Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Individual US diets show wide variation in water scarcity footprints


Agriculture accounts for 80% of global freshwater consumption but the environmental impacts of water use are highly localized and depend on water scarcity. The water use impacts of food production should be a key consideration of sustainable diets, yet little is known of the water scarcity demands of diets, especially of individuals. Here we estimate the water scarcity footprint (WSF)—a water use impact metric that accounts for regional scarcity—of individual diets in the United States (n = 16,800) and find a fivefold variation between the highest and lowest quintile of diets ranked by WSF. Larger intakes of some meat, fruit, nuts and vegetables drive these differences. Meat consumption is the greatest contributor (31%) to the WSF of the average diet, and within that, beef contributes about six times that of chicken. Variation between substitutable foods provides insight into diet shifts that can reduce WSF. We introduce a novel, geospatially explicit approach that combines the types and quantities of foods in the diets of individuals, the irrigation water required to produce those foods and the relative scarcity of water where that irrigation occurs.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Geospatial analysis of water use and water scarcity impact in the continental US for tomatoes.
Fig. 2: Understanding the drivers of a diet’s WSF.
Fig. 3: Contributions by food group to quintiles of the total diet-related WSF.
Fig. 4: Contributions of specific foods to WSF for quintiles of the population.

Data availability

The water consumption and crop production data that support the findings of this study are available in Mendeley Data: The NHANES dietary data that support the findings of this study are available from the National Center for Health Statistics, US Centers for Disease Control and Management: All other data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hallstrom, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A. & Borjesson, P. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 91, 1–11 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kim, B. F. et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global Environ. Change 62, 101926 (2019).

  5. 5.

    Azevedo, L. B., Henderson, A. D., van Zelm, R., Jolliet, O. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Assessing the importance of spatial variability versus model choices in life cycle impact assessment: the case of freshwater eutrophication in europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 13565–13570 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations General Assembly, 2015).

  7. 7.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dieter, C. A. et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015. Report No 1441 (US Geological Survey, 2018).

  9. 9.

    Whitmee, S. et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of the Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet commission on planetary health. Lancet 386, 1973–2028 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gerten, D. et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 3, 200–208 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Boulay, A.-M. et al. The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 368–378 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Boulay, A.-M. et al. Consensus building on the development of a stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: outcome of the expert workshops. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 577–583 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    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 US. Environ. Syst. Decis. 36, 92–103 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Blackstone, N. T., El-Abbadi, N. H., McCabe, M. S., Griffin, T. S. & Nelson, M. E. Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e344–e352 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Birney, C. I., Franklin, K. F., Davidson, F. T. & Webber, M. E. An assessment of individual foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 105008 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gephart, J. A. et al. The environmental cost of subsistence: optimizing diets to minimize footprints. Sci. Total Environ. 553, 120–127 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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. 43, 860–870 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Blas, A., Garrido, A. & Willaarts, B. A. Evaluating the water footprint of the Mediterranean and American diets. Water 8, 448 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Rehkamp, S. & Canning, P. Measuring embodied blue water in American diets: an EIO supply chain approach. Ecol. Econ. 147, 179–188 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Harris, F. et al. The water footprint of diets: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv. Nutr. 11, 375–386 (2019).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Vanham, D., Comero, S., Gawlik, B. M. & Bidoglio, G. The water footprint of different diets within European sub-national geographical entities. Nat. Sustain. 1, 518 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Vanham, D., Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of the EU for different diets. Ecol. Indicators 32, 1–8 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Environmental Management—Water Footprint—Principles, Requirements and Guidelines ISO 14046:2014 (International Organization for Standardization, 2014).

  24. 24.

    Ridoutt, B. G., Hendrie, G. A. & Noakes, M. Dietary strategies to reduce environmental impact: a critical review of the evidence base. Adv. Nutr. 8, 933–946 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Quinteiro, P., Ridoutt, B. G., Arroja, L. & Dias, A. C. Identification of methodological challenges remaining in the assessment of a water scarcity footprint: a review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 164–180 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Heller, M. C., Willits-Smith, A., Meyer, R., Keoleian, G. A. & Rose, D. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self-selected US diets. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044004 (2018).

  27. 27.

    2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (US Department of Health and Human Services & US Department of Agriculture, 2015).

  28. 28.

    Willits-Smith, A., Aranda, R., Heller, M. C. & Rose, D. Addressing the carbon footprint, healthfulness, and costs of self-selected diets in the USA: a population-based cross-sectional study. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e98–e106 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hess, T., Andersson, U., Mena, C. & Williams, A. The impact of healthier dietary scenarios on the global blue water scarcity footprint of food consumption in the UK. Food Policy 50, 1–10 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Goldstein, B., Hansen, S. F., Gjerris, M., Laurent, A. & Birkved, M. Ethical aspects of life cycle assessments of diets. Food Policy 59, 139–151 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hess, T., Chatterton, J., Daccache, A. & Williams, A. The impact of changing food choices on the blue water scarcity footprint and greenhouse gas emissions of the British diet: the example of potato, pasta and rice. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4558–4568 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P. A., Castellani, V. & Sala, S. Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 753–765 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Heller, M. C. et al. Environmental analyses to inform transitions to sustainable diets in developing countries: case studies for Vietnam and Kenya. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 1183–1196 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ridoutt, B. G., Baird, D., Anastasiou, K. & Hendrie, G. A. Diet quality and water scarcity: evidence from a large Australian population health survey. Nutrients 11, 1846 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kim, B. F. et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global Environ. Change 62, 101926 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Meier, T. & Christen, O. Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 877–888 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1577–1600 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Zhuo, L., Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water footprint accounting: a case study for the Yellow River basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 2219–2234 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    World Economic Forum Water Initiative Water Security: The Water–Food–Energy–Climate Nexus (Island Press, 2011).

