Pone D 22 15136 - R1

PLOS ONE
Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) indicators for food crop production: A
case study of Addis Ababa city
--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-15136R1
Article Type: Research Article
Full Title: Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) indicators for food crop production: A
case study of Addis Ababa city
Short Title: Water-food nexus in food crop production
Corresponding Author: Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa, MSc

Addis Ababa Institute of Technology
Addis, ETHIOPIA
Keywords: Water, nexus, water footprint, food, urban, production
Abstract: Analyzing the water–food nexus is the first step in examining the decision maker in
planning and evaluating urban policies that consider the nexus. The main purpose of
this research is to create a tool for decision makers to analyze and quantify the
water–food nexus of the urban agricultural food crop production. Using the proposed
strategy, indicators for water consumption and water footprint productivity were
provided. A water–food nexus was created using these indicators. Annual water
demand indicators for potato, tomato, onion, and cabbage were calculated to be
around 9070, 9330, 6240, and 8230 m3/ha, respectively. The computed water
consumption indicator of vegetable crops ranged from 6240 to 9330 m3/ha, according
to the study. When compared to other food crops, onion has the lowest water
consumption indicator. The water-food nexus in agricultural food crop production can
be used as a comprehensive instrument to assess progress in city water and
agricultural initiatives. It might also be used to analyze the performance of the water-
food nexus management on a yearly basis.
Order of Authors: Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa, MSc
Opposed Reviewers:
Response to Reviewers: Respond to reviewers
Lines27-29 Page1, I don’t think “it is important to know the irrigation water demand
through the water-food nexus indicators”. On the contrary, irrigation water demand is a
vehicle for understanding the water-food nexus.
Incorporated accordingly
--------------irrigation water demand is a vehicle for understanding water and food nexus
through water footprint or embedded water in food crop production.
In this article, the author mistakenly equates food production with crop water demand.
In fact, food production also involves the processing of food. In addition, the author
repeatedly stressed the urban scale, but the article did not reflect the particularity of
urban scale.
The analysis is concerned to agricultural urban food crop production
In the introduction, the author mentions the interaction of water-food nexus, while the
paper merely estimates the water footprint of four major crops, not the interaction.
Therefore, I recommend that the introduction should be rewritten.
Incorporated accordingly
In the data section, perhaps the authors should show the spatial distribution of the area
of the four major crops, rather than just showing the meteorological conditions.
The food crop such as potato, tomato, onion and cabbage, which are mostly grown
along in the upper and middle parts of the Akaki River are considered for the study.
The land area of crop production in hectares (ha) for each crop (potato, tomato, onion
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
and cabbage) and yield of these crops (ton) was obtained from Addis Ababa
agricultural office, which is also used to estimate quantitatively the water-food nexus.
Since food production is calculated by multiplying land area by food yield, data on the
existing yield of these four crops (production per unit area of land) as well as their land
area is required. These data is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Planting area and yields of crops (Data from Addis Ababa agricultural office)
In water use indicators section, please explain why crop water requirement per unit
area in the study differs from the results of previous studies. And please verify the
reliability of the results of this study.
The annual water demand indicator which is the volume of water per area of cropland
for potato, tomato, onion and cabbage is 9070, 9330, 6240 and 8230 m3/ha,
respectively. The annual water consumption (Wc) indicator per hectare for tomato,
potato, onion and cabbage was about 5600, 5440, 3740 and 4940 m3/ha, respectively.
This is comparable to other studies. Tadesse et al., 2003 estimated annual water
consumption for tomato, potato, onion and cabbage as 5130, 5650, 5400 and 5830
m3/ha, respectively. These insignificant result variations can be due to the spatial and
temporal variation of input datasets like climate datasets, methods and or tools
adopted, and others such as planting date, etc.
In Figure 8, the unit information of the vertical axis is unclear.
Figure 9. Estimated water use for categories of crop
Additional Information:
Question Response
Financial Disclosure Analysis, methodology, data source
Enter a financial disclosure statement that

describes the sources of funding for the
work included in this submission. Review
the submission guidelines for detailed
requirements. View published research
articles from PLOS ONE for specific
examples.
This statement is required for submission

and will appear in the published article if
the submission is accepted. Please make
sure it is accurate.
Unfunded studies
Enter: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Funded studies
Enter a statement with the following details:
• Initials of the authors who received each
award
• Grant numbers awarded to each author
• The full name of each funder
• URL of each funder website
• Did the sponsors or funders play any role in
the study design, data collection and
analysis, decision to publish, or preparation
of the manuscript?
• NO - Include this sentence at the end of
your statement: The funders had no role in
study design, data collection and analysis,
decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
• YES - Specify the role(s) played.
* typeset
Competing Interests no
Use the instructions below to enter a

competing interest statement for this
submission. On behalf of all authors,
disclose any competing interests that
could be perceived to bias this
work—acknowledging all financial support
and any other relevant financial or non-
financial competing interests.
This statement is required for submission

and will appear in the published article if
the submission is accepted. Please make
sure it is accurate and that any funding
sources listed in your Funding Information
later in the submission form are also
declared in your Financial Disclosure
statement.
View published research articles from

PLOS ONE for specific examples.
NO authors have competing interests
Enter: The authors have declared that no

competing interests exist.
Authors with competing interests
Enter competing interest details beginning

with this statement:
I have read the journal's policy and the

authors of this manuscript have the following
competing interests: [insert competing
interests here]
* typeset
Ethics Statement no
Enter an ethics statement for this

submission. This statement is required if
the study involved:
• Human participants
• Human specimens or tissue
• Vertebrate animals or cephalopods
• Vertebrate embryos or tissues
• Field research
Write "N/A" if the submission does not

require an ethics statement.
General guidance is provided below.

Consult the submission guidelines for
detailed instructions. Make sure that all
information entered here is included in the
Methods section of the manuscript.
Format for specific study types
Human Subject Research (involving human

participants and/or tissue)
• Give the name of the institutional review
board or ethics committee that approved the
study
• Include the approval number and/or a
statement indicating approval of this
research
• Indicate the form of consent obtained
(written/oral) or the reason that consent was
not obtained (e.g. the data were analyzed
anonymously)
Animal Research (involving vertebrate
animals, embryos or tissues)

• Provide the name of the Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or other
relevant ethics board that reviewed the
study protocol, and indicate whether they
approved this research or granted a formal
waiver of ethical approval
• Include an approval number if one was
obtained
• If the study involved non-human primates,
add additional details about animal welfare
and steps taken to ameliorate suffering
• If anesthesia, euthanasia, or any kind of
animal sacrifice is part of the study, include
briefly which substances and/or methods
were applied
Field Research
Include the following details if this study
involves the collection of plant, animal, or
other materials from a natural setting:

• Field permit number
• Name of the institution or relevant body that
granted permission
Data Availability Yes - all data are fully available without restriction
Authors are required to make all data

underlying the findings described fully
available, without restriction, and from the
time of publication. PLOS allows rare
exceptions to address legal and ethical
concerns. See the PLOS Data Policy and
FAQ for detailed information.
A Data Availability Statement describing
where the data can be found is required at
submission. Your answers to this question
constitute the Data Availability Statement
and will be published in the article, if
accepted.
Important: Stating ‘data available on request

from the author’ is not sufficient. If your data
are only available upon request, select ‘No’ for
the first question and explain your exceptional
situation in the text box.
Do the authors confirm that all data

underlying the findings described in their
manuscript are fully available without
restriction?
Describe where the data may be found in Have supporting data

full sentences. If you are copying our
sample text, replace any instances of XXX
with the appropriate details.
• If the data are held or will be held in a

public repository, include URLs,
accession numbers or DOIs. If this
information will only be available after
acceptance, indicate this by ticking the
box below. For example: All XXX files
are available from the XXX database
(accession number(s) XXX, XXX.).
• If the data are all contained within the
manuscript and/or Supporting
Information files, enter the following:
All relevant data are within the
manuscript and its Supporting
Information files.
• If neither of these applies but you are
able to provide details of access
elsewhere, with or without limitations,
please do so. For example:
Data cannot be shared publicly because

of [XXX]. Data are available from the
XXX Institutional Data Access / Ethics
Committee (contact via XXX) for
researchers who meet the criteria for
access to confidential data.
The data underlying the results

presented in the study are available
from (include the name of the third party
and contact information or URL).
• This text is appropriate if the data are
owned by a third party and authors do
not have permission to share the data.
* typeset
Additional data availability information:
Cover Letter
Dear chief editor,
The entitled title “Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) in food production: A case
study of Addis Ababa city” is has submitted to Plose one Journal.
The study helps to understand the water-food nexus at city scale and used for resources
management and policy making.
Regards,
Bedassa Desalegn
Date: 25/05/2022
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Manuscript_2.docx
Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) in food crop

production: A case study of Addis Ababa city
Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa1*, Semu Moges Ayalew2, Geremew Sahilu Gebrie1, Solomon T/mariam Teferi1
1
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2 School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, Connecticut, United State of America
* bedassa.dessalegn@aait.edu.et
Abstract
Analyzing the water–food nexus is the first step in examining the decision maker in planning and
evaluating urban policies that consider the nexus. The main purpose of this research is to create a
tool for decision makers to analyze and quantify the water–food nexus of the agricultural
production system at the urban level. Using the proposed strategy, indicators for water
consumption and water footprint productivity were provided. A water–food nexus was created
using these indicators. Annual water demand indicators for potato, tomato, onion, and cabbage
were calculated to be around 9070, 9330, 6240, and 8230 m3/ha, respectively. The computed
water consumption indicator of vegetable crops ranged from 6240 to 9330 m3/ha, according to
the study. When compared to other food crops, onion has the lowest water consumption
indicator. The water-food nexus can be used as a comprehensive instrument to assess progress in
city water and agricultural initiatives. It might also be used to analyze the performance of the
water-food nexus management on a yearly basis.
1. Introduction
The water, energy and food are the important pillars on which human being exists and develops.
In water-energy nexus for water system studies, the intrinsic links between the two resources are
précised as energy intensity (Voinov & Cardwell, 2009). Consequently, water-food is dependent
on each other and their relationship is termed as water-food nexus. Food crop production (e.g.,
irrigation) is the main consumer of water and it is important to know the irrigation water demand
through the water-food nexus indicators or embedded water in food production. For the
integrated delivery of water-food systems, quantifying water-food connections helps to
understand synergies across the water and food sectors. Quantifying the interconnection between
water and food is regarded as a crucial step to design policies that ensure to improve
urban water-food security and sustainable food production (Mortada, Abou Najm, Yassine, El
Fadel, & Alamiddine, 2018).
The water-food nexus attracts the attention to ensure those resources, and to do so; quantitative
models should allow its evaluation. This nexus is a complex concept often used in the
comprehensive study and management of water-food resource systems (Mortada, Abou Najm,
Yassine, El Fadel, & Alamiddine, 2018). The complexity of the nexus promoted several models
to understand its scope better (Zhang, Chen, Li, Ding, & Fu, 2018). It is essential to use a tool
that promotes the water-food nexus evaluations and helps introduce new policies and resource
management.
The water-food nexus in food production can be defined as the water consumption of different
crops, and for each crop; it refers to the volume of irrigation water consumed (Hoekstra &
Chapagain, 2007). The nexus can be assessed based on the water footprints of the crop, which
were estimated according to the FAO's model (FAO, 2010). The water footprint of crop indicates
the volume of water consumption during crop growth per unit crop yield (Hoekstra A. , 2008).
Water footprint has been one of the most commonly met in the water-food nexus measurement
results of the nexus output (De Vito, Portoghese, Pagano, Fratino, & Vurro, 2017). It has been
widely used in quantifying and assessing water consumption in crop production (Mekonnen &
Hoekstra, The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products, 2011). A
crop water footprint is dependent on climatic and specific crop parameters collected over time
and studies have been carried out around the world (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, A global and high
resolution assessment of green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat, 2010).
Most of the published nexus studies provide qualitative analyses, and few present a quantitative
assessment (Evelyn, Alma, Elena, Fabiola, & Otilio, 2021). The quantifications of water-food
interconnections are still immature and have to be quantified to determine embedded water in
urban food production. Understanding the water-food nexus at the urban scale through
quantification is the first step toward integrated water-food systems and integrated water-energy-
food (WEF) nexus model, both of which contribute to water security management. However,
there are methodological issues with existing water-food connectivity quantification in food
production. Also, existing calculation findings are dispersed among a large number of studies in
a variety of disciplines, making data collection and interpretation more complex. To advance
robust water-food nexus quantification in food production and contribute to integrated WEF
systems nexus modeling, this study estimates water-food interconnection in food production at
the urban scale.
This study aims to quantify water requirement for food production in the urban area of Addis
Ababa under four different crop categories (potato, tomato, onion and cabbage) using the FAO-
PM method with the help of CropWat model. Finally, the study quantifies the baseline urban
water-food nexus for food production system by considering the nexus indicators (water per unit
hectare of land and water footprint).
2. Methodology
2.1. Data
A seven-year (2010 to 2016) daily meteorological data were taken from National Metrological
Service Agency (NMSA) at three stations (Observatory, Akaki and Bole). The main considered
meteorological variables include the maximum temperature (Tmax), minimum temperature (Tmin),
sunshine duration (n), wind speed (uz), maximum relative humidity (RHmax), and minimum
relative humidity (RHmin). The average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures of the
three stations are indicated in Figure 1.
30
25
Temperature (OC)
20
Tmin
15
Tmax
10
5
Jun
Oct
Dec
Apr
Jul
Aug
Nov
Jan
Feb
May
Sep
Mar
Month
Figure 1. Average annual monthly temperature for three stations (OBS, Akaki and Bole) (Data
from NMSA)
The highest value of average wind speed is in February (0.9 m/s) and March (1.0 m/s) and the
lowest wind speed is in August (0.5 m/s). The average sunshine is maximum in December (9.1
hr) and minimum in July (3.1 hr). The average annual wind speed and sunshine value for Addis
Ababa are 0.8 m/s and 6.7 hr, respectively, which are given in Figure 2.
10 1.2
1.0
Wind speed (m/s)

8
Sunshine (hr)
0.8
6
0.6 Sunshine
4 Wind speed
0.4
2 0.2
Jul
Oct
Dec
Apr
Jun
Aug
Nov
Jan
Feb
May
Sep
Mar
Month
Figure 2. Average monthly wind speed and sunshine (2010-2016) (Data from NMSA)
Another important data is precipitation and relative humidity (RH). The average relative
humidity (RH) in 2010-2016 was 58% at Addis Ababa Observatory and Bole. The highest RH
value is in August (75%) and July (73%), whereas February is the lowest RH (46%). The
average annual total rainfall (at Akaki, Bole and observatory) in general was 1012 mm in the
year 2010 to 2016. The wet season is from June to mid-September. The highest precipitation is
recorded in July and August. There is a significant monthly variation of precipitation and RH as
described in Figure 3.
300 80
Relative humidity (%)

