QUANTITATIVE MODELING OF THE WATER FOOTPRINT AND ENERGY CONTENT OF CROP
AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS CONSUMPTION IN TANZANIA
Felichesmi Selestini Lyakurwa
Mzumbe University, United Republic Of Tanzania
E-mail: fslyakurwa@mzumbe.ac.tz
lyakurwa@mail.dlut.edu.cn
Submission:
05/12/2013
Revision:
12/12/2013
Accept:
18/12/2013
ABSTRACT
A
comprehensive understanding of the link between water footprint and energy
content of crop and animal products is vitally important for the sound
management of water resources. In this study, I developed a mathematical
relationship between water content, and energy content of many crops and animal
products by using an improved LCA approach (i.e., water footprint concept). The
standard values of the water and energy content of crops and animal products
were obtained from the databases of Agricultural Research Service, UNESCO
Institute for water education and Food, and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. The water footprint approach was applied to analyze the
relationship between water requirement and the energy of content of crop and
animal products, in which the uncertainty and sensitivity was evaluated by
Monte Carlo simulation technique that is contained in the Oracle Crystal Ball
Fusion Edition v11.1.1.3.00. The results revealed significant water saving due
to changes in food consumption pattern (i.e., from consumption of more meat than
vegetables). The production of 1kcal of crop and animal products requires about
98% of green, 4.8% blue water and 0.4% of gray water. In which changes in
consumption pattern gave annual blue water saving of about 1605 Mm3
that is equivalent to 41.30m3/capita, extremely greater than the
standard drinking water requirement for the whole population. Moreover, the
projected results indicated, triple increase of dietary water requirement from
30.9 mm3 in 2005 to 108 mm3 by 2050. It was also inferred
that, Tanzania has a positive virtual water balance of crop and animal products
consumption with net virtual water import of 9.1 Mm3 that is the
contribution margin to the water scarcity alleviation strategy. Therefore, this
relationship of water footprint and energy content of crops and animal products
can be used by water resource experts for sustainable freshwater and food
supply.
Keywords:
Water footprint, energy content, human health, crop, animal products
1.
INTRODUCTION
A
large quantity of crop and animal products whose production process contributes
greatly to the global climate change and freshwater scarcity are produced and
consumed daily (CLEVELAND, et al., 2011; VANHAM, et al., 2013; LAM, et al.,
2013). The introduction of various agriculture methods including the
application of pesticides and herbicides as well as the large consumption of
energy intensive food staffs contributes greatly to the current environmental
degradations (MUELLER, et al., 2012; GAN, et al., 2012; REEMTSMA,
et al., 2013).
Agricultural
production contributes about 85% of the global freshwater use and the amount of
water consumption is projected to double by 2050 (PFISTER, et al., 2011). With
the increased freshwater consumption, the
world is placed at risk of climate change which is the global issue of
environmental concern resulting in the possible deterioration of human health
and quality of ecosystems (BOULAY, et al., 2011; HELLER; KEOLEIAN, 2011;
KOEHLER, 2008).
Likewise,
significant environmental impacts that are resultant from the animal production
have been realized in many parts of the world. For example livestock raised for
meat production in the U.S. contributes to 8% of global freshwater consumption
and global green-house gas production of about 18% which the numbers are
expected to double by 2050 (TUOMISTO; MATTOS, 2011; FAO, 2006).
Considering
the environmental impacts of agricultural production, hence developing a
precise link between water requirements and energy content of crop and animal
products is vitally important. Among various life cycle assessment (LCA)
approaches, the water footprint approach is widely applied to the assessment of
water content of crop and animal products (BOULAY, et al., 2011; JIAO, et al.,
2013).
Water footprint analysis is the most advanced LCA concept
which characterizes freshwater requirements throughout the product life cycle
stages (ZHAO, et al., 2010; STOESSEL, et al., 2012; NÚÑEZ,
et al., 2013). In LCA studies more
emphasis is given to the characterization of environmental impacts that
resulted from freshwater unavailability, while little emphasis is given to the
estimation of freshwater requirements (BOULAY, et al.,
2011; RIDOUTT; PFISTER, 2010; PFISTER,
et al., 2009).
