Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The relationship between structural parameters and water footprint of

residential buildings
S. Mahdi Hosseinian *, S. Mozhdeh Ghahari
School of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Bu-Ali Sina, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main criteria used to select the structural parameters of buildings are generally based on technical
Received 12 April 2020 and economic considerations. Despite such concerns, environmental issues, particularly the water
Received in revised form footprint of structures, have received little attention in practice. This paper assesses the effects of
20 July 2020
structural parameters (area, height, materials, slab, and the lateral load resisting system), along with site
Accepted 31 July 2020
classification on the water footprint of residential buildings. Ideas from the life cycle assessment
Available online 12 August 2020
methodology and the approach of the Water Footprint Network are applied. The paper proposes a water
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes footprint framework for residential building assessment. A sample of 45 buildings is analyzed. Water
footprints of material extraction, production, transportation, and construction are calculated. The paper
Keywords: shows that, in order to reduce the water footprint of structures, concrete structures perform better than
Water footprint steel structures, short structures are better than tall structures, composite slabs are better than steel deck
Steel structures and cobute precast slabs, and building sites with dense soils are better than building sites with soft soils.
Concrete structures © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Life cycle assessment

1. 1- Introduction decade is likely to witness a considerable drop in the production of

The construction industry is recognized as the main driver of
many economies in the world. For example, it contributes to around
8% of Australia’s gross domestic product (Reserve Bank of Australia,
2020); in the UK, it covers more than 2.6 million businesses (Office
for National Statistics, 2018); and in a developing country like Iran,
it accounts for 17% of businesses (Iran Center of Statistics, 2018).
Unfortunately, the construction industry and, consequently, its
demand for natural mineral extraction have caused significant
environmental problems. A large body of literature exists con-
cerning the environmental problems of the construction industry
(for example, Wu et al., 2014; Nadoushani and Akbarnezhad, 2015;
Ghose et al., 2017). However, few studies have examined the water
consumption problem of this industry (Gerbens-Leenes et al.,
2018).
Water scarcity has become a widely recognized problem in arid
and semi-arid regions around the world. Globally, the most sig-
nificant water shortages are related to the Middle East, Central Asia,
and North Africa (Kousari et al., 2014; Kelley et al., 2015). The next
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.hosseinian@basu.ac.ir (S.M. Hosseinian),
ghaahaarii@gmail.com (S.M. Ghahari).
highly water-related industries in such regions. The industrial
sector has been marked as the second major water consumer
(Hoekstra, 2015). This has led authors such as Gerbens-Leenes et al.
(2018) and Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami (2018, 2020) to inves-
tigate water-related industries to conserve water resources within a
region.
Typically, the concept of water footprint (WF) is used to assess
the amount of freshwater consumed (directly and indirectly) and
contaminated at different stages of a product’s supply chain in a
given period (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The term direct freshwater is
used to evaluate the contribution of the manufacturing of a product
to local water resources (Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian, 2020).
The term freshwater is applied to surface water, groundwater, or
tap water consumed at various stages of product manufacturing
(Hoekstra et al., 2011). The term water consumption refers to the
abstraction of water, which does not return to the place where it
was withdrawn (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2018). The term indirect
water may be used to describe the contribution of different stages
of a product’s supply chain to its total water consumption
(Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami, 2018). The concept of water
footprint has been widely applied to various industrial products,
particularly those related to agriculture (for example, Munro et al.,
2016; Ridoutt et al., 2012). However, this concept in the construc-
mozhdeh.
tion industry is relatively new. The construction industry is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123562
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562
responsible for consuming global freshwater resources because
their raw materials are generally mined, transported, manufactured
and then used around the world (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2018). This
has led to a growing push across the industry e from material
extraction to design e to ensure sustainability becomes a reality
(Siew et al., 2016). Developers have had to react to this demand and
move away from solely concentrating on cost, production, and time.
Assessing water footprints of the construction industry helps to
understand how this industry relates to water scarcity and its
associated effects (Hoekstra, 2011). Buildings are now being judged
on their environmental friendliness (Carmichael et al., 2019).
However, there has been little discussion on what can be done to
ensure that the construction industry does not contribute to the
unsustainable use of water (Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian, 2020).
A number of attempts have been made to evaluate the WF of the
building industry. For example, McCormack at al. (2007) assessed
the WF of 17 non-residential buildings in Australia. They concluded
that material selection has a significant impact on the WF of
buildings. However, the structural system characteristics of the
selected buildings have not been mentioned in McCormack et al.
(2007). Bardhan (2011) investigated the WF of a residential build-
ing in India and estimated the WF of constructing a whole building
at 27.6 m3/m2. However, the WF of the structure and the amount of
material usage have not been reported. Also, it seems that the water
consumption intensities of some raw materials like steel (250 m3/t)
are not logical. Meng et al. (2014) assessed the WF of six buildings
in China and they concluded that the indirect water consumption of
building construction plays a vital role in the whole WF of build-
ings. However, they failed to mention the structural parameters of
the selected buildings, the materials used, and the WF of their
structures. Han et al. (2016), based on analyzing six commercial
buildings in China, confirmed that more than half of the total WF of
building construction is related to cement, lime, steel, and metal
products. However, the structural parameters of the selected
buildings and the contribution of structures on the WF of those
buildings have not been reported. In recent years, there has also
been growing interest in the WF of highly used building materials
such as cement (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2018; Hosseinian and
Nezamoleslami, 2018), concrete (Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami,
2019), steel (Gu et al., 2015; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2018;
Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian, 2020), and glass (Gerbens-Leenes
et al., 2018). For example, Gu et al. (2015) assessed the WF of a
steel factory in China based on a system analysis model and a life
cycle assessment framework. The results show that the steel in-
dustry poses a serious threat to water resources. Gerbens-Leenes
et al. (2018), based on a WF accounting procedure, and a life cycle
inventory analysis, calculated the WFs of steel, cement, and glass.
They concluded that blue WFs of such materials are mostly related
to electricity. Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian (2020) proposed an
improved WF model for steel production based on the life cycle
assessment methodology and the WF network framework. They
draw the attention of researchers to the importance of human
management in reducing the WF of steel production. Using a life
cycle assessment method, Cheng et al. (2020) measured the WF of
high-speed railway construction in China. Their results showed
that indirect water consumption related to the production of up-
stream materials has a significant impact on the WF of railway