250
Precipitation (mm)
70
200
150 60
Precipitation
100 Relative humidity
50
50
0 40
Oct
Dec
Apr
Feb
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Month
Figure 3. Monthly average RH and precipitation (2010-2016) (Data from NMSA)

The amount of crop evaporation was calculated by CropWat model. The collected climate dataset
can be used within the penman-montheith (PM) method and it allows calculating the crop water
requirement for different crops (FAO, 2018). The data used for the PM method includes a
monthly climatic parameter, coordinates and altitude of the location. These parameters are
monthly maximum and minimum temperature (oC), wind speed (m/s), mean relative humidity
(%) and sunshine hours (h) (Clarke, Smith, & El-Askari, 2001).
The other data required includes soil and crop. In this study tomato, onion, cabbage and potato
are considered and their data (e.g., root depth, kc, critical depletion, yield response factor, and
length of plant growth stages) were taken from FAO (Clarke, Smith, & El-Askari, 2001).
Planting dates were taken according to the guide to agricultural operations of Addis Ababa city.
The effective rainfall considering rainfall data of seven years (2010-2016) from three stations
(Observatory, Akaki and Bole) were calculated. The United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service (USDA SCS) method in CropWat model was used in this study for the
computation of effective rainfall (FAO, 2018). The land area of crop production in hectares (ha)
for each crop (potato, tomato, onion and cabbage) and yield of these crops (ton) was obtained
from Addis Ababa agricultural office, which is also used to estimate quantitatively the water-
food nexus.
2.2. Water-food nexus framework and parameters
Two basic indicators were proposed to be applied as a tool to quantify the water-food nexus in
the area of the crop production system. The two water-food nexus indicators in crop production
include water demand or consumption indicators, which is the annual water demand or
consumption per hectare of the crop and water footprint indicators, which is a yield of crop per
water consumption or demand. Based on the water consumption and footprint indicator the
water-food nexus was determined. The computation framework to quantify the nexus indicator is
given in Figure 4.
Climate, rainfall
Irrigation water
parameter Crop water requirement (IWR)
requirement (CWR)
Crop
parameter Water demand
Crop area
Water consumption
Water demand
Crop area indicator
Water consumption
indicator
Crop yield Water demand

Water consumption footprint
footprint
Figure 4. Computation framework of water-food nexus indicators

Through the study, basic indicators were proposed to be applied as a tool to quantify the urban
water-food nexus considering water required in food crop production, help in drawing strategies
in the area of the crop production system, and indicated in Figure 5.
Indicator 1: Water consumption or demand
Food
Water-food nexus
Indicator 2: Water footprint

indicators
Strategies to improve
the water-food nexus
Water
Figure 5. Water-food nexus assessment indicators (El-Gafy, 2017)
The first step in computing the water footprint in food crop production is estimating the
reference evapotranspiration (ETo). FAO model is a program for the calculation of water
requirement of crop production based on soil, climate and crop data. It is a decision support tool
developed by FAO land and water development division (Nhamo & Ndlela, 2018). The
advantage of using the FAO model as a tool for assessing crop water use can be due to less
intense data requirements (standard meteorological inputs) than other dynamic models (Allen R.
, Pereira, Raes, & Smith, 1998).
FAO Penman-Monteith (PM) method is practical and recommended as the sole and standard to
carry out calculations of reference evapotranspiration, provides values that are more accurate and
consistent with actual crop water use worldwide (FAO, 1992). The FAO computer program
utilizes the PM method. The rate of evapotranspiration (ET) from a hypothetical crop with a
height (0.12 m), albedo (0.23), and fixed canopy resistance (70 s/m) are termed as ETo (Shahid,
2011). The ET0 was calculated based on the FAO-PM method as given by Eq (1).
900
0.408∆(Rn −G)+ γ( )U (e −ea )
T+273 z s
ETo = (1)
∆+ γ(1+0.34u2 )
Where ∆ is the slope vapor pressure (kPa/0C); Rn is net radiation (MJ/m2d); G is the soil heat flux
(MJ/m2d). Similarly, γ is the psychrometric constant (kPa/0C); uz is the daily mean wind speed at
2 m height (m/s); es is the saturation vapor pressure (kPa) calculated using the observed Tmax and
Tmin. Besides, ea is the daily mean actual vapor pressure (kPa) expressed as a function of
observed Tmax, Tmin, RHmax, and RHmin (Er-Raki, Chehbouni, & Guemouria, 2007).
The net radiation was calculated as follows using Eq (2).
n
R n = 0.77 (a + b N) R a − R nl (2)
Where a and b are constant coefficients (a = 0.18 and b = 0.55); n is the sunshine duration (hr); N
is the maximum sunshine duration (hr); Ra is the extraterrestrial radiation (MJ/m2d); and Rnl is
the net outgoing longwave radiation (MJ/m2d) (Zotarelli, Dukes, Romero, Migliaccio, &
Morgan, 2010).
2.3. Consumption perspective water-food nexus
The crop water requirement (CWR) is the amount of water equal to what is lost from a cropped
field by the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and is expressed as a function of ETc and effective
rainfall (Peffe). These two variables can be measured in millimeters (mm). The CWR is computed
as follows by Eq (3).
CWR = ETc − Peffe (3)
The CWR approach is based on the crop coefficient (Kc) to calculate the ETc (mm) of each crop
for the meteorological stations (Yang, et al., 2017). It is computed using Eq (4).
ETc = K C X ETo (4)
The Kc value is affected by climate, soil evaporation, crop type, and crop growth stages (Jia, et
al., 2019). Due to the ET differences during the growth stages, the Kc value of the crop is varying
over the developing period that can be categorized into four distinct stages (initial, development,
mid and late) (Allen R. , Pereira, Raes, & Smith, 1998). The Kc value for four distinct stages of
different crops considered in this study is indicated in Figure 6.
1.2
1.1
1
Kc values 0.9
Potato
0.8
0.7 Onion
0.6 Cabbage
0.5 Tomato
0.4
55
100
165
25
30
40
65
70
85
95
115
130
145
150
Stage (Days)
Figure 6.The Kc for different growing stages of different crops (Allen R. , Pereira, Raes, &
Smith, 1998)
The USDA SCS method is used to estimate the Peffe considering the precipitation (P). According
to this method, Eq (5) and Eq (6) are used to compute Peffe (mm) from P (mm).
P (125−0.2 ×3 × P) 250
Peffe = for P ≤ (5)
125 3
125 250
Peffe = + 0.1 × P for P > (6)
3 3
Water consumption (Wc) indicator: It is the water consumption per hectare of the crop (m3/ha)
and calculated considering CWR (mm) and crop area (Ac) in hectare (ha) as indicated in Eq (7).
CWR
Wc = (7)
Ac
Water consumption footprint (Wfp,c) indicator: Water footprint (m3/ton) is calculated applying Eq
(8) using a yield of the crop (Yc) (ton/ha) and Wc (m3/ha).
Yc
Wpro = (8)
Wc
Total water consumption (Wt,c): Total water of the production of crop per year (m3/year) is
calculated based on Ac (ha) and Wc (m3/ha) according to Eq (9).
Wt,c = ∑vc=1 Ac × wc (9)