With regard to the sustainable consumption of food
products, water footprint studies are booming for the fruits
and vegetables (STOESSEL et al. 2012), agriculture products (CAZCARRO, et al.,
2012; HELLER, et al., 2013), corn grain, stover, wheat straw and soybeans (CHIU;
WU, 2012), agriculture and industrial products (HOEKSTRA; MEKONNEN, 2012; Chico et al. 2013), roses, carnation, alstroemeria, lisianthus, statice
and cut foliage flowers (MEKONNEN, et al., 2012)
and animal products (TUOMISTO; MATTOS 2011).
However,
no regard is given so far to assess the connection between water footprint and
energy content of the crop and animal products. Usually freshwater consumption
is computed by using the water GAP2 global
model or the methodology that was proposed by Hoekstra et al. (BOULAY, et al.,
2011; PFISTER, et al., 2011; TUOMISTO; MATTOS, 2011; PFISTER, et al., 2009; HOEKSTRA, et al., 2009).
The
former involves costive software which may be only relevant for global studies
while the latter is time consuming and is subject to many approximations which
are caused by limitations of data. Therefore, this study utilized the
scientific experimental data for gray, green and blue water footprints of crop
and animal products, which was developed by Makonnen and Hoekstra further
followed the methodology proposed by Hoekstra et al. in the computation of the
water footprint of crop and animal products consumption (MEKONNEN; HOEKSTRA,
2010). Food energy is the most
essential nutrient for the maintenance of human health (POPKIN, et al., 2010; PREMA,
2013).
Moreover, freshwater requirements and human health have
varied relationships including water required for drinking, hygiene and food
energy production (MOE; RHEINGANS, 2006; SAWKA, et al., 2005; GLEICK, 1996). It
is important for policy makers to understand the association between food
energy and freshwater requirements from the aspect of human health and
effective implementation of the integrated water resources management. With
integrated water resource management the contradiction between water
requirements and supply can be resolved (ROY, et al., 2012; WUTICH,
et al., 2012, LIU, et al., 2013).
Tanzania
as with other developing countries around the world, and the case for this
study is experiencing freshwater scarcity while agricultural production is
contributing about 70% of the national freshwater consumption (NBS, 2012; PACHPUTE, 2010; MAKURIRA,
et al., 2009; MUTIRO, et al., 2006). The
government of Tanzania is making great efforts to ensure a sustainable supply
of food and water including implementation of a virtual water strategy (YANG,
et al., 2012; HOEKSTRA; MEKONNEN, 2011; ZHAO, et al., 2010; URT, 1992).
These
efforts evoked questions as to what extent do developing countries including Tanzania
have benefited from the strategy, and how do changes in food
consumption pattern affect water scarcity? These questions are important to the
country’s policy evaluation. Therefore, the objectives of the present study are to, (1) quantify minimum food energy and drinking water
requirements for the healthy population in the country (2) assess the water
footprint and energy content of the crop and animal products consumption (3) to
model scenarios for the water footprint and energy change due to variations in
consumption patterns and (4) determine virtual water transfers from the crop
and animal products consumption in Tanzania.
2.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
2.1.
Approach
This
study has examined the association between blue, green and gray water
footprints in relation with the energy content of crop and animal products
consumption in Tanzania. Water footprints analysis, blue, green and gray water
requirements for the production of crop and animal products were quantified.
Blue water is defined as the volume of water the ground and surface water
bodies available for abstraction, green water is the volume of water
evaporation from the soil while gray water refers to the volume of water needed
to dilute pollutants which are released into a natural water body (HOEKSTRA; MEKONNEN,
2012; BERGER, et al., 2012; BAYART, et al., 2010).
In the present study, the
gray and green water footprints were not involved in the scenario analysis and
determination of the virtual water transfers since they have no significant
contribution to the environmental impacts from freshwater consumption (RIDOUTT; PFISTER, 2010;
PFISTER, et al., 2009; CANALS, et al.,
2009). Therefore, this study utilized blue water to explore the link
between freshwater and energy requirements in the context of freshwater
scarcity.
2.1.1. Water footprint and energy value connection
Water footprint analysis method was used to
evaluate the water footprint of crop and animal products consumption in
Tanzania. The energy value and water footprint of crop (340) and animal (145)
products were computed based on the experimental data published by the U.S.
Agricultural Research Service, UNESCO Institute for water education and Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2012; USDA, 2011; MEKONNEN; HOEKSTRA, 2010).
The
uncertainty between water footprint and energy content of crop and animal
products was considered by Monte Carlos’ simulation performed in the Oracle
Crystal Ball Fusion Edition v11.1.1.3.00. The food energy value and water
footprint of crop and animal products consumption is presented by Equation 1
and 2.
(1)
(2)
Where
represents
total food (Gcal), presents water
footprint of products (Mm3), Q
is the quantity of products (Mkg), is energy content of the products (kcal/kg), is the water content of products (m3/kg), i is the product type and n is the number of products.
2.1.2. Water footprint
and energy value scenario analysis
Household
changes in consumption of the crop and animal products have significant
reduction of water and carbon footprint (RIDOUTT, et al., 2012; STOESSEL, et
al., 2012; CAZCARRO, et al., 2012).
The
scenario analysis was performed to model water footprint and energy change
resulted from the variations in consumption pattern of crop and animal
products. Crop and animal products (485) consumed in Tanzania were grouped into
seven classes including cereals, vegetable and melons, fruits and nuts, oil
seed crops, beverage and other crops, and meat, milk and eggs according to the
products’ energy content and the corresponding water footprint. Four
strategically selected percentage values were selected to test best policy
options for implementation based on freshwater saving and conservation of
minimum food energy requirements (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Water footprint and food energy of crop and
animal products
2.1.3. Virtual water
transfers of crop and animal products
The
knowledge about water footprint and virtual water strategy is vital for
effective implementation of the national water policy. Whereby, water footprint
refers to the water embodied into the products while virtual water is the
volume of freshwater that is used to produce goods and services consumed by
inhabitants of certain area (YANG, et al., 2012; ZHAO, et al., 2010).
The
blue, virtual water transfers of Tanzania for 2005 was computed based on the
export and import data of crop and animal products provided by FAO food balance
sheet and experimental data for blue, gray and green water footprint provided
by UNESCO Institute for water education (FAO, 2012; MEKONNEN; HOEKSTRA, 2010).
Net-virtual water import is given by Equation 3.
(3)
Where
represents net virtual transfers of the product (Mm3),
Q is products import and export
(Mkg), is water footprint of the product
(m3/kg) and i is the product type.
2.1.4. Dietary water and food energy requirement
All
people have equal rights of access to safe drinking water and food in a quantity that meet their basic needs despite of the
ages, development and economic situations (SAWKA, et al., 2005).
According
to WHO (2012) about 605
million people in the world is
expected to live without access
to safe drinking water in 2015 accompanied by millions of
people at risk of suffering from water related diseases. For Tanzanian, the total
drinking water and food energy requirements in 2005 and projections for 2050
for healthy population was modeled using standardized data by World Health
Organization and the population pyramid of Tanzania (POPKIN, et al., 2010; U.S.
CENSUS BUREAU, 2003; FAO, 2001).
The
drinking water and food energy requirements
are given by Equation 4 and 5.
(4)
(5)
Where
and are the drinking water requirement (Mm3) and total food energy requirements (Gcal), p
represents population (M), is the standard
drinking water requirement (m3),
is standard food energy requirement (kcal), m & f represents male and female, i,
j are ages (0, 1, 2,3, . . . . . . .
