STOTEN-21253; No of Pages 9

Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns:

An Ecological Footprint viewpoint
Alessandro Galli a,⁎, Katsunori Iha a, Martin Halle a, Hamid El Bilali b, Nicole Grunewald a, Derek Eaton a,
Roberto Capone b, Philipp Debs b, Francesco Bottalico b
a
Global Footprint Network, 18 Avenue Louis-Casai, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland
b
International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies in Bari (CIHEAM-Bari), Via Ceglie 9, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Ecological Footprint accounting is applied

to Mediterranean countries' food sector.
• Food consumption and sourcing
profiles for Mediterranean countries
are investigated.
• Dietary patters are among the key drivers
of the region's ecological deficit.
• France is the sole biocapacity self-sufficient
country in terms of food provision.
• Calorie-adequate diets and changes in die-
tary patterns could reduce the Footprint.

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

Article history: Securing food for growing populations while minimizing environmental externalities is becoming a key topic in
Received 12 September 2016 the current sustainability debate. This is particularly true in the Mediterranean region, which is characterized by
Received in revised form 24 October 2016 scarce natural resources and increasing climate-related impacts.
Accepted 25 October 2016
This paper focuses on the pressure Mediterranean people place on the Earth ecosystems because of their food
Available online xxxx
consumption and sourcing patterns and then explores ways in which such pressure can be reduced. To do so,
Editor: D. Barcelo it uses an Ecological-Footprint-Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output (EF-MRIO) approach applied to 15 Medi-
terranean countries. Results indicate that food consumption is a substantial driver of the region's ecological def-
Keywords: icit, whereby demand for renewable resources and ecosystems services outpaces the capacity of its ecosystems to
Mediterranean diet provide them. Portugal, Malta and Greece are found to have the highest per capita food Footprints (1.50, 1.25 and
Footprint 1.22 global hectares (gha), respectively), while Slovenia, Egypt and Israel have the lowest (0.63, 0.64 and
Food security 0.79 gha, respectively). With the exception of France, all Mediterranean countries rely on the biocapacity of for-
Food trade eign countries to satisfy their residents' demand for food.
Food consumption
By analyzing the effect of shifting to a calorie-adequate diet or changing dietary patterns, we finally point out that
the region's Ecological Footprint – and therefore its ecological deficit – could be reduced by 8% to 10%.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alessandro@footprintnetwork.org (A. Galli).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
0048-9697/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
2 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

