38% to vegetarian diets. The WF reduction
was mainly due to the reduction in the consumption of meat. In another similar study, Vanham,
Hoekstra, and Bidoglio [48] showed that replacing the current diets with vegetarian diets would
reduce the WF of consumption by 27% to 41% for different regions of EU28. In a more comprehensive
global study covering 140 countries, Kim, Santo, Scatterday, Fry, Synk, Cebron, Mekonnen, Hoekstra,
de Pee, Bloem, Neff, and Nachman [46] assessed the WF of 9 increasingly plant-based diets that aligned
with the criteria for a healthy diet. The result showed that plant-based diets with modest amounts of
low-food chain animals (i.e., forage fish, bivalve mollusks, insects) had relatively small WFs compared
to exclusively plant-based (vegan) diets. However, the magnitude of changes in the WF varies widely
from country to country due to variations in dietary changes, patterns of reference consumption, trends
in food imports, and the water intensity of food products. The findings underscore the importance of
trade, culture, and nutrition in the analysis of the WF of dietary patterns.
Healthy diets, however, do not always reduce the WF of consumption, especially if animal
products are replaced by foods such as fruits and pulses with relatively large WFs [44,50–52]. Dietary
recommendations should, therefore, aim to promote a healthy diet with minimal environmental
impacts. In addition, these studies underscore the importance of dietary management and improving
nutritional water productivity in order to decrease the pressure on water resources.

2.3. Water Lost with Food Loss and Waste

The world is paying more attention to the problem of food loss and waste, as reflected in Target
12.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which calls for the per capita global food waste
to be halved by 2030. FAO’s 2019 report on the State of Food and Agriculture was fully dedicated to
the issue of food loss and waste, further underpinning the importance of addressing the issue [53,54].
Approximately one-third by weight and one-quarter by calories of food produced globally for human
consumption was lost or wasted in 2009 [55,56].
Reducing food loss and waste will help to improve food security and alleviate the pressure
on natural resources that have been used to produce it. Kummu, de Moel, Porkka, Siebert, Varis,
and Ward [19] estimated that the WF of food loss and waste was 215 km3 /year or 12%–15% of the
global consumptive WF. Approximately three-quarters of the WF of food loss and waste is related to
cereals and fruits and vegetables. Mekonnen and Fulton [50] found that reducing food loss and waste
in the US food system was more effective than shifting from current to vegan or vegetarian diets to
reduce the WF of consumption.

3. From Quantification to Sustainability Assessment

Over the last few years, the assessment of WFs of national consumption and production has shown
significant improvement in terms of product coverage, spatial and temporal detail, and sustainability
Water 2020, 12, 2696 6 of 12

assessment [57]. Hoekstra and Hung [33] were the first to estimate the WF of national consumption
of 38 crops for a large number of countries. The second global assessment made a number of
improvements in terms of product coverage by including all crops and livestock products and other
refinements [32,36]. The third global study made further refinements by assessing the national water
footprints of production and consumption at a high spatial and temporal resolution [11,58]. In addition
to the global studies on the WF of crop production mentioned earlier [24–29,59], other national [60–64],
regional or basin [65,66], and global studies [28,67] have also traced and mapped the WF of consumption
per country, but none of these studies assessed the sustainability of the blue WF of consumption at the
place of production. The blue WF is unsustainable if it is above the available renewable blue water and
violates the environmental flow requirements.
Van Oel et al. [68] carried out the first assessment of the sustainability of the WF in relation to
Water consumption.
Dutch 2020, 12, x FOR PEER In REVIEW
a case study for France, Ercin et al. [69] assessed the sustainability of6 the of 12WF