. . 80+ years).
3.
RESULTS
3.1.
Water footprint
and energy value connection
The
energy supply of crops and animal products consumption in Tanzania is
determined by availability of green water than the blue and gray water. A
kilocalorie of the product consumption is produced by 98.8% of green water,
4.8% blue water and 0.4% of gray water. The energy intensity of the blue water
used for crop and animal products was found to be 28055 kcal/m3 for
cereals, 14433 kcal/m3 for vegetable and melons 7102 kcal/m3
for fruits and nuts, 21149 kcal/m3 for oil seed crops, 79365 kcal/m3
for root/tuber crops, 16693 kcal/m3 for beverage and other crops,
6973 kcal/m3 for meat, eggs and milk (Figure 2).
Figure
2: Blue, Green and gray water footprint of food and their energy value
Figure 2 above represent three water types i.e. blue,
green and gray which are essential for generation of the unit value of food
energy.
3.2.
Drinking water and food energy requirement
Further
environmental impacts especially on human health are expected due to triple
increase of freshwater and food energy requirement in Tanzania by 2050 (Figure
3). Dietary drinking water requirements are predicted to be 108 Mm3
by 2050 compared to 30.9 Mm3 in 2005, while energy requirement
expected to be 91566 Tcal by 2050 compared to 27903 Tcal
in 2005. This study also realized food energy supply by crop and animal
products to be relatively higher than required food energy in Tanzania though
the country is experiencing water and food insecurity (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Status of water and food energy requirements
in Tanzania for 2005 - 2050
3.3. Virtual water transfers of
crop and animal products
Tanzania
had a positive virtual water balance, with a net virtual water import of 9.1 Mm3
in 2005. The gross virtual water import was 107.8 Mm3 with most
virtual water import from oil seed and other crops while gross virtual water
export was about 61.71 Mm3 with more exports on fruits and nuts
(Table 1).
Freshwater
intensity of crop, animal and their derived products consumption is 18 kg/m3
for cereals, 10 kg/m3 for vegetables and melons, 4 kg/m3
for fruits and nuts, 1 kg/m3 for oil seed and crops, 3 kg/m3
for beverage and other crops, 3 kg/m3 for meat, eggs and milk and no
blue water use by root/tuber crops.
Table 1: Average
Virtual Water Transfer of Crops and Animal Products in Tanzania
Product
class |
Products (MKg) |
Virtual water (Mm3) |
Net-virtual water |
||
|
Import |
Export |
Import |
Export |
import (Mm3) |
650 |
129 |
34.32 |
7.41 |
26.90 |
|
Vegetables
& melons |
5 |
8 |
0.38 |
0.56 |
- 0.18 |
Fruits
& nuts |
19 |
34 |
1.90 |
76.4 |
-74.49 |
Oil
seed & other crops |
267 |
46 |
61.71 |
2.83 |
58.87 |
Root/tuber
crops |
0 |
5 |
0.0 |
0.08 |
- 0.08 |
Beverage
& other crops |
13 |
86 |
3.31 |
10.95 |
- 7.64 |
Meat,
eggs & milk |
20 |
2 |
6.26 |
0.63 |
5.62 |
3.4. Water footprint and energy
value scenario analysis
Modeling
scenarios helps to capture the relationship between food nutrition values and
freshwater requirements to produce specific crop and animal products which have
big contributions to country’s status of water scarcity. Significant variations
in freshwater saving and energy supply were obtained through changes in
consumption pattern and virtual water import/export strategy (Figure 4).
Figure
4: Scenario analysis to model freshwater change caused by variations in
consumption pattern
Dietary
change from calorie and meat intensive to standardized consumption demonstrated
possible annual freshwater and food energy saving of about 1605 Mm3
and 6630Tcal respectively (Table 2).