1. Introduction 2.1. Food supply

Humanity is facing deeply interlinked economic, social and environ- Countries' food supply data is used here to assess the quantity of
mental crises that stem, in large part, from current unsustainable pat- each food commodity available for utilization within a given country
terns of consumption and production (Clay, 2011). Humanity is now during the course of a year. This data is drawn from the FAOSTAT data-
consuming more resources than ever, both per person and in absolute base (FAO, 2015a) and refers to the supply concept defined by FAO and
terms (e.g., Galli et al., 2014; Steffen et al., 2015). Therefore, for achiev- used in compiling national food balance sheets (FAO, 2001):
ing global sustainable development, fundamental changes in the way
societies consume and produce are indispensable (UNEP, 2012a, Sd;u ¼ P i þ Ii −Ei þ CSi ð3Þ
2012b).
By 2050 the world's population will reach 9.7 billion, 32% higher where Sd,u is the total food supply for domestic utilization, Pi is the
than today (UN-DESA, 2015). Urbanization will continue at an acceler- amount of each food product i domestically produced,1 Ii and Ei are
ated pace, and about 66% of the world's population will be urban (com- the amount of each food product i imported and exported, respectively,
pared to 54% today) (UN-DESA, 2014). To feed this larger, urbanized and and CSi is the annual change in stocks (decrease or increase) of each
richer population, Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012) projected that a food product i considered in the FAO food balance sheet.
60% increase in agricultural production is needed to provide an ade- On the utilization side, a distinction should be made between the
quate food supply from 2006 to 2050. According to Davis et al. (2016), quantities exported, fed to livestock, used for seed, processed for food
the environmental burden from the food sector will likely grow in this and non-food uses, lost during storage and transportation, and the
same period, despite societal improvements in agricultural production quantities provided as food supplies available for human consumption
efficiencies. at the retail level. Distinction between food supply available for
The provision of food is one of the vital services that nature pro- human consumption and real food consumption is not easily computed
vides to humanity (Fischler, 1988; Nordström et al., 2013). Nonethe- by the FAO food balance sheets and food consumption surveys would
less, the exploitation of nature to meet humanity's demand for food likely provide a more complete picture (FAO, 2001). We assume, how-
is among the major causes of environmental degradation (Foley et al., ever, that food supply data from the FAO food balance sheets provide
2011; Gephart et al., 2016; Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch, a good first approximation of countries' apparent food consumption.
1998). The food we choose, its production and distribution chains, Food supply data is expressed in terms of quantity (kg yr−1 or
and the way in which we eat have multifaceted effects on our environ- g day−1) and, through the use of appropriate food composition factors
ment, society and economy (DeFries et al., 2004; Foley et al., 2005; for all primary and processed products, in terms of caloric value/energy
Vitousek et al., 1997). This places food at the heart of the sustainability (kcal day− 1). By dividing food supply data by population data, per
debate (Ehrlich et al., 1993). Moreover, the way in which humans ac- capita figures expressed in kcal cap−1 day−1, are obtained (FAO, 2001).
quire food, through agriculture and food systems, is one of the largest
contributors to biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, and agro- 2.2. Ecological Footprint analysis
chemical pollution of ecosystems (MEA, 2005; IPCC, 2013; IAASTD,
2009). The Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel et al., 1999) is a biomass-
Environmental degradation in the Mediterranean has reached a based resource accounting tool tracking key resource provisioning and
level that requires immediate action (UNEP, 2010). With urbanization one critical regulating ecosystem service (i.e., climate stabilization
and rising incomes, typical dietary patterns are shifting towards con- through carbon sequestration) that humans consume (aggregated into
sumption patterns based on animal products, requiring more water, a metric called Ecological Footprint) and comparing it with the bio-
land and energy (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003; Gerbens-Leenes and sphere's supply of such provisioning and regulating services (aggregat-
Nonhebel, 2005; Lundqvist et al., 2008) and increasing greenhouse gas ed into a metric called biocapacity) (Galli et al., 2014). Both metrics are
emissions (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez, 2009). A growing body of expressed in hectare-equivalent units, or global hectares (gha), which
research is showing that changes in our food production and distribu- represent productivity-weighted hectares (Galli, 2015). Full details on
tion systems and in our dietary choices can however achieve substantial the calculation of the two metrics as well as their limitations can be
reductions in food-related GHG emissions (Marlow et al., 2009; Garnett, found in Borucke et al. (2013).
2011; Macdiarmid et al., 2012; Vieux et al., 2012). Adopting a consumer-based approach, a country's Ecological Foot-
The aims of this paper are thus to: i) provide a benchmark assess- print is calculated by tracking the ecological assets (i.e. crop-, grazing-,
ment of the pressure Mediterranean residents place on ecosystems forest-, fish-, built-up and carbon-uptake land) appropriated by nation-
within and outside their region due to their current food production, al production activities and then adding the ecological assets embedded
trade and final consumption patterns; and ii) identify changes in die- in imported goods and subtracting those embedded in exported goods
tary choices that could lower such pressure and ease access to food (Galli et al., 2014). While country-level Ecological Footprint analyses
resources – through both domestic production and trade – in the are usually performed via a process-based approach relying on physical
long run. trade flows data (Borucke et al., 2013), the detailed tracking of coun-
tries' food consumption and sourcing profiles performed in this paper
2. Methodology and data sources requires that the traditional Footprint method (Borucke et al., 2013;
Wackernagel and Rees, 1996) be extended by means of the GTAP 8
Three main datasets and their associated methodologies are used in Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) model.
this analysis: While a global model is used to run the analysis, results are provided
for just 15 Mediterranean countries (Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt,
• Food supply data from FAO Food Balance Sheets (FAO, 2015a); France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain,
• Ecological Footprint data drawn from Global Footprint Network's Na- Tunisia, and Turkey). The decision to focus on the Mediterranean region
tional Footprint Accounts (NFAs) 2014 Edition, covering nearly 160
1
countries, for the year 2010 (GFN, 2014); For primary commodities, production relates to the total domestic production wheth-
• Version 8 of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Multi-Regional er inside or outside the agricultural sector (i.e. including non-commercial production and
production in kitchen gardens). Production is reported at the farm level for primary crops
Input-Output (MRIO) model, which consists of 57 sectors – 12 of (i.e. excluding pre-harvest and harvesting losses for crops) and livestock items and in
which are agricultural – and refers to 129 countries and regions for terms of live weight for primary fish items. Production of processed commodities relates
the year 2007 (GTAP, 2014; Narayanan et al., 2012). to the total output of the commodity at the manufacture level.