of consumption of France, identifying priority basins and products. Hoekstra and Mekonnen [70]
of consumption of France, identifying priority basins and products. Hoekstra and Mekonnen [70]
assessed the sustainability and water-use efficiency of the UK’s WF of consumption. There are more
assessed the sustainability and water-use efficiency of the UK’s WF of consumption. There are more
recent works that have assessed the unsustainable blue WF of consumption for a single country or EU
recent works that have assessed the unsustainable blue WF of consumption for a single country or
as a whole [71,72]. A few studies have assessed the sustainability of the WF of crop production and
EU as a whole [71,72]. A few studies have assessed the sustainability of the WF of crop production
virtual water flows at a global level [73–75]. Other studies focused on sustainability of groundwater
and virtual water flows at a global level [73–75]. Other studies focused on sustainability of
use [76–80].
groundwater use [76–80].
km/year,
InIn
a more detailed global study, Mekonnen and Hoekstra [81] estimated 3
a more detailed global study, Mekonnen and Hoekstra [81] estimatedthat
that513
513km oror57%
3/year,

of57%
the of
blue WF, related to crop production, was unsustainable. Approximately
the blue WF, related to crop production, was unsustainable. Approximately 75% of the global 75% of the global
unsustainable
unsustainableblue blueWFWFis is
related
relatedtoto
the production
the productionofof only
only sixsix
crops
crops(Figure
(Figure 3a).
3a).These
Theseare
arewheat,
wheat,rice,
cotton, sugar cane,
rice, cotton, sugar fodder, and maize.
cane, fodder, Five Five
and maize. countries account
countries for about
account 70%70%
for about of the unsustainable
of the unsustainable blue
WF blue WF (Figure 3b), India, China, the US, Pakistan, and Iran. Of the total unsustainable blue WF,was
(Figure 3b), India, China, the US, Pakistan, and Iran. Of the total unsustainable blue WF, 90%
for90%
food and
was forfodder
food andcrops, while
fodder onlywhile
crops, 10% was
onlyfor
10%fiber
wascrops, rubber,
for fiber and
crops, tobacco.
rubber, andFigure
tobacco.4 shows
Figurethe
sustainable
4 shows the and unsustainable
sustainable blue WF for global
and unsustainable blue WFcereal production.
for global The unsustainable
cereal production. portion of the
The unsustainable
portion
blue WF isoflarge
the blue WF
in the is large
Indus andin the Indus
Ganges riverand Ganges
basins riverand
in India basins in India
Pakistan, inand Pakistan, in the
the north-eastern part
north-eastern part of China, and in the US. High Plains aquifer. The study
of China, and in the US. High Plains aquifer. The study also showed that some 25% of global blue also showed that some
25% can
water of global
be savedbluebywater can bethe
reducing saved
WFby ofreducing
each cropthe toWFtheof each crop to
benchmark the benchmark level.
level.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 3.3.The
Theunsustainable
unsustainable blue
blue WF
WF related
related to
to crop
cropproduction:
production:(a)(a)Contribution
Contribution of of
different crops
different crops
towardthe
toward theglobal
globalblue
blueunsustainable
unsustainable blue
blue WF
WF ofof crop
cropproduction;
production;(b)(b)location ofof
location thethe
unsustainable
unsustainable
blue
blue WFWFofofcrop
cropproduction.
production.Data
Data source
source from
from Mekonnen
Mekonnenand andHoekstra
Hoekstra[81]. [81].
 (a) (b)
Figure 3. The unsustainable blue WF related to crop production: (a) Contribution of different crops
toward the global blue unsustainable blue WF of crop production; (b) location of the unsustainable
Water 2020, 12,WF
blue 2696of crop production. Data source from Mekonnen and Hoekstra [81]. 7 of 12