Table 2. Summary
of the Scenario Analysis Results
No. |
Description of the
scenario performance |
Water saving (Mm3) |
Energy saving (Tcal) |
Net virtual water
transfer (Mm3) |
0 |
The actual food consumption baseline for comparison of freshwater
change. |
baseline |
baseline |
baseline |
1 |
25% replacement of animal products consumption with vegetable
products. |
679 |
3605 |
9.0 |
2 |
50% replacement of bovine meat consumption with poultry products. |
89* |
247 |
7.5 |
3 |
50% replacement of bovine meat with vegetable and poultry products
consumption. |
154 |
189* |
9.2 |
4 |
50% replacement of meat consumption with vegetable products. |
144 |
63 |
9.1 |
5 |
100% replacement of animal products consumption with vegetable
products. |
688 |
3506 |
3.8 |
6 |
25% replacement of wheat and rice consumption with fruits. |
28 |
602* |
9.0 |
*More freshwater and
energy required due to pattern change, transfer refers to import/export
4.
DISCUSSION
Understanding
the connection between freshwater and energy content of food consumption is
essential for sustainable water resources management. Comparing blue water footprint with gray and green water
footprint, green water of crop and animal products consumption is the greatest
but no significant competition to its uses. The absolute increase in the
consumption of the products will change freshwater scarcity due to increased
blue water requirements for the agriculture.
With
consideration of the energy intensity of food class, more emphasis should be
placed on consumption of products with high energy yields including root/tuber
crops (79365 kcal/m3), cereals (28055 kcal/m3), oil seed
crops (21149 kcal/m3) and discourage excessive consumption of meat,
eggs and milk (6973 kcal/m3) which has intensive water requirements
with low energy yield (Figure 2). The same strategy was proposed by Cazcarro
and Chóliz (2012) to reduce blue water requirements for agriculture production.
The
observed changes in consumption pattern of crop and animal products in Tanzania
resulted into annual freshwater saving of 1605 Mm3 which is about
41.307 m3/capita and greater than drinking water requirement; with
energy saving of 6630 Tcal equivalent to 170 Mcal/capita. Similar results with
freshwater saving achieved (RENAULT; WALLENDER, 2000) scenario analysis study
case of California.
Government
efforts to discourage consumption of animal products and more emphasis on
vegetables are the best policy options for sustainable freshwater supply (Table
1). Change in consumption from bovine meat to poultry products results into
increased water requirement for the food energy which is to be discouraged.
While increasing consumption of fruits to replace rice has significant
freshwater saving with conservation of the food energy needed. This signifies
household’s dietary shift in Tanzania provides an opportunity for freshwater
scarcity reduction with adequate supply of food.
Tanzania
similar to other countries of the world alleviates freshwater scarcity through
virtual water transfer of crop and animal products. There is partial
implementation of virtual water strategy indicated by importation of both water
intensive animal products (3 kg/m3) and oil seed crops (1 kg/m3)
and less water intensive cereal products
(18kg/m3) to compensate freshwater and food energy scarcity. The
importation of relatively water intensive products including fruit and nuts (4
kg/m3), beverage and other crops (3 kg/m3) was observed,
similar results with Ma et al., (2006) the case of China. The condition of
freshwater scarcity and nutrients supply would be more severe in the absence of
virtual water transfers within and outside Tanzania.
Moreover,
predicted increase in water and energy requirement for healthy Tanzanian
population for 2050 will ultimately affect freshwater needed for various
utilizations including agriculture, hydropower, domestic and industry. This
indicates human population to be an essential variable to be controlled to
sustainable water and food supply. The
results comprehended with ESOMAR (2011) and Kinabo (2003) who argued economic
development of the developing and developed countries to be accompanied with
dietary change in consumption pattern to more meat than traditional food, which
is currently observed in Tanzania compared to few years ago.
5.
CONCLUSION
The
association between freshwater and food energy content of crop and animal
products consumption in Tanzania has been evaluated. The blue, green and gray
water types are all vitally important for the adequate food energy supply
though with varied contributions to environmental impacts caused by freshwater
consumptive uses in which knowledge about blue water requirement is most
important.