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

is motivated by the scope of the grant supporting this research; the to produce meat, the fishing ground needed to produce fish; and
country selection was determined by the following criteria: b) indirect demands such as the carbon Footprint from CO2 released
A) countries with populations greater than 1 million inhabitants direct- during food production/cultivation (e.g., emissions from fertilizer and
ly bordering the Mediterranean Sea and/or characterized by biomes pesticide production, farm vehicle CO2 emissions, emissions from
typical of the Mediterranean region, and B) availability's of country's electricity-operated machineries used in harvesting, processing, etc.)
MRIO and Ecological Footprint data. and trade, as well as the built-up land Footprint occupied by food
The traditional Footprint methodology (as described in Borucke industries.
et al., 2013) is first used to calculate the Ecological Footprint of all na- Given the impossibility to distinguish between resources available
tional production activities (EFP). Secondly, to estimate the overall na- for food production vs. resources available for other uses (e.g., fibers,
tional Ecological Footprint of consumption by means of the EF-MRIO etc.) in calculating a country's biocapacity, fEFC is compared in this
model, six environmental extension tables are required, which initially study with the Ecological Footprint of food producing sectors (fEFP) to
allocate the Ecological Footprint of production (EFP) for crop-, grazing- get a macro-level insight on each country's food sourcing profile
, forest-, built-up and carbon-uptake land as well fishing grounds to (i.e., the percentage of fEFC provided by local ecosystems within each
each of the 57 producing economic sectors identified by GTAP 8. The nation vs. the amount imported from ecosystems in foreign countries).
EFP for cropland is allocated to GTAP sectors 1 to 8; the EFP for grazing fEFP is calculated as the sum of the EFP of each land type allocated to
land is allocated to GTAP sectors 9 to 12; the EFP for forest land is allocat- GTAP sectors 1 to 12 and 14.
ed to sector 13 and that of fishing grounds to sector 14; the EFP for
carbon-uptake land is allocated to each one of the 57 sectors on the
2.3. Calculating Footprint intensities and Footprint reduction potentials
basis of each sector's share of the total emissions as provided by the
energy-environmental extension already present in GTAP; the EFP of
The Footprint intensity of each country's dietary consumption pattern
built-up land is assigned to each one of the 57 sector depending on
(i.e., its food Footprint intensity) is also used for cross-country comparisons
the sector's value added to the country's GDP. See Appendix A for the
and for assessing Footprint reduction potentials: it is calculated by dividing
full list of GTAP 8 sectors.
the country's household fEFC by its food supply (see Section 2.1) and
Following Weinzettel et al. (2011) and Ewing et al. (2012), the na-
expressed in gha kcal−1. Moreover, an approach similar to Davis et al.
tional Ecological Footprint of consumption (EFC) is thus derived accord-
(2014) is used to account for diets' moderation. However, while Davis
ing to Eq. (1):
et al. (2014) considered a calories-adequate diet of 3000 kcal cap−1 day−1
with 20% calories from animal origin, we opted for using the FAO-
E F C ¼ F ðI−AÞ−1 yN ð1Þ recommended benchmark of 2500 kcal cap−1 day−1, and assumed unvar-
ied compositions of countries' diets. This assumption was implemented to
where F is the environmental extension matrix (direct EFP of sectors keep the effect of an overall reduction in calories separate from that of a
normalized per unit of sector output, which is expressed in gha $−1) de- change in food Footprint intensity resulting from a change in diet compo-
rived from the above EFP-to-sector allocation; yN is the country total final sition (see Section 3). This reduction could also be achieved in part through
demand for goods, expressed in $; I is the identity matrix (a matrix of reductions in food losses and waste. Resource efficiency was then consid-
zeros for 57 columns and rows with diagonal consisting of one's) and ered in terms of national food Footprint intensities (expressed in gha
A is the technical coefficients matrix (representing the Leontief inverse), demanded per kcal produced), taking the highest actual efficiency ob-
which reflects the monetary exchange between each sector to produce served in the region (that of Egypt) as a benchmark.
one currency unit worth of output from a specific sector of the economy.
Eq. (1) thus accounts for all indirect/upstream resource requirements 3. Results
from final consumption and also allows determining the Footprint em-
bedded in multilateral trade exchanges (i.e., the natural resources and Food accounts for a large part of the Mediterranean region's overall
ecological services required to produce commodities and services, and Ecological Footprint. In the 15 countries analyzed, food and non-
exchange them on the international market). alcoholic beverages account for an average 0.9 gha per person, which rep-
As the EF-MRIO model calculates the resource requirements of each resents 28% of the regional Ecological Footprint (approximately 3.2 gha
sector in the economy - including both food-related and food-unrelated per person). Food, therefore, constitutes the largest sector of demand
sectors (see Appendix A) - household resource requirements are then ahead of transportation, whose share accounts for 22% (see Fig. 1).
calculated by analyzing the composition of household final demand Behind this regional average, there are important differences in the
for goods and services by COICOP2 consumption categories such as fEFC of individual Mediterranean countries (see Fig. 1): Portugal has by
food, transport and the like. Different goods and services are produced far the largest per capita fEFC in the region at 1.5 gha, followed by Malta
with varying inputs from the different economic sectors in the econo- (1.2 gha) and Greece (1.2 gha). Egypt and Slovenia, in contrast, have
my. The household demand matrix (concordance table) assigns to per capita fEFC levels that are just over half that of Portugal with
each consumption category the respective amount of resource require- 0.64 gha and 0.63 gha, respectively. Countries in the region also exhibit
ments by sector (Wiedmann et al., 2006). We refer to the household re- considerable variability in the share of fEFC in their total Ecological Foot-
source requirements by consumption category as Consumption Land- prints. While in Slovenia fEFC represents only 14% of total Ecological Foot-
Use Matrix (CLUM), which displays the biomass requirements by land print, it represents about 45% of the total in Albania and Tunisia and up to
type for each consumption category. We then refer to the Ecological 56% in Morocco. Accordingly, food represents the largest share of the Eco-
Footprint of household's food consumption (i.e., the resource provision- logical Footprint for 9 out of the 15 countries considered in the region.
ing and the regulatory services demanded to provide households with Mediterranean countries also vary considerably in terms of their
the food they consume) as food Footprint or fEFC. food supply (see Fig. 2A). Most countries in the region have a daily
The fEFC of any country thus include a) direct demands such as the food supply that is 20% to 40% higher than the average3 FAO-
cropland Footprint needed to produce wheat, the grazing land needed
3
Per capita minimum daily energy requirements depend on many factors such as age,
2
COICOP stands for Classification Of Individual Consumption According to Purpose and gender, weight, height and physical activity. For adult persons (over 18), values vary from
is the internationally agreed classification system for reporting household consumption 2000 (sedentary) to 3200 (active) kcal cap−1 day−1 for males, and from 1600 (sedentary)
expenditures. It is published by the United Nations Statistics Division for use in Expendi- to 2400 (active) kcal cap−1 day−1 for females (FAO, 2008). Due to the lack of data to derive
tures Classification, National Accounts, Household Budget Survey and the Consumer Price country-specific values, the FAO-determined value of 2,500 kcal cap−1 day−1 is used in
Index. this study as a regional average benchmark.

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
4 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

5.0
Gross fixed capital formation
4.5
Government
4.0
Other
3.5
Recreation and culture
3.0
gha per person

2.5 Transportation

2.0 Furnishings, household equipment

and routine household maintenance
1.5 Housing, water, electricity, gas and
other fuels
1.0
Clothing and footwear
0.5
Alcoholic beverages, tobacco and
- narcotics
Food and non-alcoholic beverages

Fig. 1. Ecological Footprint of consumption for 15 Mediterranean countries, by main COICOP categories, in 2010. Categories with a low contribution to national Ecological Footprint values,
such as “Health”, “Communication”, “Education”, “Restaurants and hotels”, and “Miscellaneous good and services”, have been here grouped under the category “Other”.

determined minimum daily dietary energy requirement benchmark of et al., 2015; Pauly and Christensen, 2002). Egypt's low intensity is
2500 kcal cap− 1 day− 1 (FAO et al., 1985; see also Pimentel and due to its low-protein, cereals- and vegetables-rich diet as well as the
Pimentel, 2003). Cyprus is the only exception, with a food supply only high productivity of its crops, which reduce its dependence on
6% above the benchmark. Moreover, comparison of countries' food Foot- imported food and thus also on the carbon associated with trade (see
print intensities reveals a considerable spread, with the lowest value Fig. 3).
found in Egypt (4.98E-07 gha kcal− 1) and the highest in Portugal At the regional level, fEFP and fEFc are nearly in balance (see Fig. 4),
(1.17E-06 gha kcal−1) (see Fig. 2B). meaning that food production in the region requires as many renewable
Protein-intensive diets are found in countries such as Portugal and natural resources and ecosystem services as those associated with Med-
Malta, which have the highest food Footprint intensity (see Fig. 2B). iterranean residents' food consumption. However, a considerable varia-
The reasons for Portugal's high value are fourfold: 1) overall high food tion among countries exists. France and Spain are the only two countries
consumption (people in Portugal consume up to 3518 kcal cap−1 day−1, with a fEFC lower than their fEFP by 46% and 22%, respectively. Turkey's
approximately 41% more than the FAO-recommended daily dietary en- fEFP and fEFC are nearly in balance. All other countries in the region have
ergy requirement), 2) high proportion of products from the fish sector a fEFC higher than their fEFP. In some cases the imbalance is particularly
within the daily diet (contributing to 44% of the Portuguese food acute indicating a noticeable reliance on food resources from the out-
Footprint in 2010), 3) decreasing national fish landings (Baeta side: the fEFP is only 13% and 24% of the fEFC in Malta and Israel,
et al., 2009) balanced by increased imports (see FAO, Fisheries and respectively.
Aquaculture Department, 2016) of fish commodities (contributing The simple comparison of the Ecological Footprints of food produc-
to an increase in the trade-embedded carbon Footprint) and 4) con- tion and consumption can be further disaggregated to better under-
sumers' preference to eating high trophic level fishes such as the stand the food production and sourcing profiles of individual
Atlantic cod and tuna (especially skipjack tuna), which place a countries, making a distinction between production for domestic food
high demand on the planet's marine primary production (Grunewald consumption, production for domestic non-food consumption, and