Figure 4. The sustainable (green) and unsustainable (yellow to dark red) parts of the blue WF of global
Figure 4. The sustainable (green) and unsustainable (yellow to dark red) parts of the blue WF of global
cereals production. Data source from Mekonnen and Hoekstra [81].
cereals production. Data source from Mekonnen and Hoekstra [81].
4. Discussion
This paper provided a brief review of the WF of food production, the WF of different diets, and the
volume of water lost due to food loss and waste. It also showed that global crop production leads to
unsustainable use of blue water. Many regions of the world experience high water scarcity, depletion
of groundwater, and deterioration of water quality [78,82,83]. In addition, the global WF associated
with crop production is rapidly increasing, driven by growing demands for food and energy due to
population growth, dietary changes, and increased per capita consumption. Changes in climate and
land use will further put additional pressure on the available water resources [31].
We need to reduce the WF in many parts of the world to improve the sustainability of global water
use. No single measure is a panacea for the global water problem. A combination of technological,
behavioral, and policy instruments is needed. To this end, Hoekstra [84] has proposed three pillars
under wise water allocation: (i) Setting upper limits on the WF per river basin; (ii) setting WF
benchmarks per product; and (iii) fair WF shares per community. In a recent global study, Hogeboom
et al. [85] estimated monthly blue WF caps that can be used by humans for all river basins in the world.
In a case study for the Yellow River Basin, Zhuo et al. [86] assessed the role of reservoirs in the monthly
blue WF caps in the basin. Mekonnen and Hoekstra [87] have made the first attempt to set a WF
benchmark for all crops produced in the world. The study showed that the global consumptive WF
can be reduced by as much as 39% by lowering the WF of all crops to the respective WF benchmarks.
In a case study for wheat produced in China, Zhuo et al. [88] showed the value of setting the WF
benchmark for the different climate conditions. Improving the water productivity of crop production
through soil and water management, in combination with improved crop breeding, is one of the most
effective measures to reduce the WF and keep it below the benchmark level [89–91]. Changing the
pattern of consumption and reducing food losses and waste is another effective measure to reduce the
pressure on water systems [17–19,47,49,50,92]. Virtual water trade from water abundant and highly
productive regions to regions with limited water resources will help to reduce the risk of water scarcity
and trespassing the environmental flow requirement. Economic valuation also needs to be integrated
with the assessment of water footprints and virtual water flows in order to allocate water efficiently on
a global scale [93,94].

5. Conclusions
Agricultural production is the main consumer of water, especially the production of animal
foods, which have large WFs. Of the meat types, beef has the largest WF, WFs of pork and chicken
meat are smaller. In general, vegetarian diets have smaller WFs. However, some foods of vegetal
origin also have relatively large WFs, e.g., almonds or lentils. If more sustainable diets are promoted,
Water 2020, 12, 2696 8 of 12

it is important to take these WFs into account. For most foods, WFs are dominated by the green
WFs, while blue and grey WFs are much smaller. However, the blue and grey WFs have a large
environmental impact. Of the total global blue WF, 57% is unsustainable. This unsustainable footprint
is dominated by only six crops, wheat, rice, cotton, sugar cane, fodder, and maize, and are located in
only five countries, India, China, the US, Pakistan, and Iran. Population growth and dietary shifts, e.g.,
larger meat consumption, is expected to increase demand for water. The estimated global WF ranges
from 5938 to 8508 km3 /year, increasing by as much as 20% to 30% between 2010 and 2050. To improve
sustainable water use, Hoekstra has proposed (i) to set an upper limit on the WF per river basin; (ii) set
WF benchmarks per product; and (iii) define fair WF shares per community. In combination with
virtual water trade and economic valuation, these measures will help to avoid unsustainable water use.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M.M.; investigation, M.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation,