Population
dietary change in consumption pattern from animal products towards consumption
of vegetables and effective application of virtual water strategy via
importation of freshwater intensive
products and exportation of less water intensive products were observed to have
significant freshwater saving ultimately leading into reduced water scarcity in
Tanzania. This calls the need for immediate investigation of the concerned
policies to exploit more benefits of the dietary shifts and practicing virtual
water strategy in the country.
REFERENCES
BAYART,
B. J.; BULLE, C.; DESCHĚNES, L.; MARGANI, M.; PFISTER, S.; VINCE, F.; KOEHLER,
A. (2010) A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess, v. 15, n. 15, p. 439-453.
BERGER,
M.; WARSEN, J.; KRINKE, S.; BACH, V.; FINKBEINER, M. (2012) Water footprint of
European cars: Potential impact of water consumption along automobile life
cycles. Environ. Sci. Technol., v. 46, n. 7, p.
409-4099.
BOULAY,
A. M.; BULLE, C.; BAYART, J. B.; DESCHENES, L.; MARGNI, M. (2011) Regional
characterization of freshwater use in life cycle assessment: Modeling direct
human health impacts. Environment Sci.
Technol., v. 45, n. 20, p. 8948-8957.
CANALS, L. I. M.; CHENOWETH, J.; CHAPAGAIN, A.; ORR, S.; ANTÓN, A.;
CLIFT, R. (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I-inventory
modeling and characterization factors for the main impact pathways. International Journal Life Cycle Assess,
v. 14, n. 1, p. 28-42.
CAZCARRO,
I.; DUARTE, R.; CHÓLIZ, S. J. (2012) Water flows in
the Spanish economy: Agri-food sectors, trade and households diets in an
input-output framework. Environ. Sci.
Technol., v. 46, n. 12, p. 6530-6538.
Chico, D.; Aldaya, M. M.; Garrido, A.
(2013) A water footprint assessment of a pair of jeans: the influence of
agricultural policies on the sustainability of consumer products. Journal of Cleaner Production v57,
p238-248.
CHIU,
W. Y.; WU, M. (2012) Assessing county level water footprints of different cellulosic
biofuel feedstock pathways. Environ.
Sci. Technol., v. 46, n. 16, p. 9155-9162.
CLEVELAND,
A. D.; RADKA, N. C.; MÜLLER, M. N.; WATSON, D. T.; REKSTEIN, J. N.; WRIGHT, M.
V. H.; HOLLINGSHEAD, E. S. (2011) Effect of localizing fruit and vegetable consumption
on greenhouse gas emissions and nutrition, Santa Barbara County. Environ. Sci. Technol., v. 45, n. 10,
p. 4555-4562.
ESOMAR
(2011) Grow campaign global opinion
research final topline report. Oxfam
International (OXFAM), Hong Kong.
FAO
(2001) Human energy requirements:
Food and nutrition technical reports series no.1. Reports of joint FAO/WHO/UNU
Expert Consultation, Rome.
FAO
(2006) Livestock’s long shadow environmental issues and options. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
FAO
(2012) Food balance sheets FAOSTAT
global database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome.
GAN,
J.; SMITH, T. C.; LANGEVELD, A. W. J. (2012) Effects of considering greenhouse
gas consequences on fertilizer use in loblolly pine plantations.
Journal Environment Management,
v. 113, p. 383-389.
GLEICK,
H. P. (1996) Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic
Needs. Water Int., v. 21, n. 2, p.
83-92.
HELLER,
C. M.; KEOLEIAN, A. G.; WILLETT, C. W. (2013) Toward a life cycle-based,
diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality
assessment: A critical review. Environ.
Sci. Technol., v. 47, p. 12632-12647.
HELLER,
C. M; KEOLEIAN, A. G. (2011) Exploring a water/energy trade-offs in regional
sourcing of livestock feed crops. Environ.