1.80
Ecological Footprint of food consumption (gha per capita)

A B
1.60
PRT
1.40
MLT
ESP GRC 1.20

HRV FRA ITA 1.00

CYP TUR
ALB MAR TUN
ISR 0.80
SVN EGY
0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Food Supply (kcal per capita per day)

Fig. 2. Per capita Ecological Footprint of food consumption vs. daily calories supply (A) and household food Footprint intensity (B) of 15 Mediterranean countries. The dotted vertical and
horizontal lines in figure A indicate a minimum intake of 2500 cal per capita per day – the current minimum average caloric supply required for less than 5% undernourishment across all
countries – and the food Footprint of Costa Rica (0.60 gha per capita) – the most efficient food Footprint globally observed (source: Iha and Kiyono, 2012). See Appendix B for full list of
country codes.

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

Fig. 3. Per capita Ecological Footprint of food consumption (fEFC) broken down by product type based on data for 2010.

production for exports. Similarly, total food consumption can be broken Cyprus, Israel and Malta as well as in Portugal (Fig. 5A). High per capita
down between domestic sources and imports. import dependency in small countries is consistent with findings from
Looking at the fEF embedded in traded products, we observe that al- previous studies (e.g., Weinzettel et al., 2013) while Portugal's high
though some countries are net exporters of certain food categories, all value is due to a high calories supply coupled with a low per capita
the countries in the analysis – except France – rely on net imports of biocapacity (Galli et al., 2015).
food biocapacity to satisfy the food consumption needs of their resi- At the country level, Italy is the largest net importer of fEF for the
dents (Fig. 5). This highlights the role of ecosystems located in other consumption of all food types (Fig. 5B), primarily importing from
countries in meeting the food needs of populations in Mediterranean France (wheat and bovine cattle, sheep and goats, horses), China (bovine
countries. cattle, sheep and goats, horses and vegetables, fruit, nuts) and Brazil
Cereals represent the largest share of net fEF trade in all 15 countries (bovine cattle, sheep and goats, horses and cereal grains). Conversely,
of the region (see Fig. 5). On a per capita basis, external food-related France exports mainly cereal-related fEF (i.e., wheat, cereal grains and
biocapacity dependency is particularly high in small countries such as oil seeds) to Italy, Germany and Spain and imports fEF embodied in

2.0
1.8
1.6
gha per capita

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Food EF production Food EF consumption

Fig 4. Per capita fEFC and fEFP for 15 selected Mediterranean countries and the region (Med15) average. Results are expressed in global hectares (gha).

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
6 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

A Meat Dairy Fish Vegetables, fruit, nuts Cereals Other Food B Meat Dairy Fish Vegetables, fruit, nuts Cereals Other Food

1.0 40

0.8 30

Million gha
0.6
gha per capita

20
0.4
10
0.2
-

Slovenia
Cyprus
France
Greece

Tunisia
Spain

Turkey
Portugal

Egypt
Albania

Israel
Croatia

Morocco
-

Italy
Malta
Slovenia
Cyprus

Greece
France

Tunisia
Spain

Turkey
Portugal

Egypt
Israel
Albania
Croatia

Morocco
Italy
Malta

(0.2) (10)

(0.4) (20)

Fig. 5. fEF embedded in net trade, by type of food, for 15 selected Mediterranean countries and the region average (Med15), in 2010. Results are expressed in global hectares (gha) in both
per capita (A) and total (B) terms. Positive values in the y-axis indicate net import while negative values indicate net export flows.