2.4. Demand perspective water-food nexus
Crop water demand or irrigation water requirement can be computed using Eq (10).
S X CWR
IWR = (10)
IC
Where IWR = irrigation water requirement of certain crops (m3), S = area of the crop (ha), Ic =
irrigation efficiency or field efficiency which is taken as 60% for Akaki catchment (Fitsume,
Kidist, Michael, Richard, & Molla., 2017).
Water demand (Wd) indicators: It is the water demand per hectare of the crop (m3/ha) and
calculated applying Eq (11) by considering IWR (m3) and Ac (ha).
IWR
Wd = (11)
Ac
Water demand footprint (Wfp,d) indicators: Water footprint (m3/ton) depend on the yield of the
crop (Yc) (ton/ha) and Wd (m3/ha). It is calculated applying Eq (12).
Yc
Wpro = (12)
Wd
Total water demand (Wt,d): This is the total water of the production of the crop per year (m3/year)
and calculated using cultivated area of the crop (ha) and water demand indicator (m3/ha) by Eq
(13).
Wt,d = ∑vc=1 Ac × Wd (13)

3. Result and discussion
This study estimate water-food nexus indicators in urban food production system for a long-term
resources planning at urban scale. FAO-PM method with the help of CropWat model is used to
determine the amount of water needed in food production system. The results of unit water
required per food production and per land as a water-food nexus indictor of crop production are
obtained.
a. Water requirement
The average annual precipitation that was considered in the estimation of effective rainfall is
around 1012 mm. Effective rainfall is the part of precipitation, which is effectively used by the
crop after losses by runoff and deep percolation; it was used to compute the crop water
consumption or crop water requirement. The annual average ET0 and effective rainfall were
estimated as 1321 and 734 mm, respectively.
The losses are taking place during the transport of water to irrigation land; therefore,
determination of IWR is needed for consideration of losses or efficiency. Having efficiency,
water consumption is converted to irrigation water requirement. Based on the calculated CWR,
the IWR was estimated. The value used in computation of water-food nexus indictor for each
crop categories is given in Figure 7.
1400
Nexus parameter (mm)
1200
1000
800 CWR
IWR
600
ETc
400
200
Potato Tomato Onion Cabbage
Food crop
Figure 7. Annual value of water-food nexus indictor parameter for different crops
b. Amount of water use
The value of the water use for each crops in 2016 accounted about 362800, 93300, 62400 and
246900 m3 for potato, tomato, onion and cabbage respectively. The total water use of crops is the
sum of the water use of the individual four crops (potato, tomato, cabbage and onion), which is
767 and 460 x 103 m3 for gross and net respectively. This indicate that the total water
consumption for the production of four food crops in 2016 was about 460 x 103 m3 (47, 8, 32 and
12% were used by potato, onion, cabbage and tomato, respectively). The annual water
consumption and demand in 103 m3 for each crop is shown in Figure 8.
0.4
0.3
Water (MCM)
0.2 Consumption
Demand
0.1
0
Food crop
c. Water use indicators
The annual water demand indicator in the volume of water per area of cropland for potato,
tomato, onion and cabbage were estimated to be around 9070, 9330, 6240 and 8230 m3/ha,
respectively. In addition, the annual water consumption (Wc) indicator for onion and tomato at
Addis Ababa city sub-catchment is estimated as 3472 and 5296 m3/ha, respectively (Fitsume,
Kidist, Michael, Richard, & Molla., 2017). Consequently, other studies have been estimated for
tomato, potato, onion and cabbage as 5130, 5650, 5400 and 5830 m3/ha, respectively (Tadesse,
MoA., Girma, & ILRI., 2003). In this study, water applied per hectare for tomato, potato, onion
and cabbage was about 5600, 5440, 3740 and 4940 m3/ha, respectively, which is showing
insignificant variation to these other studies.
d. Water footprint indicators
Another indicator in this study was water footprint that importance is being paid to producing
more with comparatively less water. An estimate of water footprint and information about the
affecting factors would assist in creating plans to improve water footprint in a particular area.
This index is mainly influenced by two factors such as water input and crop yield. Each kind of
crop with higher water consumption has high water footprint than other crops (Figure 9).
850
Water footprint (m3/ton)
700
550
Consumption
400
Demand
250
100
Food crop
Figure 9. Water footprint indicator for different food crop
More water footprints of the crop mean larger water consumption and smaller yield in the growth
period. The average volume of water per ton of primary crop has differed significantly among
crops. The water consumption footprint for onion production was highest, i.e., 492 m3/ton and
while the lowest amount of water footprint was being used at cabbage (191 m3/ton). These
estimated water footprints are within a range of global value, which is 200-300 m3/ton for
vegetables and 500-1000 m3/ton for fruit (Mesfin & Arjen, 2014). Generally, the average total
water consumption footprint for the production of the four crops at the study catchment is 358
m3/ton. Figure 10 shows the contribution of the crop in total yield and water footprint indicator.
a) b)
Potato 13% Potato

27% 22%
41% Tomato Tomato
Onion 35% Onion
20% 30%
12% Cabbage Cabbage
Figure 10. Contribution of crop inputs categories to (a) a total crop yield (ton/ha) and (b) a total
water footprint (m3/ton)
From a and b of Figure 10, onion has the highest percentage of water footprint (35%) but the
least contribution to yield (12%) on the contrary cabbage has the least water footprint (13%) but
maximum for yield (41%).
4. Conclusion
This study understands to analyze and quantify the baseline water-food nexus in urban food
production systems applying the water-food nexus indicators. These indicators are major
concerns that integrate water-food for resource management and planning at city scale. The
indicators are highly relevant to both water and food sectors and to sustainably manage water
and food productivity. This water footprint metric is essential for calculating the water demand.
The two aspects of the indicators were considered as water consumption or demand per a unit
area of land (m3/ha) and water footprint (m3/ton). Indicators are influenced by cropland area,
crop productivity, production and water consumption. Water consumption and demand were
estimated based on the PM-FAO approach that is widely accepted due to accuracy and input data
availability.
The findings are in 2016, and the total water demand for potato, tomato, onion and cabbage were
362.8 x 103, 93.3 x 103, 187.2 x 103 and 82.3 x 103 m3 respectively. In terms of the proportion of
agricultural irrigation water (water consumption indicator), tomato consumed the most (5600
m3/ha), followed by potato, cabbage and onion at 5440 m3/ha, 4940 m3/ha, 3740 m3/ha,
respectively. The result also showed the water demand per hectare for potato, tomato, onion and
cabbage were 9070, 9330, 6240 and 8230 m3/ha, respectively. In this study, water footprint
provides direction to manage water consumption. The result showed, water footprint decrease
when yield increase, which indicates the inverse proportionality relationship.
The present water-food nexus indicator method can effectively utilize and provide pertinent
baseline data in determining water requirements of urban food crop production such onion,
tomato, cabbage and potato. Since the method gave acceptable values, one can easily use the
method implemented in this study to predict the urban water-food nexus indicators. . It is useful
to analyze linkages between the water and food in food production city scale. Quantifying water-
food connections is an important for integrated water-energy-food nexus modeling and
management. In addition, quantifying and understanding of water-food nexus from viewpoint of
water footprint, and volume of water required per area of land as a nexus indicator are an
important concept in urban water management.
Further development can be conducted on the following issue: Sound decision-making and
solutions to water-food nexus in crop production is based on science, which is backed up by data
of adequate quality and detail. Because the water uses for food production are not metered,
water-food nexus indicators data for food production is mostly reliant on models and proxies.
Due to a significant reduction in incoming data delay, water footprint calculations can be
employed for real-time decision-making.
Acknowledgments
This study would like to thanks Addis Ababa city agricultural office for providing data.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa, Semu Moges Ayalew, Geremew Sahilu Gebrie,
Solomon T/mariam Teferi.
Data curation: Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa, Geremew Sahilu Gebrie.
Formal analysis: Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa.
Methodology: Geremew Sahilu Gebrie.
Supervision: Semu Moges Ayalew.
Validation: Semu Moges Ayalew, Geremew Sahilu Gebrie.
Visualization: Semu Moges Ayalew, Geremew Sahilu Gebrie, Solomon T/mariam Teferi.
References
Allen, R., Pereira, L., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage. Paper No. 56. Rome.
Allen, R., Pereira, L., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for
Computing Crop WaterRequirements—FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO.
Clarke, D., Smith, M., & El-Askari, K. (2001). CropWat for Windows: User Guide; Univercity
of Southampton, UK.
De Vito, R., Portoghese, I., Pagano, A., Fratino, U., & Vurro, M. (2017). An index-based
approach for the sustainability assessment of irrigation practice based on the water-
energy-food nexus framework. Advanced Water Resources, 110, 423–436.
El-Gafy, I. (2017). Water–food–energy nexus index: analysis of water–energy–food nexus of