construction. Based on a system boundary analysis, Hosseinian and
Nezamoleslami (2018) assessed the impact of human management,
transportation, and energy consumption on the WF of cement
production. Valderrama et al. (2012) highlighted the effect of new
technologies on the direct water consumption of cement produc-
tion. Mack-Vergara and John (2017) analyzed the WF of concrete
production based on a hypothetical concrete production scenario
and concluded that the methodology adopted has a significant
impact on the results. The study of Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami
(2019) demonstrated that more use of renewable energy resources
effectively reduces the WF of concrete production.
A review of the literature reveals that no study has analyzed the
impact of important parameters of structural systems and site
classification on the WF of buildings. Previous studies have focused
solely on assessing the WF of a building made with a particular
structural system rather than different slabs, structural frames,
heights, and materials. Besides, the effects of the site classification
and personnel foods on the WF of structures are not well under-
stood. The structural design usually begins with important de-
cisions about the choice of structural parameters. However, there is
a lack of awareness about the impact of structures on the WF of the
building industry. This paper assesses the effects of structural pa-
rameters (area, height, material, slab, and the lateral load resisting
system), along with site classification on the WF of residential
buildings. Ideas from the life cycle assessment methodology and
the approach of the Water Footprint Network are applied. The
paper proposes a water footprint framework for residential build-
ing assessment. A sample of 45 buildings is analyzed. Water foot-
prints of material production (including extraction and processing),
transportation (related to materials and personnel), and construc-
tion are calculated. The significance of this study lies in presenting a
detailed assessment of the water footprint of the collected data.
2. Methodology
The methodology utilized in this paper is based on the pro-
cedure adopted by the Water Footprint Network (Hoekstra et al.,
2011), and the life cycle assessment (LCA) International
Organization for Standardization, 2006. LCA is a technique used
to analyze possible environmental impacts of services or products
comprising carbon emission, water consumption, eutrophication,
or acidification, during their life cycle, known as cradle-to-grave
International Organization for Standardization, 2012, 2014. An
LCA framework seeks ways to improve the environmental aspects
of a product in different parts of its life cycle. The level of detail and
the boundary of LCA research depend on the intended application
of the research. In comparison, the Water Footprint Network (WFN)
solely focuses on how a consumer or producer relates to the con-
sumption of freshwater resources. The WFN quantifies and locates
the WF of a producer, product, or consumer - evaluates the envi-
ronmental, economic and social impact of this WF - and offers a
response strategy (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
Following Hoekstra et al. (2011), four steps are considered for
assessing the WF of a product. Firstly, the goal and scope of the WF
assessment are defined. Then, water footprint accounting, also
known as inventory analysis, is implemented and the required
input/output data are collected and analyzed. This step is followed
by implementing an impact assessment to compare the WF of a
product against the freshwater available in the region. Besides, the
social and economic aspects of the WF of the concerned product
can also be addressed. Finally, in the interpretation step, alternative
future strategies or policies to reduce the WF of a concerned
product are provided.
The water footprint accounting step is the focus of this paper as
the effects of structural parameters along with site classification, on
the WF of structures are analyzed (See Fig. 1). In this paper, two
structural systems, namely the moment-resisting frames and dual
systems, two structural materials (concrete and steel), five slab
types, namely composite (COMP), cobute precast (CP), steel deck
(SD), post-tension (PT), and waffle (W), and three-site soil types
namely, rock (I), very dense soil (II), and stiff soil (III) are considered
(NEHRP, 2004). The term ‘moment-resisting frame’ is generally
understood to mean a rectilinear assemblage of columns and
 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562
Fig. 1. Structural parameters considered in the water footprint assessment.
beams with the beams rigidly connected to the columns. A dual
system refers to concrete shear walls and moment-resisting frames
acting together in the same direction to resist seismic effects. The
term ‘composite slab’ is used to refer to in place reinforced concrete
with steel beams made in one direction on its underside. The term
‘cobute-precast slab’ is used to mean a concrete slab consisting of
three elements: in place reinforced concrete, precast longitudinal
stiffening lattice joists and precast concrete blocks. Concrete blocks
are used to create perforated panels for reducing the vertical load of
the slab. A steel deck slab is defined as a reinforced concrete slab
with profiled steel sheeting as permanent shuttering on its un-
derside. A post-tension slab refers to a flat concrete slab with steel
strands used to put a pre-compression into the concrete. A waffle
slab refers to an in-place reinforced concrete slab with concrete
beams made in two directions on its underside. Notably, different
types of walls can be used in structures to provide shear strength
against lateral loads, such as reinforced concrete, steel, masonry,
and timber. In contrast, this study focuses solely on reinforced
concrete walls as they are popularly used in structures. Steel walls
are not commonly used due to their high price. Timber and ma-
sonry walls are generally used in buildings with few stories (one
and two) due to their low shear strength. It is acknowledged that
there is a correlation between the area and the height of the
buildings. However, both of these two parameters are considered to
analyze cases with the same height but different areas.
3. Proposed framework
The life cycle of a building includes three main phases: con-
struction, operation and demolition. In this paper, the first phase of
building life (construction) is considered. This phase has many
steps to make it ready for the next step. In this paper, the con-
struction of structures is considered. The attention is given to
cement, steel, concrete, and concrete block plants along with con-
struction sites. Fig. 2 shows the boundary of the water footprint
assessment.
The WFs of different parameters such as material, energy,
equipment and machinery, personnel, food, and transportation are
considered, as shown in Fig. 3. Such parameters are typically
considered in the industrial WF assessment (Nezamoleslami and
Hosseinian, 2020). However, the WF of the manufacture of equip-
ment and machinery used in the different phases of construction of
structures is not considered as they are not significant given the life
cycle of buildings and are typically not tracked (Hosseinian and
Nezamoleslami, 2018, 2019). Also, the data on the WFs of demoli-
tion and recycling phases of structures are not well documented
due to the variety of methods used in practice.
3
Two different accounting procedures may be adopted, namely
stepwise accumulative, and chain-summation (Hoekstra et al.,
2011). The former is typically used for a system boundary with
multiple products. While, the latter (the focus of this paper) is used
for a system boundary with only one product (a building structure)
(Hoekstra et al., 2011; Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian, 2020). Based
on the chain-summation approach, the WF of a product (a structure)
is derived from the sum of the WFs of input materials and the water
footprints of the process (the construction site), as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 5 presents a framework for calculating the WF of structures
based on the LCA approach, boundary of the WF assessment (Fig. 2),
the considered parameters (Fig. 3), and the method of chain-
summation (Fig. 4).
This framework divides the WF of structures into two parts
(direct and indirect consumption),
WF ¼ DW þ VW (1)
The amount of direct water consumption is obtained by adding
the amount of direct water consumption of all parameters (Pi)
contributing to the direct water,
X
n
DW ¼ DWPi (2)
i¼1
where
DWPi ¼ APi  WCIPi (3)