fishing (from Norway, USA and China), bovine cattle, sheep and goats Davis et al., 2016; Jalava et al., 2014; Tilman and Clark, 2014) and that
(from China, Brazil and New Zealand) and vegetables, fruit, nuts (from commodities' consumption rate tends to increase when production effi-
Spain, China and Madagascar). Spain exports fEF embedded in vegeta- ciency increases (e.g., Jevons, 1866). As such, we explored the potential
bles, fruits, nuts (to France, Germany and UK), while it imports embed- of three of the above strategies for Ecological Footprint reductions,
ded fEF mostly in cereal grains (from Brazil, France and Argentina) and which can be seen as elements of a sustainable consumption and pro-
in fishing (from South Africa, Norway and Morocco) (see the Supple- duction (SCP) program: reducing calorie intake through moderating
mentary Online Material for detailed results on the Footprint embedded diets, reducing FLW, and increasing resource use efficiency via changes
in trade flows by product and trade partner). in diets' composition. Reductions in both caloric intake and food waste
Finally, Fig. 6A shows the reduction in fEFC that countries could expe- decrease the food Ecological Footprint. It is important in this regard to
rience should they shift to a calories-adequate diet of 2500 kcal cap−1- recognize that a substantial portion of the food Footprint represents
day− 1 (assuming no change in the dietary composition); Fig. 6B waste or discarded food in the supply chain or by households. The
shows reductions in fEFC that countries could experience if they were FAO estimates that approximately one-third of food supply is lost or
to keep the same current amount of food energy supply but shift the wasted (FAO, 2012, 2013a, 2013b; Kummu et al., 2012). Thus a reduc-
composition of diets to the least Footprint intensive one (see also Fig. tion in calorie consumption can entail both a moderation of diets and
2B). a decrease in waste by efficiency improvements in supply change as
Countries such as Italy, France, Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco, would well as behavior change by households.
achieve the same level of fEFC reduction irrespective of the action taken Overall, our analysis of the food-related Footprint saving options
(calories adequate shift or shift to less Footprint intensive diets). found that by shifting to a calories adequate diet of 2500 kcal cap−1-
Slovenia, Egypt and Israel would obtain the higher saving by shifting day− 1, the fEFC of the Mediterranean region (considered here as the
to a calories adequate diet as they possess the three lowest dietary Foot- weighted-average of 15 countries analyzed) could potentially be re-
print intensities. All other countries would benefit more (in terms of duced by 28%. This would lead to an overall reduction of 7.7% in the Eco-
fEFC reduction) by keeping their current kcal level but shifting the com- logical Footprint of the region. Conversely, should all countries adopt
position of their diets towards increasing the consumption of cereals as the least Footprint intensive diet, the food Footprint of the Mediterra-
well as unprocessed fruits and vegetables, while limiting the intake of nean region could be reduced by 30% and the region's overall Footprint
protein, fat, sugar and salt (thereby lowering their food Footprint by 8.3%. Should each country implement the best strategy to reduce its
intensity). respective food Footprint, the region's overall Ecological Footprint
would be reduced by 10%.
4. Discussions & conclusions Such a reduction could improve the region's food security in aggre-
gate by lowering the environmental externalities associated with the
The Mediterranean region is in a situation of severe ecological defi- consumption of food: other things being equal, diets that require less
cit, consuming around 40% more renewable natural resources and eco- biocapacity imply less demand for agricultural land whose scarcity
system services than it provides (Galli et al., 2015). The analysis and degradation (Zdruli et al., 2007; Zdruli, 2012) is a key issue for the
presented in this paper reveals that household food consumption ac- region's future food security, alongside water scarcity and biodiversity
counts for 28% of the Mediterranean region's Ecological Footprint. In loss (CIHEAM and FAO, 2015; Lacirignola et al., 2014; Rastoin and
the majority of the analyzed countries, food consumption is the largest Cheriet, 2010; UNEP, 2012c).
of the COICOP categories considered (see Fig. 1), while in France, Implementing the three strategies investigated in this study would
Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Israel and Cyprus it represents the second only address some of the multiple threats to future food security in
highest share of the Ecological Footprint after transportation. the region. A fuller treatment would, in addition to the issue of moder-
Food consumption is therefore a key area to consider when ating or otherwise changing diets, consider agricultural intensification
searching for means to reduce the environmental impacts of consump- and increasing resource use and sustainability. Additionally, the current
tion in the region. Addressing these impacts entails dealing with in- issue of food and nutrition security in the Mediterranean region goes far
creasing resource use efficiency and productivity (through sustainable beyond the issue of how many calories are consumed, as many in the re-
intensification of food production), reducing food losses and waste gion still lack vitamins and other micronutrients and many countries in
(FLW), and moderating diets (especially the demand for meat and ani- the eastern and southern Mediterranean still have precarious food situ-
mal products) (Davis et al., 2016; Lacirignola et al., 2014), as several ations or are just overcoming food insecurity (Padilla et al., 2005; FAO,
studies have demonstrated that solely increasing agricultural produc- 2015b). National food security may not be sufficient to ensure food se-
tivity might not be sufficient to reduce the environmental pressure of curity at the individual level but arguably can improve food availability
humanity's growing food demand (e.g., Davis and D'Odorico, 2015; at the household and individual levels.

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

A Calories-adequate Food EFc Calories-adequate saving B Lowest Intensity Food EFc Lowest Intensity saving (gha)
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
gha per person

gha per person

1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
- -
Greece

Slovenia

Greece

Slovenia
Cyprus

Cyprus
France

France
Tunisia

Tunisia
Albania

Albania
Spain

Spain
Croatia

Croatia
Turkey

Turkey
Portugal

Egypt

Portugal

Egypt
Israel

Israel
Morocco

Morocco
Italy

Italy
Malta

Malta
Fig. 6. Per capita fEFC of 15 Mediterranean countries and Footprint saving due to shifting to a calories-adequate diet (A) or adopting the region's lowest Footprint intensive diet (B), in 2010.
In each figure, the height of the bar indicates the current per capita value, light colors indicate the Footprint saving associated with dietary or efficiency changes and the darker colors
indicate the resulting (after-saving) Footprint value. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Moreover, we acknowledge that pressure on the region's land re- values could also be used in the development of environmental impact
sources also depends on food trade policies. For instance, food self- food labels; these labels could support producers who provide sustain-
sufficiency might expose countries to domestic food supply disruption: able products as well as trigger sustainable behavioral choices in
countries with extreme self-sufficiency policies (e.g., import barriers, consumers.
exports bans, and a complete reliance on domestic production), could Although applied here to just 15 Mediterranean countries, our ap-
be hit by supply disruption harder than countries with diversified food proach could be easily extended to approximately 130 world countries
sourcing profiles. Conversely, dependence on imports can expose coun- for which Ecological Footprint and MRIO data exist.
tries to external shocks such as those arising from production shocks af-
fecting key commodity exporters and the policy responses that may Acknowledgements
follow (e.g. the grain export bans announced by several countries dur-
ing the 2007–08 food price crisis). We would like to acknowledge MAVA Foundation pour la Nature
Leaving a more comprehensive analysis of these trade-related issues (Grant No. 13/09) for its support to Global Footprint Network's
to future work, the comparative analysis of Mediterranean countries' Mediterranean-MENA Program. We also wish to thank Michel Gressot
food consumption and food sourcing profiles provided in this paper and Nicoletta Patrizi and the three anonymous reviewers for their useful
identifies specific behavioral policy interventions and estimates their comments and suggestions on a preliminary version of this article, as
potential to support more sustainable consumption and production pat- well as David Lin, Jon Martindill, Laurel Hanscom, and Michael Borucke
terns. According to Leach et al. (2016), product-specific food Footprint for their work on the National Footprint Accounts.

Appendix A. GTAP 8 Data Base sectors

GTAP sector number GTAP sector CODE Sector description GTAP sector number GTAP sector CODE Sector description

1 PDR Paddy rice 30 LUM Wood products

2 WHT Wheat 31 PPP Paper products, publishing
3 GRO Cereal grains nec 32 P_C Petroleum, coal products
4 V_F Vegetables, fruit, nuts 33 CRP Chemical, rubber, plastic products
5 OSD Oil seeds 34 NMM Mineral products nec
6 C_B Sugar cane, sugar beet 35 I_S Ferrous metals
7 PFB Plant-based fibers 36 NFM Metals nec
8 OCR Crops nec 37 FMP Metal products
9 CTL Bovine cattle, sheep and goats, horses 38 MVH Motor vehicles and parts
10 OAP Animal products nec 39 OTN Transport equipment nec
11 RMK Raw milk 40 ELE Electronic equipment
12 WOL Wool, silk-worm cocoons 41 OME Machinery and equipment nec
13 FRS Forestry 42 OMF Manufactures nec
14 FSH Fishing 43 ELY Electricity
15 COA Coal 44 GDT Gas manufacture, distribution
16 OIL Oil 45 WTR Water
17 GAS Gas 46 CNS Construction
18 OMN Minerals nec 47 TRD Trade
19 CMT Bovine meat products 48 OTP Transport nec
20 OMT Meat products nec 49 WTP Water transport
21 VOL Vegetable oils and fats 50 ATP Air transport
22 MIL Dairy products 51 CMN Communication
23 PCR Processed rice 52 OFI Financial services nec
24 SGR Sugar 53 ISR Insurance
25 OFD Food products nec 54 OBS Business services nec
26 B_T Beverages and tobacco products 55 ROS Recreational and other services
27 TEX Textiles 56 OSG Public Administration, Defense, Education, Health
28 WAP Wearing apparel 57 DWE Dwellings
29 LEA Leather products

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
8 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Appendix B. GTAP 8 Data Base countries and regions

GTAP Country CODE Country NAME GTAP Country CODE Country NAME GTAP Country CODE Country NAME