M.M.M.; writing—review and editing, W.G.-L.; visualization, M.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We dedicate this article to our esteemed friend Arjen Y. Hoekstra (1967–2019) who passed
away suddenly in 2019.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture-Trends and Challenges; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome,
Italy, 2017.
2. FAO. FAOSTAT Online Database; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020.
3. Grassini, P.; Eskridge, K.M.; Cassman, K.G. Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in
historical crop production trends. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Ray, D.K.; Ramankutty, N.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Recent patterns of crop yield growth and
stagnation. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 1293. Available online: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n12/
suppinfo/ncomms2296_S1.html (accessed on 13 April 2015). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production
by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Cassidy, E.S.; West, P.C.; Gerber, J.S.; Foley, J.A. Redefining agricultural yields: From tonnes to people
nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 034015. [CrossRef]
7. Mekonnen, M.M.; Neale, C.M.U.; Ray, C.; Erickson, G.E.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Water productivity in meat and milk
production in the USA from 1960 to 2016. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105084. [CrossRef]
8. Wirsenius, S. Efficiencies and biomass appropriation of food commodities on global and regional levels.
Agric. Syst. 2003, 77, 219–255. [CrossRef]
9. Bouwman, A.F.; Van der Hoek, K.W.; Eickhout, B.; Soenario, I. Exploring changes in world ruminant
production systems. Agric. Syst. 2005, 84, 121–153. [CrossRef]
10. Tilman, D.; Balzer, C.; Hill, J.; Befort, B.L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of
agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20260–20264. [CrossRef]
11. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109,
3232–3237. [CrossRef]
12. Burek, P.; Satoh, Y.; Fischer, G.; Kahil, M.T.; Scherzer, A.; Tramberend, S.; Nava, L.F.; Wada, Y.; Eisner, S.;
Flörke, M.; et al. Water Futures and Solution-Fast Track Initiative (Final Report); IIASA: Laxenburg, Austria,
2016.
13. Cassman, K.G.; Grassini, P. A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3,
262–268. [CrossRef]
14. Drechsel, P.; Heffer, P.; Magen, H.; Mikkelsen, R.; Wichelns, D. Managing Water and Fertilizer for Sustainable
Agricultural Intensification; International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA): Paris, France; International
Water Management Institute (IWMI): Colombo, Sri Lanka; International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI):
Peachtree Corners, GA, USA; International Potash Institute (IPI): Horgen, Switzerland, 2015.
Water 2020, 12, 2696 9 of 12

15. Garnett, T.; Appleby, M.C.; Balmford, A.; Bateman, I.J.; Benton, T.G.; Bloomer, P.; Burlingame, B.; Dawkins, M.;
Dolan, L.; Fraser, D.; et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science 2013, 341,
33–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.;
Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.;
O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342.
[CrossRef]
18. Jalava, M.; Guillaume, J.H.A.; Kummu, M.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Varis, O. Diet change and food loss
reduction: What is their combined impact on global water use and scarcity? Earth’s Future 2016, 4, 62–78.
[CrossRef]
19. Kummu, M.; de Moel, H.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Varis, O.; Ward, P.J. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food
supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 438,
477–489. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Liu, W.; Yang, H.; Liu, Y.; Kummu, M.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Liu, J.; Schulin, R. Water resources conservation and
nitrogen pollution reduction under global food trade and agricultural intensification. Sci. Total Environ. 2018,
633, 1591–1601. [CrossRef]
21. Liu, W.; Antonelli, M.; Kummu, M.; Zhao, X.; Wu, P.; Liu, J.; Zhuo, L.; Yang, H. Savings and losses of global
water resources in food-related virtual water trade. WIREs Water 2019, 6, e1320. [CrossRef]
22. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. A global and high-resolution assessment of the green, blue and grey water
footprint of wheat. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 14, 1259–1276. [CrossRef]
23. Chapagain, A.K.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Savenije, H.H.G. Water saving through international trade of agricultural
products. HESS 2006, 10, 455–468. [CrossRef]
24. Siebert, S.; Döll, P. Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop production as well as
potential production losses without irrigation. J. Hydrol. 2010, 384, 198–217. [CrossRef]
25. Liu, J.; Yang, H. Spatially explicit assessment of global consumptive water uses in cropland: Green and blue
water. J. Hydrol. 2010, 384, 187–197. [CrossRef]
26. Liu, J.; Zehnder, A.J.B.; Yang, H. Global consumptive water use for crop production: The importance of green
water and virtual water. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45. [CrossRef]
27. Hanasaki, N.; Inuzuka, T.; Kanae, S.; Oki, T. An estimation of global virtual water flow and sources of water
withdrawal for major crops and livestock products using a global hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 2010, 384,
232–244. [CrossRef]
28. Fader, M.; Gerten, D.; Thammer, M.; Heinke, J.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Lucht, W.; Cramer, W. Internal and
external green-blue agricultural water footprints of nations, and related water and land savings through
trade. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1641–1660. [CrossRef]
29. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products.
HESS 2011, 15, 1577–1600. [CrossRef]
30. Rost, S.; Gerten, D.; Bondeau, A.; Lucht, W.; Rohwer, J.; Schaphoff, S. Agricultural green and blue water
consumption and its influence on the global water system. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44. [CrossRef]
31. Huang, Z.; Hejazi, M.; Tang, Q.; Vernon, C.R.; Liu, Y.; Chen, M.; Calvin, K. Global agricultural green and blue
water consumption under future climate and land use changes. J. Hydrol. 2019, 574, 242–256. [CrossRef]
32. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources; Blackwell:
Oxford, UK, 2008.
33. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Hung, P.Q. Virtual Water Trade: A Quantification of Virtual Water Flows between Nations in
Relation to International Crop Trade, 11th ed.; IHE: Delft, The Netherlands, 2002.
34. Chapagain, A.K.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Water Footprints of Nations, 16th ed.; UNESCO-IHE: Delft, The Netherlands,
2004.
35. Chapagain, A.K.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Virtual Water Flows between Nations in Relation to Trade in Livestock and
Livestock Products; Value of Water Research Report Series No. 13; UNESCO-IHE: Delft, The Netherlands,
2003.
36. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their
consumption pattern. Water Resour. Manage. 2007, 21, 35–48. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 2696 10 of 12

37. Mekonnen, M.; Hoekstra, A. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems
2012, 15, 401–415. [CrossRef]
38. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef:
A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resour. Ind. 2013, 1–2, 25–36.
[CrossRef]
39. Pahlow, M.; van Oel, P.R.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Increasing pressure on freshwater resources due
to terrestrial feed ingredients for aquaculture production. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 536, 847–857. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
40. Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 2014, 515,
518–522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. FAO; WHO. Sustainable Healthy Diets-Guiding Principles; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);
World Health Organization (WHO): Rome, Italy, 2019.
42. Hoekstra, A.Y. The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy. Anim. Front. 2012, 2, 3–8. [CrossRef]
43. Hoekstra, A.Y. The water footprint of animal products. In The Meat Crisis: Developing More Sustainable
Production and Consumption; D’Silva, J., Webster, J., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 22–33.
44. Springmann, M.; Clark, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Wiebe, K.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Lassaletta, L.; de Vries, W.;
Vermeulen, S.J.; Herrero, M.; Carlson, K.M.; et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental
limits. Nature 2018, 562, 519–525. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.;
DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the anthropocene: The EAT-lancet commission on healthy diets from
sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [CrossRef]
46. Kim, B.F.; Santo, R.E.; Scatterday, A.P.; Fry, J.P.; Synk, C.M.; Cebron, S.R.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; de
Pee, S.; Bloem, M.W.; et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob. Environ.
Chang. 2020, 62, 101926. [CrossRef]
47. Vanham, D.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The water footprint of the EU for different diets. Ecol. Indic.
2013, 32, 1–8. [CrossRef]
48. Vanham, D.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Bidoglio, G. Potential water saving through changes in European diets. Environ.
Int. 2013, 61, 45–56. [CrossRef]
49. Jalava, M.; Kummu, M.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Varis, O. Diet change-a solution to reduce water use? Environ.
Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 074016. [CrossRef]
50. Mekonnen, M.M.; Fulton, J. The effect of diet changes and food loss reduction in reducing the water footprint
of an average American. Water Int. 2018, 43, 860–870. [CrossRef]
51. Tom, M.S.; Fischbeck, P.S.; Hendrickson, C.T. Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions
for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the USA. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2016,
36, 92–103. [CrossRef]
52. Harris, F.; Moss, C.; Joy, E.J.M.; Quinn, R.; Scheelbeek, P.F.D.; Dangour, A.D.; Green, R. The water footprint of
diets: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 11, 375–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction; Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2019.
54. Liu, J.; Lundqvist, J.; Weinberg, J.; Gustafsson, J. Food losses and waste in china and their implication for
water and land. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137–10144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Searchinger, T.; Waite, R.; Hanson, C.; Ranganathan, J. Creating a Sustainable Food Future’ Shows that It is
Possible-But There is no Silver Bullet; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
56. FAO. Global Food Losses and Food Waste-Extent, Causes and Prevention; Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011.
57. Hoekstra, A.Y. Water footprint assessment: Evolvement of a new research field. Water Resour. Manage. 2017,
31, 3061–3081. [CrossRef]
58. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. National Water Footprint Accounts: The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint
of Production and Consumption; UNESCO-IHE: Delft, The Netherlands, 2011.
59. Rost, S.; Gerten, D.; Heyder, U. Human alterations of the terrestrial water cycle through land management.
Adv. Geosci. 2008, 18, 43–50. [CrossRef]
60. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Water conservation through trade: The case of Kenya. Water Int. 2014, 39,
1–18. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 2696 11 of 12