WCIPi ¼ WFPi ProdPi (4)
In the above equations, WCIPi and APi represent the water con-
sumption intensity and the amount of parameter Pi, respectively;
WFPi is the WF amount of Pi during a given time; and ProdPi is the
amount of Pi consumed in that period. The same formulas can be
used to calculate the amount of indirect water.
3.1. Direct water consumption in construction sites
Direct water consumption in construction sites depends on the
number of personnel involved, the type of materials used, and the
size of the project. Water is mainly needed for the site facilities
(personnel consumption, washing) and concrete curing. Based on
the Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami (2018) study, an average of 30 L
water is required per each person in an 8-h shift for site facilities.
The number includes water required for facilities, cleaning and
washing (machinery, equipment). Concrete curing needs, on
average, 35 L of water per square meter of structural members for
seven days curing (Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami, 2018). It is
acknowledged that the amount of water consumed by personnel
and concrete varies in cold and hot seasons, and these changes are
ignored.
3.2. Indirect water consumption of construction sites
In construction sites, the indirect water consumption is mainly
related to energy (electricity, fuel, and natural gas), raw material
production, transportation, personnel’s food, and equipment and
machinery (Meng et al., 2014). Table 1 summarizes the water
consumption intensity (WCI) data used in this paper. Additional
information for Table 1 can be found in the Appendix.
3.2.1. Water footprint of concrete blocks
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the WF of concrete blocks
has not yet been studied. For this purpose, a plant manufacturing
4 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562

Fig. 2. The boundary of the water footprint assessment.

Fig. 3. Parameters for water footprint assessment. Fig. 4. WF calculation based on the chain-summation approach.
 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562 5

Fig. 5. The proposed WF framework.

concrete blocks, located in western Iran, with a capacity of 2268 t/y, 1890 t/y, and 19,550 kWh/y. By using Table 1, the indirect water
is analyzed. According to the plant information, the amount of consumption of cement, aggregate, and electricity in the select
direct water consumption in the plant is 555 m3/y, and the amounts concrete block plant can be calculated (808, 1102, and 24.6 m3,
of cement, aggregate, and electricity usage are, respectively, 380 t/y, respectively). To supply cement and aggregate (380 and 1890 t/y,

Table 1
Water consumption intensity of different parameters.

Type of energy WCI Reference

3
Electricity (m /Mwh)0.72e1.8 Mekonnen et al. (2015)
Transportation based on petroleum 0.16e0.33 (L/km) King and Webber (2008)
Transportation based on gasoline 0.18e0.26 (L/km) King and Webber (2008)
Natural gas 9.251 (L/m3) Mekonnen et al. (2015)
Diesel 5.62 (L/L) e 2.81 Williams and Simmons (2013)
Personnel meal 4756.88 (L/person-meal) Spiess (2014)
Cement 2.126 (m3/m3) Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami (2018)
Aggregate 0.584 (m3/m3) Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami (2019)
Concrete 2.317 (m3/m3)
Steel 10.65 (m3/t) Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian (2020)
6 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562

respectively), 63 and 315 diesel fuel-based trucks with 6 t capacity

are required. The distances from the concrete block plant to the
cement and aggregate plants are, respectively, 10 and 12 km (with
return 20 and 24 km). By multiplying the number of trucks by the
distance between the aggregate and cement plants and the con-
crete block plant, the total distance traveled by trucks in one year
can be obtained (1260 Km/y and 7560 Km/y, respectively). Overall,
all trucks travel is equivalent to 8820 Km/y (including return). Five
personnel work 8 h per day in the plant and 297 days per year.
Considering one meal for each person in a working shift (8 h), 1485
meals are consumed at the plant yearly. By taking into account the
water consumption intensity of one meal (4.756 m3), presented in
Table 1, the total WF of personnel meals in the concrete block plant
can be obtained (7063 m3/y). Table 2 summarizes the WF data. Fig. 6. Water footprint of concrete block manufacturing.
Fig. 6, showing the corresponding results, estimates the WF of
the concrete block plant at 9554 m3/y. By dividing this amount by
the production capacity of the plant (2268 t), the water consump- selected randomly from the 2019 archive of the Hamedan Building
tion intensity of concrete block production at the selected plan can Engineering Cooperation Organization. The case studies are an
be obtained (4.212 m3/t). example of Iran’s construction environment, though not neces-
sarily representative. Similar buildings mainly occupy different
3.2.2. Summary of results cities in Iran. Steel structures are (special concentrically) braced
Fig. 7 summarizes the WF intensity data used in the proposed frames, and concrete structures are intermediate moment-resisting
framework to calculate the WF of structures. frames and dual (intermediate moment-resisting frames and shear
walls) systems. The gross area of buildings varies between 655 and
2703 m2 with different stories (3e8). The site soil types of buildings
3.2.3. Water footprint of personnel in construction sites
are rock (I), very dense soil (II), and stiff soil (III) (NEHRP, 2004). The
To calculate the indirect and direct water consumption of
city of Hamedan is located in a mountainous area. Therefore, soft
personnel in construction sites, it is first required to identify the
and very soft soils are not usually found in the city.
number of personnel and their working days. In doing so, a field
An abbreviation format (n-M-A-S-Sl) is used to define the
study was conducted, and a sample of 21 construction sites
structures: n refers to the number of stories, M refers to the ma-
(including 14 concrete structure sites and seven steel structure
terial (RC - reinforced concrete and St - steel), A is the total area, S
sites) was investigated through interviewing site engineers. The
represents the site soil type (I, II, III), and Sl represents the slab type
participated engineers had between 7 and 15 years of experience in
(COMP - composite, SD - steel deck, CPS - cobute precast slab, WS -
construction projects. In interviews, information about person-day
waffle slab, and PTS - Post tension slab). In the case where a
required for steel structure assembling and erection, concrete
structure has a shear wall system (a dual system), the term SHW is
formwork, reinforcing, and concrete placement was collected.
added to the abbreviation. ETABS 9.7.4 (CSI, 2000) was employed to
Tables 3 and 4 show the average of corresponding person-day re-
calculate the amount of concrete and steel usage in structures, and
sults per square meter of building areas for concrete and steel
Saze 90 (Saze90, 2011) was used to calculate steel rebar usage in
structures, respectively. Detailed results can be found in the
concrete members. Both programs were not able to calculate ma-
Appendix.
terial usage in structural connections, stairs, and foundations;
By multiplying these person-day figures by the areas of the case
therefore, their amounts were calculated by hand. The amount of
buildings, the required person-day for each building can be ob-
rebar used in concrete slabs was also calculated by hand. To
tained (Detailed results can be found in the Appendix). By having
calculate the WF of concrete, steel, and concrete blocks, the data
the indirect water of meal for one person on a business day
presented in Fig. 6 were used. For steel delivery, the majority of
(4576.88 L) and the direct water consumption of a person (30 L/
rebar and steel sections are supplied from a steel plant located
day), the direct and indirect water consumption of personnel can be
530 Km away from Hamedan. The capacity of the trucks used for
obtained.
steel transportation is assumed 20 t. For concrete and concrete
blocks delivery, local suppliers are generally used. They are around
4. Case studies
10 Km away from the center of Hamedan. The capacity of trucks
used for concrete delivery is assumed to be 8 m3, and for concrete
A sample of 45 residential apartment buildings was considered
blocks 6 t. By using the average person-day data presented in
to assess the WF of structures. The sample buildings are located in
Tables 3 and 4 and having the indirect and direct water con-
Hamedan (a city in the west of Iran) with a relatively high seismic
sumption of personnel (4576.9 and 30 L/day-person, respectively),
risk, according to the Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant
the direct and indirect water consumption of personnel can be
Design of Buildings (2014). The buildings were of medium size and
obtained.

Table 2 5. Results and discussion

Concrete block manufacturing WF data.

Parameter WCI Consumption By using the above information, the water consumption in-
3 tensity of the considered structures can be obtained. Table 5 shows
Food 4.756 (m /meal) 1485
Cement 2.126 (m3/t) 380 (t) the WF calculation results for all structures. This table demon-
Aggregate 0.583 (m3/t) 1890 (t) strates that the WCI for steel structures varies between 4.08 and
Electricity 0.72e1.8 (m3/MWh) 19,550 (Kwh) 5.6 m3/m2, and the figure for concrete structures varies between 3.3
Material transportation 0.18e0.26  103 (m3/km) 8820 (Km) and 4.69 m3/m2. Table 5 also shows that structural materials stand
Direct water consumption e 555 (m3)
for about 55.77% of the total WFs of structures. Han et al. (2016)
 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562 7

Fig. 7. WF intensity data.

Table 3
Person-day per square meter of concrete structures.

Area (m2) Formwork (Person-day/m2) Reinforcing (Person-day/m2) Concrete placement (Person-day/m2)

Average 0.168 0.131 0.057

Standard deviation 0.058 0.041 0.020

Table 4
Person-day per square meter of steel structures.

Area (m2) Assembly and erection (Person-day/m2) Formwork (Person-day/m2) Reinforcing (Person-day/m2) Concrete placement (Person-day/m2)

Average 0.319 0.066 0.060 0.021

Standard deviation 0.097 0.020 0.024 0.009
8 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562

Table 5
Water consumption of structures.

Structures Fuel ((m3 Concrete blocks ((m3 Steel ((m3 Concrete ((m3 Food ((m3 DWC ((m3 WCI (m3/m2)

3  St  1279  ІІ  COMP 1.59 e 2261.1 808.4 2835.1 60.2 4.66

4  St  668  ІІ  CPS 0.79 181.9 1194.1 251.9 1479.4 29.8 4.70
4  St  733  ІІ  SD 0.77 e 1176.6 296.1 1617.3 33.0 4.26
4  St  817  ІІ  COMP 0.77 e 1172.7 313.7 1812.4 37.9 4.08
5  St  665  ІІ  COMP 0.77 e 1007.9 272.6 1474.6 35.9 4.19
5  St  716  ІІ  CPS 1.02 242.6 1356.2 243.2 1584.0 37.8 4.83
6  St  1197  ІІ  COMP 1.73 e 2749.3 467.7 2654.3 54.2 4.95
6  St  1557  ІІ  CPS 2.47 498.3 3763.1 442.5 3453.5 72.5 5.29
7  St  939  ІІІ  COMP 1.72 e 2474.8 396.3 2078.7 40.1 5.31
7  St  2681  ІІ  COMP 4.66 e 7830.3 1004.7 5941.3 125.9 5.56
8  St  1374  ІІ  COMP 2.47 e 3935.7 617.3 3044.4 60.9 5.57
8  St  1724  ІІ  COMP 3.21 e 4955.4 794.7 3819.8 80.7 5.60
3  Co  527  ІІІ  CPS 0.38 259.5 413.7 477.5 889.5 46.7 3.96
4  Co  686  ІІ  CPS 0.60 350 488.2 473.6 1160.7 56.7 3.69
4  Co  841  ІІ  CPS 0.70 431.7 655.0 633.8 1422.3 73.8 3.83
4  Co  1356  ІІ  CPS  SHW 1.58 587.6 1319.8 1111.6 2297.6 108.2 4.00
4  Co  1548  ІІ  CPS 1.31 760.3 1404.1 1049.6 2621.0 128.7 3.85
5  Co  671  ІІ  CPS 0.38 310.8 400.0 427.3 1136.9 56.1 3.35
5  Co  845  ІІ  WS 0.59 e 792.2 563.0 1431.8 74.1 3.39
5  Co  853  ІІ  CPS 0.69 426.2 788.5 658.6 1446.1 74.8 3.98
5  Co  944  ІІ  WS 0.65 e 915.8 737.9 1598.3 73.9 3.52
5  Co  950  ІІ  CPS 0.93 472.6 966.8 634.0 1607.8 83.3 3.96
5  Co  963  ІІ  WS 0.85 e 968.7 636.3 1631.6 84.4 3.45
5  Co  964  ІІ  CPS 0.93 465.0 970.7 666.2 1631.6 84.6 3.96
5  Co  1044  І  CPS 1.16 480.2 1004.1 640.4 1764.8 91.6 3.81
5  Co  1266  ІІ  CPS 1.22 437.2 1339.3 892.6 2145.3 114.6 3.89
6  Co  1017  ІІ  WS 0.85 e 913.8 621.0 1722.0 96.3 3.30
6  Co  1115  ІІ  CPS 0.95 507.1 1102.0 749.4 1883.7 106.0 3.90
6  Co  1121  І  CPS 0.96 523.1 964.8 744.8 1898.0 99.3 3.77
6  Co  1184  ІІ  CPS 0.99 613.3 1186.5 801.0 2002.6 106.3 3.98
6  Co  1191  ІІ  PTS  SHW 1.51 e 1927.6 1458.2 2016.9 178.8 4.69
6  Co  1192  ІІ  CPS 0.96 499.5 1249.1 734.6 2016.9 113.0 3.87
6  Co  1408  ІІ  CPS 1.31 787.2 1462.9 1055.3 2378.4 122.6 4.01
6  Co  1416  ІІ  CPS 1.28 768.3 1478.6 923.7 2397.5 123.2 4.02
6  Co  1488  І  CPS 1.19 804.9 1437.4 947.6 2521.1 128.6 3.92
6  Co  2238  ІІ  CPS 2.19 1159.1 2568.6 1594.0 3786.5 195.4 4.16
6  Co  2703  І  WS  SHW 2.40 e 2882.7 2347.7 4576.1 289.7 3.74
7  Co  1237  ІІ  CPS 1.20 532.4 1305.9 811.0 2093.0 108.3 3.92
7  Co  1411  ІІ  CPS 1.30 667.2 1508.0 1101.7 2387.9 128.5 4.11
7  Co  1430  І  WS 1.18 e 1493.3 936.5 2416.5 126.7 3.48
7  Co  1623  ІІ  CPS 1.53 691.2 1823.7 1060.0 2749.5 140.5 3.98
8  Co  1401  ІІ  CPS 1.25 659.6 1408.0 919.9 2368.9 125.3 3.91
8  Co  1692  ІІІ  CPS  1.70 686.1 2039.4 1700.4 2863.6 199.0 4.42
SHW
8  Co  1804  ІІ  CPS  SHW 1.67 837.8 1962.9 1530.4 3053.9 179.2 4.19
8  Co  2494  ІІ  CPS 2.26 1341.9 2612.0 1705.5 4224.1 276.3 4.07
Average (m3/m2) 0.001 0.46 1.31 0.64 1.83 0.080 4.32
Percent 0.02 10.65 30.32 14.81 42.35 1.85 e