Sci. Technol., v. 45, n. 24, p. 10619-10626.
HOEKSTRA, A. Y.; CHAPAGAIN, A. K.; ALDAYA, M. M.; MEKONNEN, M. M. (2009)
Water footprint manual: State of the
art water footprint network: Enschede, the Netherlands.
HOEKSTRA,
Y. A; MEKONNEN, M. M. (2011) The Water Footprint of Humanity. PNAS, v. 109, n. 9, p. 3232-3237.
JIAO,
W.; MIN, Q.; CHENG, S.; LI, W. (2013). The waste absorption footprint (WAF): A
methodological note on footprint calculations. Ecological Indicators, v. 34, p. 356-360.
KINABO,
J. (2003) Globalization of food systems:
Impacts on food security and nutrition. FAO, Rome.
KOEHLER,
A. (2008) Water use in LCA: Managing the planet’s freshwater resources. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. V. 13, n. 6,
p. 451-455.
LAM,
H-M.; REMAIS, J.; FUNG, M-C.; XU, L.; SUN, S-M. S. (2013) Food supply and food
safety issues in China. LANCET, v.
381, n. 9882, p. 2044-2053.
LIU,
S.; CROSSMAN, D. N.; NOLAN, M.; GHIRMAY, H. (2013) Bringing ecosystem services
into integrated water resources management. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 129, p. 92-102.
MA,
J.; HOEKSTRA, Y. A.; WANG, H.; CHAPAGAIN, K. A.; WANG, D. (2006) Virtual versus
Real Water Transfers within China. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B., v. 361, n. 1469, p. 835-842.
MAKURIRA,
H.; SAVERIJE, H. H. G.; UHLENBROOK, S. (2009) Investigating water balance on
farm techniques for improving crop productivity in rainfed systems: A case
Study of Makanya Catchment Tanzania. Phys.
Chem. Earth, v. 34, n. 1-2, p. 93-98.
MEKONNEN,
M. M.; HOEKSTRA, A. Y. (2010) The green,
blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products, value of
water research report series no. 48, UNESCO-IHE, Delf, the Netherlands.
MEKONNEN, M. M.; HOEKSTRA, Y. A., BECHT, R. (2012) Mitigating the water
footprint of export cut flowers from the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya Water Resour Manage 2012, v. 26,
n. 13, p. 3725-3742.
MOE,
L. C.; RHEINGANS, D. R. (2006) Global challenges in water, sanitation and
health. Journal of Water and Health,
v. 4, n. 1, p. 41-57.
MUELLER, D. N.; GERBER, S. J.; JOHNSTON, M.; RAY, K. D.; RAMANKUTTY, N.;
FOLEY, A. J. (2012) Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, v. 490, p. 254-257.
MUTIRO,
J.; MAKURIRA, H.; SENZANJE, A.; MUL, L. M. (2006) Water productivity analysis
for smallholder rainfed systems: A case study of Makanya catchment Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth, v. 31, n. 15-16, p.
901-909.
NBS (2012) United Republic of Tanzania National
sample census of agriculture small holder agriculture volume II, crop sector
national report. The National Bureau of Statistics and the Office of
the Chief Government Statistician, Zanzibar.
NÚÑEZ,
M.; PFISTER, S.; ROUX, P.; ANTÓN, A. (2013) Estimating water consumption of
potential natural vegetation on global dry lands: Building an LCA framework for
green water flows. Environ. Sci. Technol.
v. 47, p. 12258-12265.
PACHPUTE,
J. S. (2010) A Package of water management practices for sustainable growth and
improved production of vegetable crop in labour and water scarce Sub-Sahara
Africa. Agric. Water Manage. v. 97,
n. 9, p. 1251-1258.
PFISTER,
S.; BAYER, P.; KOEHLER, A.; HELLWEG, S. (2011) Environmental impacts of water
use in global crop production: Hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environ. Sci. Technol., v. 45, n. 13, p.