crop’s production system applying the indicators approach energy–food nexus of crop’s
production system applying the indicators approach. Applied Water Science, 7, 2857–
2868.
Er-Raki, S., Chehbouni, A., & Guemouria, N. (2007). Combining FAO-56 modeland ground-
based remote sensing to estimate water consumptions of wheat crops in a semi-arid
region. Agricultural Water Management, 87, 41–54.
Evelyn, C., Alma, D., Elena, M., Fabiola, A., & Otilio, A. (2021). Water–Food Nexus
Assessment in Agriculture: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18, 1-14.
FAO. (2010). Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy.
FAO. (2018). CROPWAT Software, FAO, Land and Water Division. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/land- water/databases-and-software/cropwat/en/
Fitsume, Y., Kidist, A., Michael, E., Richard, K., & Molla. (2017). Irrigation water planning for
crops in the central highlands of Ethiopia, aided by FAO CROP WAT MODEL. African
Journal of Agricultural, 12, 2329-2335.
Hoekstra, A. (2008). The Water Footprint of Food. Retrieved 8 1, 2021, from

http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Hoekstra
Hoekstra, A., & Chapagain, K. (2007). Water footprints of nations:water use by people as a
function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Mamagement, 21, 35–48.
Jia, H., Zhang, T., Yin, X., Shang, M., Chen, F., Lei, Y., et al. (2019). Impact of Climate Change
on the WaterRequirements of Oat in Northeast and North China. Water, 11, 91.
Mekonnen, M., & Hoekstra, A. (2010). A global and high resolution assessment of green, blue
and grey water footprint of wheat. Hydrological Earth System Science, 7(2), 1259-1276.
Mekonnen, M., & Hoekstra, A. (2011). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and
derived crop products. Hydrology of Earth System Science, 15, 1577–1600.
Mesfin, M., & Arjen, Y. (2014). Water footprint benchmarks for crop production: A first global
assesiment. Ecological Indicators, 46, 214–223.
Mortada, S., Abou Najm, M., Yassine, A., El Fadel, M., & Alamiddine, I. (2018). Towards
sustainable water-food nexus: An optimization approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,
178, 408–418.
Nhamo, L., & Ndlela, B. (2018). Water-Energy-Food Nexus. Water, 10, 561.
Shahid, S. (2011). Impact of climate change on irrigation water demand of dry season Boro rice
in northwest Bangladesh. Climate Change, 105, 433–453.
Tadesse, B., MoA., Girma, T., & ILRI. (2003). Community Based Traditional Irrigation
Schemes Performance: A Case Study of Upper Awash River Basin of Addis Ababa Sub-
Catchments. Retrieved from
http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/CommunityBasedI_TadeseBekel
e.pdf
Voinov, A., & Cardwell, H. (2009). “The Energy-Water Nexus: Why Should We Care?”.
Contemporary Water Research & Education, 143, 17–29.
Yang, Y., Disse, M., Yu, R., Yu, G., Sun, L., Huttner, P., et al. (2017). Large-Scale Hydrological
Modeling and Decision-Making for Agricultural Water Consumption and Allocation in
the Main Stem Tarim River, China. Water, 7, 2821–2839.
Zhang, C., Chen, X., Li, Y., Ding, W., & Fu, G. (2018). Water-energy-food nexus: Concepts,
questions and methodologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 625–639.
Zotarelli, L., Dukes, M., Romero, C., Migliaccio, K., & Morgan, T. (2010). Step by Step
Calculation of the Penman-Monteith Evapotranspiration (FAO-56 Method). Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Retrieved from
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf%5CAE%5CAE459%5CAE459-4802269.pdf
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Revised
manuscript_1.docx
Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) indicators

for food crop production: A case study of Addis Ababa city
1
Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Technology, Wolkite
University, Ethiopia, 2Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
3
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, Connecticut, United State of
America
Abstract
tool for decision makers to analyze and quantify the water–food nexus of the urban agricultural
food crop production. Using the proposed strategy, indicators for water consumption and water
footprint productivity were provided. A water–food nexus was created using these indicators.
Annual water demand indicators for potato, tomato, onion, and cabbage were calculated to be
around 9070, 9330, 6240, and 8230 m3/ha, respectively. The computed water consumption
indicator of vegetable crops ranged from 6240 to 9330 m3/ha, according to the study. When
compared to other food crops, onion has the lowest water consumption indicator. The water-food
nexus in agricultural food crop production can be used as a comprehensive instrument to assess
progress in city water and agricultural initiatives. It might also be used to analyze the
performance of the water-food nexus management on a yearly basis.

1. Introduction
The water and food are the important pillars on which human being exists and develops and their
nexus is basic for water and food resources management. Due to the uncertainty surrounding future
access to resources that are necessary for life, the water-food nexus has become a crucial topic for the
scientific communities (Ahmadzadeh et al., 2016). There is a growing incentive to change management
strategies as a result of the relationship between water and food resources (Kaddoura Due to
emerging challenges with hydration and food availability, the water-food nexus is essential to achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The water-food nexus is indirectly related to some SDGs, such as ending poverty, promoting
decent work and economic growth, and promoting responsible consumption and production,
because cities are resource consumers, agriculture generates jobs, unsustainable husbandry
practices and agrochemical use have an impact on life on land and underwater and agriculture-
related products have a positive impact on wellbeing. However, several SDGs (such as ending
hunger, promoting health and wellbeing, providing access to clean water and sanitation, and
addressing climate change) have a clear relationship with the water-food nexus.
comprehensive study and management of water and food resource systems (Mortada et al.,
2018). The complexity of the water-food nexus promoted several models to understand its scope
better (Zhang et al., 2018). It is essential to use a tool that promotes the water-food nexus
evaluations and helps introduce new policies and resource management.
Different studies show the importance of the water-food nexus relevance, but few studies
quantify it. For the integrated delivery of water and food systems, quantifying water and food
connections helps to understand synergies across the water and food sectors. Quantifying the
interconnection between water and food is regarded as a crucial step to design policies that
ensure to improve urban water and food security and sustainable agricultural food crop
production (Mortada et al., 2018).
Water-food nexus for food crop production is termed as water footprint. Food crop production
(e.g., irrigation) is the main consumer of water and irrigation water demand is a vehicle for
understanding water-food nexus through water footprint or embedded water in food crop
production. The water-food nexus in perspectives of agricultural food crop production can be
defined as the water consumption of different crops, and for each crop; it refers to the volume of
irrigation water consumed (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007).
The nexus can be assessed based on the water footprints of the crop, which were estimated
according to the FAO's model (FAO, 2010). The water footprint of crop indicates the volume of
water consumption during crop growth per unit crop yield (Hoekstra, 2008). It is one of the most
commonly used in the water-food nexus measurement results of the nexus output (De Vito et al.,
2017). Water footprint has been widely used in quantifying and assessing water consumption in
agricultural crop production (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011). A crop water footprint is dependent
on climatic and specific crop parameters collected over time and studies have been carried out
around the world (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010).
Most of the published water-food nexus studies provide qualitative analyses, and few present a
quantitative assessment (Evelyn et al., 2021). The quantifications of water and food
interconnections are still immature having inconsistent indicator and different system boundary
condition. Understanding the urban water-food nexus through quantification is the first step
toward the integration of water and food systems, which can contribute to water security
management. However, there are methodological issues with existing water and food
connectivity quantification in perspectives of agricultural food crop production. Also, existing
calculation findings are dispersed among a large number of studies in a variety of disciplines,
making data collection and interpretation more complex. To advance robust water-food nexus
quantification in perspective of food crop production, this study estimates water and food
interconnection in urban food production.
This study aims to quantify water requirement in view of agricultural food production in the
urban area of Addis Ababa under four different crop categories such as potato, tomato, onion and
cabbage using the FAO-PM method with the help of CropWat model. Finally, the study also
quantifies the baseline urban water-food nexus for agricultural food crop production through the
nexus indicators such as water per unit hectare of land and water footprint.
2. Methodology
2.1. Data
relative humidity (RHmin). The spatial distribution of the area of the four major crops with their
yield also used in this study, which are taken from Addis Ababa Agricultural office.
a. Temperature
The average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures of the three stations are indicated in
Figure 1.
30
25
Temperature (OC)
20
15
10
5
Oct
Dec
Feb
Apr
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Nov
Mar
Jan
May
Month
Tmin Tmax
Figure 1. Average annual monthly temperature for three stations (OBS, Akaki and Bole)
(Source: NMSA)
b. Wind speed and sunshine

