Environmental assessment · Scenario analysis
Food Systems & Environmental Footprints
Comparing the land, water, and emissions footprints of European, Western, and Mediterranean dietary patterns.
- Focus
- Food consumptionEnvironmental pressures
- Comparison
- Three dietary scenariosEuropean, Western, Mediterranean
- Indicators
- Four footprintsLand, water, GHGs, eutrophication
- Publication
- Nutrients · 2021Peer-reviewed article
The problem
Different food choices place different demands on land and water and generate different levels of emissions and nutrient pollution. The study assesses how the composition of a diet changes these environmental pressures.
My contribution
I developed the study concept and methodology, produced the visualizations, and wrote the original manuscript.
Coauthored with K. Mattas, G. Arampatzis, and G. Baourakis.
Visualizations by Wajdi Belgacem.
Comparative assessment
Environmental footprints by food product.
TABLE 1 · GLOBAL AVERAGES
Environmental footprints of food
24 products · Four indicators · Values per kilogram of food
Scroll across the table to compare all four indicators.
| Food product | Land usem²/kg | Water useL/kg | GHG emissionskg CO₂ eq/kg | Eutrophicationg PO₄ eq/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pork meat | 17.36 | 1,796.00 | 7.00 | 76.38 |
| Beef meat | 326.21 | 1,451.00 | 60.00 | 301.41 |
| Poultry meat | 12.22 | 660.00 | 6.00 | 48.70 |
| Fish (farmed) | 8.41 | 3,691.00 | 5.00 | 235.12 |
| Milk | 8.95 | 628.00 | 3.00 | 10.65 |
| Cheese | 87.79 | 5,605.00 | 21.00 | 98.37 |
| Butter | 2.74 | 4,300.00 | 11.00 | 124.50 |
| Eggs | 6.27 | 578.00 | 4.50 | 21.76 |
| Bread | 3.85 | 648.00 | 1.40 | 7.16 |
| Pasta | 3.85 | 648.00 | 1.40 | 7.16 |
| Rice | 2.80 | 2,248.00 | 4.00 | 35.07 |
| Sugar | 2.04 | 620.00 | 3.00 | 16.92 |
| Olive oil | 26.31 | 2,142.00 | 6.00 | 37.26 |
| Other oils | 10.30 | 416.75 | 7.00 | 23.05 |
| Potatoes | 0.88 | 59.00 | 2.90 | 3.48 |
| Tomatoes | 0.80 | 370.00 | 1.40 | 7.51 |
| Onions | 0.39 | 14.00 | 1.20 | 3.24 |
| Other vegetables | 0.38 | 103.00 | 1.00 | 2.27 |
| Legumes | 8.58 | 327.33 | 0.70 | 10.25 |
| Apples | 0.63 | 180.00 | 0.40 | 1.45 |
| Oranges | 0.86 | 83.00 | 0.30 | 2.24 |
| Bananas | 1.93 | 115.00 | 0.70 | 3.29 |
| Other fruits | 0.89 | 154.00 | 0.50 | 2.43 |
| Nuts | 12.96 | 4,134.00 | 0.30 | 19.15 |
Key results
The modeled Mediterranean scenario had approximately 41% lower land use and 36% lower greenhouse-gas emissions than the European scenario. It also had the lowest water use and eutrophication potential of the three scenarios.
Scenario comparison based on Table 2; percentage differences calculated from the published values.
Analytical approach
Construct comparable dietary scenarios
Use FAO food-balance data for Europe and the United States, averaged over 2008–2018, alongside a literature-based Mediterranean scenario. Organize foods into 12 groups with comparable daily energy intake.
Link food quantities to environmental footprints
Combine representative food quantities with published global-average life-cycle estimates of land use, freshwater withdrawals, greenhouse-gas emissions, and eutrophication potential.
Compare totals and contributing products
Calculate footprints per person per day and identify the food products contributing most to each indicator.
Practical relevance
The analysis helps compare dietary scenarios and identify environmental trade-offs across food groups, providing evidence for food-system planning and sustainability assessment.
Interpreting the results
These scenarios use global-average footprint coefficients. They estimate environmental pressures, not observed biodiversity outcomes or the performance of a specific farm, supplier, or product.