concluded that more than half of the total WF of buildings is related
to building materials. Also, Dimoudi and Tompa (2008) concluded
that between 59.6% and 66.7% of the total energy consumed in the
construction, material processing, and transportation of buildings
is related to structural materials. As presented in Table 5, concrete
accounts for 14.81% of the total water consumption of buildings.
Meng et al. (2014) and Han et al. (2016) reported similar results
(15.77% and 13.02%, respectively). Furthermore, Table 5 illustrates
that the direct water consumption for on-site construction is
approximately 2.26% of the total WF of structures, while the rest
(97.74%) is related to the indirect water. Building construction
seems to put less pressure on the local water and more pressure on
the national water resources. Indirect water may be consumed
away from a construction site and may not have a direct effect on
local water resources. However, low direct water consumption of
construction sites may mislead decision-makers about the WF of
buildings because consideration is generally given to local water
resources.
Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate that the number of stories, building area,
site type, slab type, and the lateral load resisting system affect the
WCI of structures; this is elaborated in the following. For example,
Fig. 9 shows that the WFs of concrete structures vary up to around
42%, depending on the structural parameters. Ji et al. (2014)
demonstrated that such variations for carbon footprints of con-
crete structures are about 40%.
Fig. 10 demonstrates that an increase in the WCI of structures
follows from a rise in the number of stories. By increasing the
number of stories, the lateral seismic load increases. This, in turn,
requires additional materials to create a special resisting system to
meet the lateral deformation requirements (ACI, 2008; AISC, 2010).
Fig. 10 shows that the sensitivity of the WF in steel structures to the
number of stories is higher than that of concrete structures.
Building areas also affect the WCI of structures. Fig. 11 shows
that by increasing the building area, in similar structures, the WCI
of the structures increases. This is because of increasing the number
of structural frames to meet the structural design requirements.
Fig. 12 compares the average WCI values of steel and concrete
structures with a floor area of less than 1300 m2 (the average area of
all structures) and more than 1300 m2. This figure further dem-
onstrates that the WCI value increases by increasing the area of
 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562 9

Fig. 8. WCI of steel structures.

Fig. 9. WCI of concrete structures.

Fig. 12. Effect of building areas on WCI.

Fig. 10. Increasing WCI by increasing the number of stories.

8
7
6 5.57 5.60
5
WCI (m³ m2)

3.87 4.02 4.16 3.92 4.11

4 3.69 3.83 3.85 3.96
3.35
3
2
1
0

Fig. 11. Increasing WCI by increasing building areas.

10 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562
buildings. Fig. 12 also shows that the effect of building area on the
WCI of steel structures is more than that of concrete structures.
To assess the effect of site classification on the WCI of structures,
Figs. 13 and 14 are presented. Fig. 13 shows that by decreasing the
stiffness of the site’s soil, the value of WCI of structures increases.
This is mainly because a loose soil leads to an increase in the lateral
seismic load, and consequently, more use of structural materials.
Fig. 14, comparing the WCI of structures with different site soil
types, further demonstrates the effect of site classification on the
amount of WCI. It is noted that in the case studies, no information
was available about the steel structures with site type I.
Tables 6 and 7 show material usage and its WF for different slab
types in steel and concrete structures, respectively (Detailed results
can be found in the Appendix). As shown in Table 6, the WCI of
composite (COMP), steel deck (SD), and cobute-precast (CP) slabs,
on average, are estimated at 0.28, 0.31, and 0.86 m3/m2. The reason
for a lower WCI for composite and steel deck slabs is related to the
lack of concrete blocks usage and a low rebar usage in these two
slabs compared with cobute-precast slabs.
In comparison, as illustrated in Table 7, in concrete structures,
the WCI of waffle, cobute precast, and post-tension slabs, on
average, are estimated at 0.32, 0.84, and 0.84 m3/m2. This is mostly
because waffle slabs have a lower rebar and concrete usage
compared with the other slab types. Also, concrete blocks are not
used in waffle slabs.
Fig. 15 compares the WCI of structures with similar parameters
for assessing the effect of sable type on their WFs. This figure
demonstrates that steel structures with composite and steel deck
slabs have a low WCI compared with those with cubic precast slabs.
Besides, concrete structures with waffle slabs have a low WCI
compared with those with cubic precast slabs. The differences in
the WF of different slab types help reduce the WF of structures by
selecting an appropriate slab with a low WCI.
Fig. 16 compares the WCI of two concrete structures, one with a
dual system and the other with a moment-resisting frames system.
This figure demonstrates that the WCI of the former is 3.7% higher
than that of the latter. The effect of lateral load resisting on the WF
of structures seems to be not as significant as other structural pa-
rameters. For carbon footprints, Nadoushani and Akbarnezhad
(2015) claim that it can be challenging to conclude which lateral
load-resisting systems of structures have less carbon emission in-
tensity, as the design conditions of each structure are unique.
To assess the effect of indirect water of personnel’s food on the WF
of structures, Fig. 17 is presented. This figure shows that the impact of
the indirect water consumption of the personnel’s food on the WF of
the structures is significant. Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami (2018)
demonstrated the same results for cement production.
Fig. 13. Increasing WCI of structures by decreasing soil stiffness.
Fig. 14. Effect of site classification on WCI.
Table 8 gives the average values of steel, concrete, concrete
blocks, and food consumptions, their WFs, and the required direct
water per square meter of structure. As illustrated, concrete
structures contribute to a lower WF compared with steel structures.
This is mostly because of a high WF of steel production compared
with concrete production (Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian, 2020).
Also, the impacts of steel usage and personnel’s food on the WF of
structures are higher than other water-related parameters. A higher
amount of steel usage and a higher number of personnel involved
in steel structures compared with concrete structures, result in a
higher WF value for steel structures (4.92 m3/m2) compared with
concrete structures (3.88 m3/m2). These results are consistent with
the previous study on the carbon footprint of structures
(Nadoushani and Akbarnezhad, 2015).
Few studies have looked at WFs of building structures to
compare the results. McCormack et al. (2007) assessed the WCI of
17 buildings in Australia. They estimated the WCI of their structures
between 2.5 and 9 m3/m2, which are higher than the WCI amounts
obtained in this research (3.3e5.6 m3/m2). The reason for this dif-
ference is that in the current study, the areas of considered build-
ings are between 527 and 2703 m2, the number of stories is
between three and eight, and the buildings are residential. In
comparison, in the McCormack et al. (2007) study, the areas of
buildings vary up to 130,000 m2, the stories are up to 52, and the
building types are residential, industrial, and recreational. Table 8
compares the results of two structures (6-Co-1115-II-CPS and 8-
Co-1804-II-CPS-SHW) in this study with those in McCormack
et al. (2007), which have similar areas (1100 and 1900 m2,
respectively). Unfortunately, the structural parameters of the
selected buildings have not been reported in McCormack et al.
(2007). Table 9 shows that without considering the indirect water
of personnel, the WF of the recreational building in McCormack
et al. (2007) is close to that of the residential building in this
study. However, the WF of the industrial structure in McCormack
et al. (2007) is higher than that of the residential building in this
 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562 11

Table 6
Average material usage and its corresponding WF for different slab types in steel structures.

Slab Concrete blocks (t/m2) [WF (m3/m2)] Rebar (t/m2) [WF (m3/m2)] Concrete (m3/m2) [WF (m3/m2)] Total [WF (m3/m2)]

Composite _ 4.62  103 [0.09] 81.46  103 [0.19] [0.28]

Steel deck _ 6.68  103 [0.13] 78.8  103 [0.18] [0.31]
_
Cobute precast 73.7  103 [0.31] 21.9  103 [0.43] 50.5  103 [0.12] [0.86]

Table 7
Material usage and its WF for different slab types in concrete structures.

Slab Concrete blocks (t/m2) [WF (m3/m2)] Rebar (t/m2) [WF (m3/m2)] Concrete (m3/m2) [WF (m3/m2)] Total [WF (m3/m2)]
3 3
Waffle _ 9.2  10 [0.18] 61.4  10 [0.14] [0.32]
Cobute precast 113.5  103 [0.49] 11.5  103 [0.22] 58.5  103 [0.13] [0.84]
Post tension _ 20.1  103 [0.39] 196.0  103 [0.45] [0.84]

Fig. 15. Water consumption intensity versus slab type.

study. Perhaps one reason for this difference is related to a higher
live load of industrial buildings compared with residential build-
ings, which makes the structure heavier.
Meng et al. (2014) assessed the WF of six official buildings in
China. They estimated the whole WCI of constructing such build-
ings at 20.83 m3/m2. However, they failed to mention the structural
parameters of the buildings, the materials used, and the WCI of the
structures. Similarly, Han et al. (2016), through analyzing six com-
mercial buildings in China, estimated the whole WCI of the selected
buildings at 26.5 m3/m2. However, the structural parameters of the
selected buildings and the contribution of structures on the WF of
the buildings have not been reported. Bardhan (2011) investigated
the WF of a residential building in India and estimated the WCI of
constructing the whole building at 27.6 m3/m2. However, the WCI
of the structure and the amount of material usage have not been
reported. Also, it seems that the WCIs of some raw materials like
steel (250 m3/t) are not logical.
The results show a good agreement with the case of Australia.
However, more case studies are required to verify the validity and
accuracy of the paper results for different places and buildings.
Unfortunately, a global dataset on the WF of buildings structures is
not available to address different technologies and electricity used
per country in the construction and supply chain of structures. To
generalize the results of this study, the following limitations should
be considered:

Fig. 16. Lateral load resisting systems versus WCI. Fig. 17. Water consumption intensity versus the food effect.
12 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562
Table 8
Average material usage and water consumption of different parameters.
Structures Concrete blocks ((Ton/m2
Steel structures 0.074
[Water consumption intensity, m3/m2] [0.30]
Concrete structures 0.108
[Water consumption intensity, m3/m2] [0.46]
Table 9
Comparing the results with those of McCormack et al. (2007).
Reference Building Area
2
Type (m )
McCormack et al. (2007) Entertainment 1900
This study Residential 1804
McCormack et al. (2007) Industrial 1100
This study Residential 1115
- The WF of the cement and steel plants are based on previous
studies (Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami, 2018;
Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian, 2020). They consider fresh-
water consumption for producing cement and steel. How-
ever, saltwater (with zero WF) may be used for cooling when
plants are located near the sea. Therefore, for countries with
steel and cement plants located near the sea, the WF results
presented here are overestimated.
- For different energy sources, the median WF values from the
study by Williams and Simmons (2013), Mekonnen et al.
(2015), and King and Webber (2008) were used, as shown
in Table 1. Hence, the results for other countries may deviate
in cases where the WF of energy generation substantially
differs from the average figures presented in Table 1.
- Selected buildings are located in an area with a relatively
high seismic risk. Hence, the results are overestimated for
areas with low seismic risk.
- Normal concrete and unalloyed steel are considered. For
different types of concrete and steel (for example, high
strength), the results are not useable.
- The selected buildings have three to eight stories, and an area
of 665 to 2703 m2. The results can be used for such buildings
sizes. Besides, the buildings are residential. For industrial and
commercial buildings with heavy structures (due to their
high live loads), the results are underestimated.
- The types of soil are rock, very dense soil, and stiff soil
(NEHRP, 2004). Therefore, the results are overestimated for
buildings with soft and very soft soils.
- Steel structures are braced frames, and concrete structures
are moment-resisting frames and dual systems. For different
types of structures, the results are not useable.
According to Iran center of Statistics (2019), around 84.6 percent
of buildings are residential, of which 62.2% are concrete, and 17.5%
are steel. The total building area completed, in 2018, in Iran, is
estimated to be 59.746  106 m2, of which 45.561  106 m2 are
residential buildings (Iran center of Statistics, 2019). Among resi-
dential buildings, around 28.338  106 m2 are concrete, and
7.973  106 m2 are steel structures. By using Fig. 17, the WFs of
concrete and steel structures in Iran can be calculated
(129.22  106 m3/y and 43.52  106 m3/y, respectively). The total
blue water footprint of Iran is equivalent to around
40,912.76  106 m3 (Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami, 2018).
Accordingly, the WF of steel and concrete structures stands for
around 0.42% of the total WF of Iran. Hosseinian and
Steel ((Ton/m2 Concrete (m3/m2) Food ((Person-day/m2 DWC (m3/m2) Total
0.111 0.177 0.466 0.048
[2.12] [0.41] [2.22] [0.05] [4.92]
0.048 0.301 0.356 0.11
[0.93] [0.70] [1.69] [0.10] [3.88]
WCI (m3̸ m2) Location
With indirect water of personnel Without indirect water of personnel
e 1.50 Australia
4.62 1.73 Iran
e 2.50 Australia
4.86 1.49 Iran
Nezamoleslami (2018) showed that cement production stands for
about 0.39% of the total blue WF of Iran, and Gu et al. (2015)
demonstrated that steel production stands for about 0.4% of the
total blue WF of China. The water footprint of building structures
seems to be significant in comparison with other industries. As the
building industry plays an important role in the economic growth
of nations, reducing the WF of buildings helps improve sustain-
ability. This confirms the necessity of this study. Structural de-
signers may use the results of this paper in the process of selecting
structural parameters. Structural materials (steel and concrete)
account for about 55.77% of the total WF of structures (see Table 5),
so the steel and concrete industries play a vital role in reducing the
WF of buildings. This result fits well with previous findings for the
carbon footprint (Nadoushani and Akbarnezhad, 2015). For water-
saving measures in the cement, concrete and steel industries
refer to Hosseinian and Nezamoleslami (2018, 2019), and
Nezamoleslami and Hosseinian (2020), respectively.
6. Conclusion
As stated in the Introduction, this research was conducted to
examine the impact of structural parameters (area, height, material,
slab, and the lateral load resisting system) along with site classifi-
cation on the water footprint of building construction. Ideas from
the LCA methodology and the Water Footprint Network were
applied. The paper proposed a water footprint framework for res-
idential building assessment. The paper also provided high quality
data sources by reviewing the literature, analyzing a concrete block
production plant, investigating 21 construction sites, and analyzing
45 residential apartments.
The paper findings are as follows:
1 Concrete structures perform better than steel structures in
terms of reducing the water footprint of buildings. On average, a
22% reduction seems to be achieved by replacing steel structures
with concrete structures.
2 Considering the water footprint intensity as the criterion of
choice, the tendency is for short structures rather than tall
structures. Reducing the number of stories helps improve the
water consumption intensity of structures. For example, a 22.2%
(7.5%) reduction in the WCI of an eight-story steel (concrete)
structure seems to be obtained through replacing it with two
different four-story steel (concrete) structures.
3 Small buildings are preferable to large buildings in terms of the
water consumption intensity of their structures. For example,
 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562
the average of the WCI of considered steel and concrete struc-
tures with the total area less than 1300 m2, is, respectively, 16%
and 5% of the WCI of steel and concrete structures with the total
area greater than 1300 m2.
4 Site (soil) classification affects the WCI of structures. For
example, an 8.1% and 7.4% reduction in the WF of steel and
concrete structures, respectively, can be achieved through the
selection of a site with a very dense soil compared with a site
with a stiff soil.
5 Composite slabs generally appear to perform considerably bet-
ter than steel deck and cobute precast slabs in terms of reducing
the WF of steel structures. Also, in concrete structures, waffle
slabs seem to perform better than cobute precast and post-
tension slabs. For example, a reduction of 15% and 12% in the
WFs of a five-story steel and concrete structure was seen
through replacing a cobute-precast slab with a composite and
waffle slab, respectively.
6 It seems that the impact of lateral load resisting systems
(moment frames versus dual) on the WF of structures is not as
significant as the impact of other structural parameters. For
example, a 3.75% reduction in the WF of a four-story concrete
structure was seen through the replacement of a dual system
with a moment frame system.
7 The WF of steel structures seems to be more sensitive than that
of concrete structures to changes in structural parameters.
This study is the first step towards the importance of consid-
ering the WF concept in the process of selecting structural pa-
rameters. Nevertheless, the considered buildings are residential
with three to eight stories, 665 to 2703 m2 areas, and are located in
a region with a relatively high seismic risk. High-quality water
consumption intensity data were used for materials and energy
production based on the findings of other studies. Hence, the re-
sults presented in this paper are applicable by considering such
limitations and should not be used to draw a general conclusion
about the advantage of a particular structural type over other types
without conducting a detailed assessment. Furthermore, the WF of
different structures is sensitive to the water consumption intensity
of materials. Such water consumption intensity, however, varies
from a factory to another factory because of differences in the local
processes and technologies and the adopted methodology for life
cycle assessment. Besides, the water consumption estimation of
construction sites may be sensitive to other project-specific pa-
rameters such as location, cost of construction materials, weather
data, and the type of the building. A comprehensive case study on
the WF of building structures with various structural parameters is
required to make a global dataset. In addition, the water footprint of
construction waste was not considered. This may affect the WF
results. It can be concluded that a reduction in the WF of structures
can be achieved through the selection of an alternative character-
istic for structural systems.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
S. Mahdi Hosseinian: Conceptualization, Methodology, Valida-