  41. 41.

    Bazilian, M. et al. Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39, 7896–7906 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M. & Mekonnen, M. M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard (Earthscan, 2011).

  43. 43.

    Jefferies, D. et al. Water footprint and life cycle assessment as approaches to assess potential impacts of products on water consumption. Key learning points from pilot studies on tea and margarine. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 155–166 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Lovarelli, D., Bacenetti, J. & Fiala, M. Water footprint of crop productions: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 548–549, 236–251 (2016).

    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Chenoweth, J., Hadjikakou, M. & Zoumides, C. Quantifying the human impact on water resources: a critical review of the water footprint concept. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 2325–2342 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ridoutt, B. G. & Pfister, S. A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environ. Change 20, 113–120 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ridoutt, B. G. & Huang, J. Environmental relevance—the key to understanding water footprints. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E1424–E1424 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Pfister, S. et al. Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: a response to Hoekstra (2016) ‘A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA’. Ecol. Indic. 72, 352–359 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    2018 Irrigation and Water Management Survey (USDA, 2019).

  50. 50.

    Pfister, S. & Bayer, P. Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 52–62 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Pfister, S. & Bayer, P. Water Consumption of Crop on Watershed Level (Blue and Green Water, Uncertainty, incl. Shapefile) (2017).

  52. 52.

    Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1003 (2008).

  53. 53.

    Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008).

  54. 54.

    Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops and Derived Crop Products (UNESCO-IHE, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Hoekstra, A. Y. A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA. Ecol. Indic. 66, 564–573 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Hoekstra, A. Y. Water footprint assessment: evolvement of a new research field. Water Resour. Manage. 31, 3061–3081 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Caldeira, C. et al. Water footprint profile of crop-based vegetable oils and waste cooking oil: comparing two water scarcity footprint methods. J. Cleaner Prod. 195, 1190–1202 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Boulay, A.-M., Benini, L. & Sala, S. Marginal and non-marginal approaches in characterization: how context and scale affect the selection of an adequate characterization model. The AWARE model example. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 2380–2392 (2020).

  59. 59.

    Forin, S., Berger, M. & Finkbeiner, M. Comment to ‘Marginal and non-marginal approaches in characterization: how context and scale affect the selection of an adequate characterization factor. The AWARE model example’. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 663–666 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Boulay, A.-M. & Lenoir, L. Sub-national regionalisation of the AWARE indicator for water scarcity footprint calculations. Ecol. Indic. 111, 106017 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rotz, C. A., Asem-Hiablie, S., Place, S. & Thoma, G. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric. Syst. 169, 1–13 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Peters, C. J., Picardy, J. A., Darrouzet-Nardi, A. & Griffin, T. S. Feed conversions, ration compositions, and land use efficiencies of major livestock products in US agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 130, 35–43 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Peters, C. J. et al. Carrying capacity of US agricultural land: ten diet scenarios. Elementa 4, 000116 (2016).

  64. 64.

    Census of Agriculture Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (USDA NASS, 2013).

  65. 65.

    Aquaculture Trade Tables (USDA Economic Research Service, 2018).

  66. 66.

    Pahlow, M., Van Oel, P., Mekonnen, M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Increasing pressure on freshwater resources due to terrestrial feed ingredients for aquaculture production. Sci. Total Environ. 536, 847–857 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Rose, D., Heller, M. C., Willits-Smith, A. M. & Meyer, R. J. Carbon footprint of self-selected US diets: nutritional, demographic, and behavioral correlates. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 108, 1–9 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    NHANES: 2005–2006 Data Documentation, Codebook and Frequencies (National Center for Health Statistics and Centers for Disease Control, 2008).

Download references


We thank G. Lewis for his assistance in generating the maps in Fig. 1, and R. Meyer for laying the groundwork for this study through his master’s thesis at the University of Michigan. This work is funded by the Wellcome Trust, grant number 106854/Z/15/Z.

Author information




M.C.H., D.R. and G.A.K. designed the overall study. M.C.H. developed the methods for this research with input from G.A.K. and D.R. M.C.H., T.M. and A.W.-S. conducted the data analysis with input from D.R. and G.A.K. M.C.H. and D.R. led the interpretation of the data. M.C.H. wrote the first draft with input from D.R. and G.A.K. All authors contributed to a subsequent revision and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin C. Heller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks Tim Hess and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4, Fig. 1 and description of methods.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heller, M.C., Willits-Smith, A., Mahon, T. et al. Individual US diets show wide variation in water scarcity footprints. Nat Food 2, 255–263 (2021).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing