• Jean Vasile Andrei, PhD Faculty of Economic Sciences, Petroleum -Gas University of Ploiesti, Ploiesti, Prahova
  • Aurelia Patrascu, PhD Faculty of Economic Sciences, Petroleum -Gas University of Ploiesti, Ploiesti, Prahova
  • Mihaela Cristina Drăgoi, PhD Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Faculty of International Business and Economics, Bucharest
  • Rodica-Manuela Gogonea, PhD Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest
  • Radu Serban Zaharia, Ph.D student Faculty of Economics, Doctoral School, University “Valahia” of Targoviste, Targoviste


In highly competitive and modern economies, water represents a determinant productive resource and using the water footprint (WF) as a possible indicator in assessing sustainable development is integrated in the overall framework of macroeconomic efficiency analysis. The main aim of this paper is to argue that water footprint could represent a proper indicator in analyzing the sustainable economic development. In this context the territorial distribution of water footprint across the 28 EU countries is analyzed in order to substantiate decisions and achieve sustainable economic development forecasts and strategies at European level. The results have led to the conclusion that, overall, the total water footprint of national consumption in the 28 EU Member States has a very low degree of concentration, therefore, tends towards uniformity. With regard to the three types of water footprint, the main characteristic outcome of the research is the low degree of concentration for gray and green water footprint, while blue water footprint proves a moderate degree of concentration.


Download data is not yet available.


1.Eskov, V. M., Eskov, V. V., Vochmina, Y. V., Gorbunov, D. V., and Ilyashenko, L. K. (2017). Shannon entropy in the research on stationary regimes and the evolution of complexity. Moscow University Physics Bulletin, 72(3), 309–317. https://doi. org/10.3103/S0027134917030067

2. European Commission. (2016). Synthesis Report on the Quality of Drinking Water in the Union examining Member States’ reports for the 2011-2013 period, foreseen under Article 13(5) of Directive 98/83/EC. Brussels.

3. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., and Giljum, S. (2012). Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16, 100–112.

4. Gallopin, G. C., and Rijsberman, F. (2000). Three global water scenarios. International Journal of Water, 1(1), 16–40.

5. Hoekstra, A. Y., and Chapagain, A. K. (2007). Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. In E. Craswell, M. Bonnell, D. Bossio, S. Demuth, and N. Van De Giesen (Eds.), Integrated Assessment of Water Resources and Global Change (pp. 35–48). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

6. Hoekstra, A. Y., and Mekonnen, M. M. (2012). The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3232–3237.

7. Kaplowitz, M. D., and Witter, S. G. (2008). Agricultural and residential stakeholder input for watershed management in a mid-Michigan watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1), 20–27.

8. Keselman, H. J., Othman, A. R., Wilcox, R. R., and Fradette, K. (2004). The New and Improved Two-Sample t Test. Psychological Science, 15(1), 47–51.

9. Lamastra, L., Suciu, N. A., Novelli, E., and Trevisan, M. (2014). A new approach to assessing the water footprint of wine: An Italian case study. Science of The Total Environment, 490, 748–756.

10. Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011a). National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption. Delft., a available at:; and nd Appendix VIII -IX available at:

11. Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011b). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(5), 1577–1600.

12. Mooi, E., and Sarstedt, M. (2011). A Concise Guide to Market Research. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

13. Peeples, M. A. (2011). R Script for K-Means Cluster Analysis. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from

14. Ridoutt, B. G., and Pfster, S. (2013). A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 204–207.

15. Săvoiu, G., Crăciuneanu, V., & Ţaicu, M. (2010). O metodă statistică nouă de analiză a concentrării sau diversifcării pieţelor. Revista Română de Statistică, (58), 2

16. Sima, V., and Gheorghe, I. G. (2015). Challenges and Opportunities Of The Ecological Footprinting In Romania. Annals of the „Constantin BrâNcuşi” University of TâRgu Jiu, Economy Series, (Special Issue), 108–113.

17. Sonnenberg, A., Chapagain, A., Geiger, M., and August, D. (2009). The Water Footprint of Germany—Where Does the Water Incorporated in our Food Come From? Frankfurt am Main.

18. van Oel, P. R., Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2009). The external water footprint of the Netherlands: Geographically-explicit quantification and impact assessment. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 82–92.

19. Vanham, D., and Bidoglio, G. (2013). A review on the indicator water footprint for the EU28. Ecological Indicators, 26, 61–75.

20. Varela-Ortega, C., Rodríguez Casado, R., Ramón Llamas, M., Novo, P., Aldaya, M., and Garrido, A. (2009). Water footprint and virtual water trade in Spain. In Water Policy in Spain (pp. 49–59). Leiden: CRC Press.

21. Wessa, P. (2018). Free Statistics Software, Office for Research Development and Education, version 1.2.1. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from

22. Zaiontz, C. (2017). Real Statistics Using Excel. Retrieved October 26, 2017, from

23. Zhao, X., Chen, B., and Yang, Z. F. (2009). National water footprint in an input–output framework—A case study of China 2002. Ecological Modelling, 220(2), 245–253.
How to Cite
ANDREI, Jean Vasile et al. USING TOTAL WATER FOOTPRINT OF NATIONAL CONSUMPTION AS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATOR – A CRITICAL REVIEW. Economics of Agriculture, [S.l.], v. 65, n. 4, p. 1427-1447, dec. 2018. ISSN 2334-8453. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 28 sep. 2020. doi:
Original scientific papers