5761-5768.
PFISTER,
S.; KOEHLER, A.; HELLWEG, S. (2009) Assessing environmental impacts of
freshwater consumption in life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol., v. 43, n. 11, p. 4098-4104.
POPKIN,
M. B.; DʹANCI, E. K.; ROSENBERG, H. I. (2010) Water hydration and health. nutritional reviews, v. 68, n. 8, p.
439-458.
PREMA,
R. (2013) Food and nutrition security: Challenges in the new millennium. The Indian journal of medical research,
v. 138, n. 3, p. 373-82.
REEMTSMA,
T.; ALDER, L.; BANASIAK, U. (2013). Emerging pesticide
metabolites in groundwater and surface water as determined by the application
of a multimethod for 150 pesticide metabolites. Water Research, v. 47, n. 553.
RENAULT,
D.; WALLENDER, W. W. (2000) Nutrition water productivity and diets.
Agric. Water Manage. v. 45, n. 3, p.
275-296.
RIDOUTT, B. G.; PfiSTER, S. (2010) Arevised approach to water footprinting to make transparent
the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global
Environ. Chang. V. 20, n. 1,
p. 113-120.
RIDOUTT,
G. B.; SANGUANSRI, P.; NOLAN, M.; MARKS, N. (2012) Meat consumption and water
scarcity: Beware of generalizations. Journal
of Cleaner Production, v. 28, p. 127-133.
ROY,
B. S.; CHEN, L.; GIRVETZ, H. E.; MAURER, P. E.; MILLS, B. W.; GRIEB, M. T.
(2012) Projecting water withdrawal and supply for future decades in the U.S
under climate change scenarios. Environ.
Sci. Technol., v. 46, n. 5, p. 2545-2556.
SAWKA,
N. M.; CHEUVRONT, N. S.; CARTER, R. (2005) Human water needs. Nutritional Reviews, v. 63, n. 6, p.
30-39.
STOESSEL,
F.; JURASKE, R.; PFISTER, S.; HELLWEG, S. (2012) Life cycle inventory
and carbon and water footprint of fruits and vegetables: Application to a Swiss
retailer. Environ. Sci.
Technol., v. 46, n. 6, p. 3253-3262.
TUOMISTO,
L. H., MATTOS, T. J. M. (2011) Environmental impact of cultured meat
production. Environ. Sci. Technol., v.
45, n. 14, p. 6117-6123.
U.S.
CENSUS BUREAU (2003) Tanzania population
pyramid for 2005. U.S. census bureau, international database (Available at:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/tz/Age).
URT
(1992) The food and nutrition policy of
Tanzania. URT, United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Health.
USDA (2011) Composition of foods raw,
processed, prepared USDA national nutrient database for standard reference,
release 24. Agricultural research service, Beltsville, Maryland (Available at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata).
VANHAM,
D.; MEKONNEN, M. M.; HOEKSTRA, Y. A. (2013) The water footprint of the EU for
different diets. Ecological Indicators,
v. 32, p. 1-8.
WORLD
HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2012) Water global
analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking water: The challenge of
extending and sustaining services, GLAAS report. WHO Press, Switzerland.
WUTICH, A.;
YORK, M. A.; BREWIS, A.; STOTTS, R.; ROBERTS, C. M. (2012) Shared cultural
norms for justice in water institutions: Results from Fiji, Ecuador, Paraguay,
New Zealand, and the U.S. J. Env. Manage.
v. 113, p. 370-376.
YANG, Z.; MAO,
X.; ZHAO, X.; CHEN, B. (2012) Ecological network analysis on global virtual
water trade. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
v. 46, n. 3, p. 1796-1803.
ZHAO, X.; YANG,
H.; YANG, Z.; CHEN, B.; QIN, Y. (2010) Applying the input-output method to
account for water footprint and virtual water trade in the Haihe River basin. Environ. Sci. Technol., v. 44, n. 23,
p. 9150-9156.