61. Zhuo, L.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Consumptive water footprint and virtual water trade scenarios
for China — With a focus on crop production, consumption and trade. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 211–223.
[CrossRef]
62. Bulsink, F.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Booij, M.J. The water footprint of Indonesian provinces related to the consumption
of crop products. HESS 2010, 14, 119–128. [CrossRef]
63. Marston, L.; Ao, Y.; Konar, M.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. High-resolution water footprints of
production of the united states. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 2288–2316. [CrossRef]
64. Schyns, J.; Hamaideh, A.; Hoekstra, A.; Mekonnen, M.; Schyns, M. Mitigating the risk of extreme water
scarcity and dependency: The case of jordan. Water 2015, 7, 5705–5730. [CrossRef]
65. Mekonnen, M.; Pahlow, M.; Aldaya, M.; Zarate, E.; Hoekstra, A. Sustainability, efficiency and equitability
of water consumption and pollution in latin America and the caribbean. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2086–2112.
[CrossRef]
66. Zeitoun, M.; Allan, J.A.; Mohieldeen, Y. Virtual water ‘flows’ of the nile basin, 1998–2004: A first approximation
and implications for water security. Glob. Environ. Change 2010, 20, 229–242. [CrossRef]
67. Chen, Z.-M.; Chen, G.Q. Virtual water accounting for the globalized world economy: National water
footprint and international virtual water trade. Ecol. Indicators 2013, 28, 142–149. [CrossRef]
68. Van Oel, P.R.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The external water footprint of The Netherlands:
Geographically-explicit quantification and impact assessment. Ecolog. Econ. 2009, 69, 82–92. [CrossRef]
69. Ercin, A.E.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Sustainability of national consumption from a water resources
perspective: The case study for France. Ecolog. Econ. 2013, 88, 133–147. [CrossRef]
70. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. Imported water risk: The case of the UK. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11,
055002. [CrossRef]
71. Dolganova, I.; Mikosch, N.; Berger, M.; Núñez, M.; Müller-Frank, A.; Finkbeiner, M. The water footprint of
European agricultural imports: Hotspots in the context of water scarcity. Resources 2019, 8, 141. [CrossRef]
72. Finogenova, N.; Dolganova, I.; Berger, M.; Núñez, M.; Blizniukova, D.; Müller-Frank, A.; Finkbeiner, M.
Water footprint of German agricultural imports: Local impacts due to global trade flows in a fifteen-year
perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 521–529. [CrossRef]
73. Wang, R.; Zimmerman, J. Hybrid analysis of blue water consumption and water scarcity implications at
the global, national, and basin levels in an increasingly globalized world. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50,
5143–5153. [CrossRef]
74. Jägermeyr, J.; Pastor, A.; Biemans, H.; Gerten, D. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental
flows for sustainable development goals implementation. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15900. [CrossRef]
75. Rosa, L.; Chiarelli, D.D.; Tu, C.; Rulli, M.C.; D’Odorico, P. Global unsustainable virtual water flows in
agricultural trade. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 114001. [CrossRef]
76. Dalin, C.; Taniguchi, M.; Green, T.R. Unsustainable groundwater use for global food production and related
international trade. Glob. Sustain. 2019, 2, e12. [CrossRef]
77. Dalin, C.; Wada, Y.; Kastner, T.; Puma, M.J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade.
Nature 2017, 543, 700. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Wada, Y.; van Beek, L.P.H.; Bierkens, M.F.P. Nonsustainable groundwater sustaining irrigation: A global
assessment. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48, W00L06. [CrossRef]
79. Scanlon, B.R.; Faunt, C.C.; Longuevergne, L.; Reedy, R.C.; Alley, W.M.; McGuire, V.L.; McMahon, P.B.
Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the USA high plains and central valley. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 9320–9325. [CrossRef]
80. Marston, L.; Konar, M.; Cai, X.; Troy, T.J. Virtual groundwater transfers from overexploited aquifers in the
United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 8561–8566. [CrossRef]
81. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Sustainability of the blue water footprint of crops. Arizona department Water
Resour. 2020, 143, 103679. [CrossRef]
82. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2. [CrossRef]
83. Vörösmarty, C.J.; McIntyre, P.B.; Gessner, M.O.; Dudgeon, D.; Prusevich, A.; Green, P.; Glidden, S.; Bunn, S.E.;
Sullivan, C.A.; Liermann, C.R.; et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature
2010, 467, 555–561. [CrossRef]
84. Hoekstra, A.Y. The Water Footprint of Modern Consumer Society; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
Water 2020, 12, 2696 12 of 12

85. Hogeboom, R.J.; de Bruin, D.; Schyns, J.F.; Krol, M.S.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Capping human water footprints in the
world’s river basins. Earth’s Future 2020, 8, e2019EF001363. [CrossRef]
86. Zhuo, L.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Wu, P.; Zhao, X. Monthly blue water footprint caps in a river basin to achieve
sustainable water consumption: The role of reservoirs. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 891–899. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
87. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Water footprint benchmarks for crop production: A first global assessment.
Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 214–223. [CrossRef]
88. Zhuo, L.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Benchmark levels for the consumptive water footprint of crop
production for different environmental conditions: A case study for winter wheat in China. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2016, 20, 4547–4559. [CrossRef]
89. Chukalla, A.D.; Krol, M.S.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Green and blue water footprint reduction in irrigated agriculture:
Effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation strategies and mulching. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 4877–4891.
[CrossRef]
90. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Neale, C.M.U.; Ray, C.; Yang, H.S. Water productivity benchmarks:
The case of maize and soybean in Nebraska. Agric. Water Manage. 2020, 234, 106122. [CrossRef]
91. Hoekstra, A.Y. Sustainable, efficient, and equitable water use: The three pillars under wise freshwater
allocation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2014, 1, 31–40. [CrossRef]
92. West, P.C.; Gerber, J.S.; Engstrom, P.M.; Mueller, N.D.; Brauman, K.A.; Carlson, K.M.; Cassidy, E.S.;
Johnston, M.; MacDonald, G.K.; Ray, D.K.; et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the
environment. Science 2014, 345, 325–328. [CrossRef]
93. Lowe, B.H.; Oglethorpe, D.R.; Choudhary, S. Marrying unmarried literatures: The water footprint and
environmental (economic) valuation. Water 2018, 10, 1815. [CrossRef]
94. Cazcarro, I.; Bielsa, J. Blind spots in water management, and how natural sciences could be much more
relevant. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 10. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).