10 1.2
1.0
Wind speed (m/s)

8
Sunshine (hr)
0.8
6
0.6
4
0.4
2 0.2
Jun
Oct
Dec
Apr
Jul
Aug
Nov
Jan
Feb
May
Sep
Mar
Month
Sunshine Wind speed
Figure 2. Average monthly wind speed and sunshine (2010-2016) (Source: NMSA)
c. Precipitation and relative humidity

300 80
250

Precipitation (mm) 70
200
150 60
100
50
50
0 40
Dec
Sep
Oct
Mar
Apr
Jun
Jul
Feb
Aug
Nov
Jan
May Month
Precipitation Relative humidity
Figure 3. Monthly average RH and precipitation (2010-2016) (Source: NMSA)

(%) and sunshine hours (h) (Clarke et al., 2001).
length of plant growth stages) were taken from FAO (Clarke et al., 2001). Planting dates were
taken according to the guide to agricultural operations of Addis Ababa city. The effective rainfall
considering rainfall data of seven years (2010-2016) from three stations (Observatory, Akaki and
Bole) were calculated. The United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
(USDA SCS) method in CropWat model was used in this study for the computation of effective
rainfall (FAO, 2018).
d. Crop area and yield
The food crop such as potato, tomato, onion and cabbage, which are mostly grown along in the
upper and middle parts of the Akaki River are considered for the study. The land area of crop
production in hectares (ha) for each crop (potato, tomato, onion and cabbage) and yield of these
crops (ton) was obtained from Addis Ababa agricultural office, which is also used to estimate
quantitatively the water-food nexus. Since agricultural food production is calculated by
multiplying land area by food yield, data on the existing yield of these four crops (agricultural
food production per unit area of land) as well as their land area is required. These data is shown
in Figure 4.
30 40
25
30
Yield (ton/ha)
20
15 Area (ha) 20
10
10
5
0 0
Onion Tomato Cabbage Potato Onion Tomato Cabbage Potato
Food crop Food crop
Figure 4. Planting area and yields of crops (Source: Addis Ababa agricultural office)
given in Figure 5.
Climate, rainfall
Irrigation water
requirement (CWR)
Crop
Crop area
Water consumption
Water demand
Crop area indicator
Water consumption
Food
Water-food nexus
indicators
Water
Figure 6. Water-food nexus assessment indicators of agricultural food production (El-Gafy,

2017)
requirement of agricultural crop production based on soil, climate and crop data. It is a decision
support tool developed by FAO land and water development division (Nhamo & Ndlela, 2018).
The advantage of using the FAO model as a tool for assessing crop water use can be due to less
intense data requirements (standard meteorological inputs) than other dynamic models (Allen et
al., 1998).
900
0.408∆(Rn −G)+ γ( )U (e −ea )
T+273 z s
ETo = (1)
∆+ γ(1+0.34u2 )
observed Tmax, Tmin, RHmax, and RHmin (Er-Raki et al., 2007).
n
R n = 0.77 (a + b N) R a − R nl (2)
the net outgoing longwave radiation (MJ/m2d) (Zotarelli et al., 2010).

for the meteorological stations (Yang et al., 2017). It is computed using Eq (4).
ETc = K C X ETo (4)
The Kc value is affected by climate, soil evaporation, crop type, and crop growth stages (Jia et
mid and late) (Allen et al., 1998). The Kc value for four distinct stages of different crops
considered in this study is indicated in Figure 7.
1.2
1.1
1
Kc values
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
70
95
25
30
40
55
65
85
100
115
130
145
150
165
Stage (Days)
Potato Onion Cabbage Tomato
Figure 7.The Kc for different growing stages of different crops (Allen et al., 1998)
P (125−0.2 ×3 × P) 250
125 3
125 250
Peffe = + 0.1 × P for P > (6)
3 3
CWR
Wc = (7)
Ac
Yc
Wpro = (8)
Wc
Wt,c = ∑vc=1 Ac × wc (9)
S X CWR
IWR = (10)
IC
irrigation efficiency or field efficiency which is taken as 60% for Akaki catchment (Fitsume et
al., 2017).
IWR
Wd = (11)
Ac
Yc
Wpro = (12)
Wd
(13).
Wt,d = ∑vc=1 Ac × Wd (13)
resources planning. FAO-PM method with the help of CropWat model is used to determine the
amount of water needed in food production system. The results of unit water required per food
production and per land as a water-food nexus indictor of crop production are obtained.
3.1. CWR, IWR and ETc
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Food crop
CWR IWR ETc
3.2. Amount of water use for food crop production

0.4
0.3
Water (106 m3)
0.2
0.1
0
Food crop
Consumption Demand
Figure 9 showed that the water consumption for all vegetables is smaller than the water demand
because the former measures the net amount of water used for each vegetable crop produced,
whereas the latter measures the overall water demanded.
3.3. Water use indicators
The annual water demand indicator, which is the volume of water per area of cropland for potato,
tomato, onion and cabbage is 9070, 9330, 6240 and 8230 m3/ha, respectively. The annual water
consumption (Wc) indicator per hectare for tomato, potato, onion and cabbage was about 5600,
5440, 3740 and 4940 m3/ha, respectively. This is comparable to other studies. Tadesse et al.,
2003 estimated annual water consumption for tomato, potato, onion and cabbage as 5130, 5650,
5400 and 5830 m3/ha, respectively. These insignificant result variations can be due to the spatial
and temporal variation of input datasets like climate datasets, methods and or tools adopted, and
others such as planting date, etc.
3.4. Water footprint indicators
Another indicator in this study is water footprint. This index is mainly influenced by two factors
such as water input and crop yield. Each kind of crop with higher water consumption has high
water footprint than other crops (Figure 10). The annual water demand footprint for potato,
tomato, onion and cabbage is 527, 718, 820 and 320 m3/ton, respectively, whereas the water
consumption footprint is 316, 430, 492 and 191 m3/ton. The water consumption footprint for all
vegetables is lesser than the water demand footprint since the prior one measures the amount of
water used per a unit crop produced, whereas the latter measures the gross water required per
unit crop produced.
850
700
550
400
250
100
Food crop
Consumption Demand
crops. The water consumption footprint for onion production was highest, i.e., 492 m 3/ton and
a) b)
Potato 13% Potato

27% 22%
41% Tomato Tomato
Onion 35% Onion
20% 30%
12% Cabbage Cabbage
4. Conclusion
concerns that integrate urban water-food for resource management and planning. The indicators
are highly relevant to both water and food sectors and to sustainably manage water and food
productivity. This water footprint metric is essential for calculating the water demand. The two
aspects of the indicators were considered as water consumption or demand per a unit area of land
(m3/ha) and water footprint (m3/ton). Indicators are influenced by cropland area, crop
productivity, production and water consumption. Water consumption and demand were
availability.
method implemented in this study to predict the urban water-food nexus indicators. It is useful
to analyze linkages between the water and food in urban food production. Quantifying water-
Acknowledgments
References
Ahmadzadeh, H., Morid, S., Delavar, M., Srinivasan, R. (2016). Using the SWAT model to
assess the impacts of changing irrigation from surface to pressurized systems on water
productivity and water saving in the Zarrineh Rud catchment. Agricultural Water
Management, 175, 15–28.
of Southampton, UK.

2868.

Kaddoura, S., El Khatib, S. (2017). Review of water-energy-food Nexus tools to improve the
Nexus modelling approach for integrated policy making. Environmental Science Policy, 77,
114–121.
178, 408–418.
e.pdf
Figure
Click here to access/download

Supporting Information
Figure.rar
Revised Manuscript with Track Changes
Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) indicators

for food crop production: A case study of Addis Ababa city
1
University, Ethiopia, 2Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
3
America
Abstract

1. Introduction
nexus is basic for water and food resources management. Due to the uncertainty surrounding future
access to resources that are necessary for life, the water-food nexus has become a crucial topic for the
scientific communities (Ahmadzadeh et al., 2016). There is a growing incentive to change management
strategies as a result of the relationship between water and food resources (Kaddoura Due to
emerging challenges with hydration and food availability, the water-food nexus is essential to achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The water-food nexus is indirectly related to some SDGs, such as ending poverty, promoting
decent work and economic growth, and promoting responsible consumption and production,
because cities are resource consumers, agriculture generates jobs, unsustainable husbandry
practices and agrochemical use have an impact on life on land and underwater and agriculture-
related products have a positive impact on wellbeing. However, several SDGs (such as ending
hunger, promoting health and wellbeing, providing access to clean water and sanitation, and
addressing climate change) have a clear relationship with the water-food nexus.
comprehensive study and management of water and food resource systems (Mortada et al.,
2018). The complexity of the water-food nexus promoted several models to understand its scope
better (Zhang et al., 2018). It is essential to use a tool that promotes the water-food nexus
evaluations and helps introduce new policies and resource management.
Different studies show the importance of the water-food nexus relevance, but few studies
quantify it. For the integrated delivery of water and food systems, quantifying water and food
connections helps to understand synergies across the water and food sectors. Quantifying the
interconnection between water and food is regarded as a crucial step to design policies that
ensure to improve urban water and food security and sustainable agricultural food crop
production (Mortada et al., 2018).
Water-food nexus for food crop production is termed as water footprint. Food crop production
(e.g., irrigation) is the main consumer of water and irrigation water demand is a vehicle for
understanding water-food nexus through water footprint or embedded water in food crop
production. The water-food nexus in perspectives of agricultural food crop production can be
defined as the water consumption of different crops, and for each crop; it refers to the volume of
irrigation water consumed (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007).
commonly used in the water-food nexus measurement results of the nexus output (De Vito et al.,
2017). Water footprint has been widely used in quantifying and assessing water consumption in
agricultural crop production (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011). A crop water footprint is dependent
on climatic and specific crop parameters collected over time and studies have been carried out
around the world (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010).
Most of the published water-food nexus studies provide qualitative analyses, and few present a
quantitative assessment (Evelyn et al., 2021). The quantifications of water and food
condition. Understanding the urban water-food nexus through quantification is the first step
making data collection and interpretation more complex. To advance robust water-food nexus
quantification in perspective of food crop production, this study estimates water and food
2. Methodology
2.1. Data
a. Temperature
Figure 1.
30
25
Temperature (OC)
20
15
10
5
Oct
Dec
Feb
Apr
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Nov
Mar
Jan
May
Month
Tmin Tmax
(Source: NMSA)

10 1.2
1.0
Wind speed (m/s)

8
Sunshine (hr)
0.8
6
0.6
4
0.4
2 0.2
Jun
Oct
Dec
Apr
Jul
Aug
Nov
Jan
Feb
May
Sep
Mar
Month
Sunshine Wind speed

300 80
250

200
150 60
100
50
50
0 40
Dec
Sep
Oct
Mar
Apr
Jun
Jul
Feb
Aug
Nov
Jan
May Month
Figure 3. Monthly average RH and precipitation (2010-2016) (Source: NMSA)

in Figure 4.
30 40
25
30
Yield (ton/ha)
20
15 Area (ha) 20
10
10
5
0 0
Food crop Food crop
given in Figure 5.
Climate, rainfall
Irrigation water
requirement (CWR)
Crop
Crop area
Water consumption
Water demand
Crop area indicator
Water consumption
Food
Water-food nexus
indicators
Water

2017)
al., 1998).
900
0.408∆(Rn −G)+ γ( )U (e −ea )
T+273 z s
ETo = (1)
∆+ γ(1+0.34u2 )
n
R n = 0.77 (a + b N) R a − R nl (2)

ETc = K C X ETo (4)
1.2
1.1
1
Kc values
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
70
95
25
30
40
55
65
85
100
115
130
145
150
165
Stage (Days)
P (125−0.2 ×3 × P) 250
125 3
125 250
Peffe = + 0.1 × P for P > (6)
3 3
CWR
Wc = (7)
Ac
Yc
Wpro = (8)
Wc
Wt,c = ∑vc=1 Ac × wc (9)
S X CWR
IWR = (10)
IC
al., 2017).
IWR
Wd = (11)
Ac
Yc
Wpro = (12)
Wd
(13).
Wt,d = ∑vc=1 Ac × Wd (13)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Food crop
CWR IWR ETc

0.4
0.3
Water (106 m3)
0.2
0.1
0
Food crop
Consumption Demand
unit crop produced.
850
700
550
400
250
100
Food crop
Consumption Demand
a) b)
Potato 13% Potato

27% 22%
41% Tomato Tomato
Onion 35% Onion
20% 30%
12% Cabbage Cabbage
4. Conclusion
availability.
Acknowledgments
References
of Southampton, UK.

2868.

114–121.
178, 408–418.
e.pdf
Revised Manuscript with Track Changes
Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) for food

crop production: A case study of Addis Ababa city
1
University, Ethiopia, 2 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 3
America
Abstract

1. Introduction
nexus is basic for water and food resources management. The water-food nexus has become an
essential issue for the scientiﬁc communities due to the future uncertainty regarding safe access to
resources that are essential to life (Ahmadzadeh et al., 2016). The interconnection between water and
food resources has led to a growing impulse to change management approaches (Kaddoura et al., 2017).
The water-food nexus is key to the sustainable development goals (SDG’s) fulﬁllment due to emerging
challenges of hydric and food availability. Some SDGs present an obvious connection with water-food
nexus (zero hunger, good health and well-being, clean water and sanitation, and climate action), but the
others have an indirect relation (no poverty, decent work and economic growth, and responsible
consumption and production) because cities are resources’ consumers, agriculture creates jobs,
unsustainable husbandry and agrochemicals affect life on land and underwater, and wellness is improved
by agriculture goods.
The water and food nexus attracts the attention to ensure those resources, and to do so;
quantitative models should allow its evaluation. This nexus is a complex concept often used in
the comprehensive study and management of water and food resource systems (Mortada et al.,
2018). The complexity of the water and food nexus promoted several models to understand its
scope better (Zhang et al., 2018). It is essential to use a tool that promotes the water and food
nexus evaluations and helps introduce new policies and resource management.
Different studies show the importance of the water-food nexus relevance, but few studies quantify it. For
the integrated delivery of water and food systems, quantifying water and food connections helps
to understand synergies across the water and food sectors. Quantifying the interconnection
between water and food is regarded as a crucial step to design policies that ensure to improve
urban water and food security and sustainable agricultural food crop production (Mortada et al.,
2018).
Water and food nexus for food crop production is termed as water footprint. Food crop
production (e.g., irrigation) is the main consumer of water and irrigation water demand is a
vehicle for understanding water and food nexus through water footprint or embedded water in
food crop production. The water and food nexus in perspectives of agricultural food crop
production can be defined as the water consumption of different crops, and for each crop; it
refers to the volume of irrigation water consumed (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007).
commonly used in the water and food nexus measurement results of the nexus output (De Vito et
al., 2017). Water footprint has been widely used in quantifying and assessing water consumption
in agricultural crop production (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011). A crop water footprint is
dependent on climatic and specific crop parameters collected over time and studies have been
carried out around the world (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010).
Most of the published water and food nexus studies provide qualitative analyses, and few present
a quantitative assessment (Evelyn et al., 2021). The quantifications of water and food
condition. Understanding the urban water and food nexus through quantification is the first step
making data collection and interpretation more complex. To advance robust water and food
nexus quantification in perspective of food crop production, this study estimates water and food
2. Methodology
2.1. Data
a. Temperature
Figure 1.
30
25
Temperature (OC)
20
15
10
Oct
Dec
Feb
Apr
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Month
Tmin Tmax
(Source: NMSA)

10 1.2
1.0
Wind speed (m/s)

8
Sunshine (hr)
0.8
6
0.6
4
0.4
2 0.2
Jun
Oct
Dec
Apr
Jul
Aug
Nov
Jan
Feb
May
Sep
Mar
Month
Sunshine Wind speed

300 80
250

200
150 60
100
50
50
0 40
Dec
Sep
Oct
Mar
Apr
Jun
Jul
Feb
Aug
Nov
Jan
May Month
Figure 3. Monthly average RH and precipitation (2010-2016) (Source: NMSA office)

in Figure 4.
30 40
25
30
Yield (ton/ha)
20
15 Area (ha) 20
10
10
5
0 0
Food crop Food crop
given in Figure 5.
Climate, rainfall
Irrigation water
requirement (CWR)
Crop
Crop area
Water consumption
Water demand
Crop area indicator
Water consumption
indicator
Crop yield Water demand

Water consumption footprint
footprint

Food
Water-food nexus
indicators
Water

2017)
al., 1998).
900
0.408∆(Rn −G)+ γ( )U (e −ea )
T+273 z s
ETo = (1)
∆+ γ(1+0.34u2 )
n
R n = 0.77 (a + b N) R a − R nl (2)

ETc = K C X ETo (4)
1.2
1.1
1
Kc values
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
70
95
25
30
40
55
65
85
100
115
130
145
150
165
Stage (Days)
P (125−0.2 ×3 × P) 250
125 3
125 250
Peffe = + 0.1 × P for P > (6)
3 3
CWR
Wc = (7)
Ac
Yc
Wpro = (8)
Wc
Wt,c = ∑vc=1 Ac × wc (9)
S X CWR
IWR = (10)
IC
al., 2017).
IWR
Wd = (11)
Ac
Yc
Wpro = (12)
Wd
(13).
Wt,d = ∑vc=1 Ac × Wd (13)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Food crop
CWR IWR ETc

0.4
0.3
Water (106 m3)
0.2
0.1
0
Food crop
Consumption Demand
unit crop produced.
850
700
550
400
250
100
Food crop
Consumption Demand
a) b)
Potato 13% Potato

27% 22%
41% Tomato Tomato
Onion 35% Onion
20% 30%
12% Cabbage Cabbage
4. Conclusion
availability.
Acknowledgments
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the manuscript.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Therefore, no funder has role
in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
References
of Southampton, UK.

2868.

114–121.
178, 408–418.
e.pdf

Pone D 22 15136 - R1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pone D 22 15136 - R1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-15136R1

Article Type: Research Article

Short Title: Water-food nexus in food crop production

Corresponding Author: Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa, MSc

Keywords: Water, nexus, water footprint, food, urban, production

Order of Authors: Bedassa Dessalegn Kitessa, MSc

Response to Reviewers: Respond to reviewers

The analysis is concerned to agricultural urban food crop production

In Figure 8, the unit information of the vertical axis is unclear.

Figure 9. Estimated water use for categories of crop

Financial Disclosure Analysis, methodology, data source

Enter a financial disclosure statement that

This statement is required for submission

Use the instructions below to enter a

This statement is required for submission

View published research articles from

Enter: The authors have declared that no

Authors with competing interests

Enter competing interest details beginning

I have read the journal's policy and the

Enter an ethics statement for this

Write "N/A" if the submission does not

General guidance is provided below.

Human Subject Research (involving human

Animal Research (involving vertebrate

animals, embryos or tissues)

Include the following details if this study

involves the collection of plant, animal, or

other materials from a natural setting:

Authors are required to make all data

Important: Stating ‘data available on request

Do the authors confirm that all data

Describe where the data may be found in Have supporting data

• If the data are held or will be held in a

Data cannot be shared publicly because

The data underlying the results

Additional data availability information:

Dear chief editor,

Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) in food crop

Keywords: Water, nexus, water footprint, food, urban, production

Wind speed (m/s)

Relative humidity (%)

Figure 3. Monthly average RH and precipitation (2010-2016) (Data from NMSA)

Crop yield Water demand

Figure 4. Computation framework of water-food nexus indicators

Indicator 2: Water footprint

Figure 5. Water-food nexus assessment indicators (El-Gafy, 2017)

The net radiation was calculated as follows using Eq (2).

2.3. Consumption perspective water-food nexus

CWR = ETc − Peffe (3)

ETc = K C X ETo (4)

Wt,c = ∑vc=1 Ac × wc (9)

Wt,d = ∑vc=1 Ac × Wd (13)

Figure 8. Estimated water use for categories of crop

c. Water use indicators

Figure 9. Water footprint indicator for different food crop

Potato 13% Potato

El-Gafy, I. (2017). Water–food–energy nexus index: analysis of water–energy–food nexus of

FAO. (2010). Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy.

Hoekstra, A. (2008). The Water Footprint of Food. Retrieved 8 1, 2021, from

Quantifying water-food nexus (water footprint) indicators

Keywords: Water, nexus, water footprint, food, urban, production