tion, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing, Su-
pervision. S. Mozhdeh Ghahari: Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Resources, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
13
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123562.
References
ACI Committee, 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
08) and Commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
AISC, 2010. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL, USA.
Bardhan, S., 2011. Assessment of water resource consumption in building con-
struction in India. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 144, 93e101.
Cheng, S., Lin, J., Yang, D., Liu, J., Li, H., 2020. Carbon, water, land and material
footprints of China’s high-speed railway construction. Transport. Res. Transport
Environ. 82, 102e108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102314.
CSI, 2000. ETABS 9.7.4. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA.
www.csiberkeley.com. (Accessed January 2019).
Carmichael, D.G., Shen, X., Peansupap, V., 2019. The relationship between heavy
equipment cost efficiency and cleaner production in construction. J. Clean. Prod.
211, 521e529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.167.
Dimoudi, A., Tompa, C., 2008. Energy and environmental indicators related to
construction of office buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53 (1e2), 86e95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.09.008.
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Hoekstra, A.Y., Bosman, R., 2018. The blue and grey water
footprint of construction materials: steel, cement and glass. Water Resour. In-
dustry 19, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2017.11.002.
Ghose, A., McLaren, S.J., Dowdell, D., Phipps, R., 2017. Environmental assessment of
deep energy refurbishment for energy efficiency-case study of an office
building in New Zealand. Build. Environ. 117, 274e287. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2017.03.012.
Gu, Y., Xu, J., Keller, A.A., Yuan, D., Li, Y., Zhang, B., Weng, Q., Zhang, X., Deng, P.,
Wang, H., Li, F., 2015. Calculation of water footprint of the iron and steel in-
dustry: a case study in Eastern China. J. Clean. Prod. 92, 274e281. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.094.
Han, M.Y., Chen, G.Q., Meng, J., Wu, X.D., Alsaedi, A., Ahmad, B., 2016. Virtual water
accounting for a building construction engineering project with nine sub-
projects: a case in E-town, Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4691e4700. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.048.
Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. The water footprint of industry. In: Klemes, J.J. (Ed.), Assessing
and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability. Butterworth-Heine-
mann, Oxford, pp. 221e254. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-
5.00007-5.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2011. The Water
Footprint Assessment Manual. Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London.
Hosseinian, S.M., Nezamoleslami, R., 2018. Water footprint and virtual water
assessment in cement industry: a case study in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
2454e2463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.164.
Hosseinian, S.M., Nezamoleslami, R., 2019. An empirical investigation into water
footprint of concrete industry in Iran. In: Environmental Water Footprints.
Springer, Singapore, pp. 47e75.
International Organization for Standardization, 2006. ISO 14040. Environmental
Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Principles and Framework.
International Organization for Standardization, 2012. ISO 14049. Environmental
Management d Life Cycle Assessment d Illustrative Examples on How to
Apply ISO 14044 to Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis.
International Organization for Standardization, 2014. ISO 14046. Environmental
Management - Water Footprint - Principles, Requirements and Guidelines.
Iran Center of Statistics, 2019. Information of Building Permits Issued by Munici-
palities of the Whole Country. In: Persian. http://www.amar.org.ir/portals/0/
News/1397/pars-96.pdf. (Accessed February 2019).
Iran Center of Statistics, Ministry of Cooperation, Labor and Social Welfare Statistics,
2018. In: Persian. http://www.amarkar.ir/handler/getfile.ashx?type¼pub&
id¼429. (Accessed January 2019).
Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 2014. Road,
Housing and Urban Development Research Center, fourth ed. Standard 2800.
Ji, C., Hong, T., Park, H.S., 2014. Comparative analysis of decision-making methods
for integrating cost and CO2 emissionefocus on building structural design.
Energy Build. 72, 186e194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.045.
Kelley, C.P., Mohtadi, S., Cane, M.A., Seager, R., Kushnir, Y., 2015. Climate change in
the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 112 (11), 3241e3246. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1421533112.
King, C.W., Webber, M.E., 2008. Water intensity of transportation. ACS Publicat. 42
(21), 7866e7872. https://doi.org/10.1021/es800367m.
Kousari, M.R., Dastorani, M.T., Niazi, Y., Soheili, E., Hayatzadeh, M., Chezgi, J., 2014.
Trend detection of drought in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran based on
implementation of reconnaissance drought index (RDI) and application of non-
parametrical statistical method. Water Resour. Manag. 28 (7), 1857e1872.
Mack-Vergara, Y.L., John, V.M., 2017. Life cycle water inventory in concrete
productionda review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122, 227e250. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.004.
McCormack, M., Treloar, G.J., Palmowski, L., Crawford, R., 2007. Modelling direct and
14 S.M. Hosseinian, S.M. Ghahari / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123562
indirect water requirements of construction. Build. Res. Inf. 35 (2), 156e162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210601125383.
Mekonnen, M.M., Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. The consumptive
water footprint of electricity and heat: a global assessment. Environ. Sci. J.
Integr. Environ. Res.: Water Res. Technol. 1 (3), 285e297. https://doi.org/
10.1039/C5EW00026B.
Meng, J., Chen, G.Q., Shao, L., Li, J.S., Tang, H.S., Hayat, T., Alsaedi, A., Alsaadi, F., 2014.
Virtual water accounting for building: case study for E-town, Beijing. J. Clean.
Prod. 68, 7e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.045.
Munro, S.A., Fraser, G.C., Snowball, J.D., Pahlow, M., 2016. Water footprint assess-
ment of citrus production in South Africa: a case study of the Lower Sundays
River Valley. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 668e678. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.06.142.
Nadoushani, Z.S.M, Akbarnezhad, A, 2015. Effects of structural system on the life
cycle carbon footprint of buildings. Energy and Buildings 102, 337e346.
NEHRP, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 2004. NEHRP Recom-
mended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures (FEMA 450). Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of
Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2004.
Nezamoleslami, R., Hosseinian, S.M., 2020. An improved water footprint model of
steel production concerning virtual water of personnel: the case of Iran.
J. Environ. Manag. 260, 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110065.
Office for National Statistics, 2018. “A wide range of statistics and analysis on the
construction industry in Great Britain in 2017”, Construction Statistics. www.
one.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/articles/
constractionstatistics/number192018edition/pdf. (Accessed October 2018).
Reserve Bank of Australia, 2020. Composition of the Australian economy snapsho.
https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/snapshots/economy-
composition-snapshot/. (Accessed October 2018).
Ridoutt, B.G., Sanguansri, P., Nolan, M., Marks, N., 2012. Meat consumption and
water scarcity: beware of generalizations. J. Clean. Prod. 28, 127e133. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.027.
Saze90, 2011. In: Persian. www.saze90.com. (Accessed January 2018).
Siew, R.Y., Balatbat, M.C., Carmichael, D.G., 2016. A proposed framework for
assessing the sustainability of infrastructure. Int. J. Construction Manage. 16 (4),
281e298. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1146115.
Spiess, W., 2014. Virtual water and water footprint of food production and pro-
cessing. Encyclopedia of Agricult. and Food Syst. 333e355.
Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J.L., Gasol, C.M., Guillem, M., Josa, A., 2012.
Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: alife-
cycle assessment study. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 60e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2011.11.055.
Williams, E., Simmons, J.E., 2013. Water in the Energy Industry: an Introduction. BP
International Limited. (Accessed June 2019).
Wu, Z., Ann, T.W., Shen, L., Liu, G., 2014. Quantifying construction and demolition
waste: an analytical review. Waste Manag. 34 (9), 1683e1692. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010.