ALB Albania IDN Indonesia ROU Romania

ARE United Arab Emirates IND India RUS Russian Federation
ARG Argentina IRL Ireland SAU Saudi Arabia
ARM Armenia IRN Iran, Islamic Republic of SEN Senegal
AUS Australia ISR Israel SGP Singapore
AUT Austria ITA Italy SLV El Salvador
AZE Azerbaijan JPN Japan SVK Slovakia
BEL Belgium KAZ Kazakhstan SVN Slovenia
BGD Bangladesh KEN Kenya SWE Sweden
BGR Bulgaria KGZ Kyrgyzstan THA Thailand
BHR Bahrain KHM Cambodia TUN Tunisia
BLR Belarus KOR Korea, Republic of TUR Turkey
BOL Bolivia, Plurinational Republic of KWT Kuwait TWN Taiwan
BRA Brazil LAO Lao People's Democratic Republic TZA Tanzania, United Republic of
BWA Botswana LKA Sri Lanka UGA Uganda
CAN Canada LTU Lithuania UKR Ukraine
CHE Switzerland LUX Luxembourg URY Uruguay
CHL Chile LVA Latvia USA United States of America
CHN China MAR Morocco VEN Venezuela
CIV Cote d'Ivoire MDG Madagascar VNM Viet Nam
CMR Cameroon MEX Mexico XAC South Central Africa
COL Colombia MLT Malta XCA Rest of Central America
CRI Costa Rica MNG Mongolia XCB Caribbean
CYP Cyprus MOZ Mozambique XCF Central Africa
CZE Czech Republic MUS Mauritius XEA Rest of East Asia
DEU Germany MWI Malawi XEC Rest of Eastern Africa
DNK Denmark MYS Malaysia XEE Rest of Eastern Europe
ECU Ecuador NAM Namibia XEF Rest of EFTA
EGY Egypt NGA Nigeria XER Rest of Europe
ESP Spain NIC Nicaragua XNA Rest of North America
EST Estonia NLD Netherlands XNF Rest of North Africa
ETH Ethiopia NOR Norway XOC Rest of Oceania
FIN Finland NPL Nepal XSA Rest of South Asia
FRA France NZL New Zealand XSC Rest of South African Customs Union
GBR United Kingdom OMN Oman XSE Rest of Southeast Asia
GEO Georgia PAK Pakistan XSM Rest of South America
GHA Ghana PAN Panama XSU Former Soviet Union
GRC Greece PER Peru XTW Rest of the World
GTM Guatemala PHL Philippines XWF Rest of Western Africa
HKG Hong Kong POL Poland XWS Rest of Western Asia
HND Honduras PRT Portugal ZAF South Africa
HRV Croatia PRY Paraguay ZMB Zambia
HUN Hungary QAT Qatar ZWE Zimbabwe

Appendix C. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191.

References Davis, K.F., Gephart, J.A., Emery, K.A., Leach, A.M., Galloway, J.N., D'Odorico, P., 2016. Meet-
ing future food demand with current agricultural resources. Glob. Environ. Chang. 39,
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Re- 125–132.
vision (ESA Working Paper 12-03). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United DeFries, R.S., Foley, J.A., Asner, G.P., 2004. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and
Nations, Rome, Italy. ecosystem function. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2 (5), 249–257.
Baeta, F., Costa, M.J., Cabral, H., 2009. Changes in the trophic level of Portuguese landings Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., Daily, G.C., 1993. Food security, population and environment.
and fish market price variation in the last decades. Fish. Res. 97, 216–222. Popul. Dev. Rev. 19 (1), 1–32.
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J.C., Ewing, B.R., et al., 2012. Integrating ecological and water footprint accounting in a multi-
Wackernagel, M., Galli, A., 2013. Accounting for demand and supply of the bio- regional input–output framework. Ecol. Indic. 23, 1–8.
sphere's regenerative capacity: the national footprint accounts' underlying method- FAO, 2001. Food Balance Sheets: A Handbook. Economic and Social Development Depart-
ology and framework. Ecol. Indic. 24, 518–533. ment; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome Avail-
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Gonzalez, A., 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption able online at. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/x9892e/x9892e00.pdf.
patterns to climate change. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (5), 1704S–1709S. FAO, 2008. Updating the Minimum Dietary Energy Requirements. Available online at.
CIHEAM, FAO, 2015. Mediterranean food consumption patterns: diet, environment, soci- http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/
ety, economy and health. A White Paper of Priority 5 of Feeding Knowledge Program, metadata/undernourishment_methodology.pdf.
Expo Milan 2015. CIHEAM-IAMB, Bari & FAO, Rome http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4358e. FAO, 2012. Towards the Future We Want: End Hunger and Make the Transition to Sus-
pdf. tainable Agricultural and Food Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
Clay, J., 2011. Freeze the footprint of food. Nature 475, 287–289. Rome Available online at. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/an894e/an894e00.pdf .
Davis, K.F., D'Odorico, P., 2015. Livestock intensification and the influence of dietary FAO, 2013a. SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Losses and Waste Reduction. Key Find-
change: a calorie-based assessment of competition for crop production. Sci. Total En- ings. Available online at. http://www.fao.org/save-food/key-findings/en .
viron. 538, 817–823. FAO, 2013b. Food wastage footprint: impacts on natural resources. Available at. http://
Davis, K.F., D'Odorico, P., Rulli, M.C., 2014. Moderating diets to feed the future. Earth's Fu- www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf.
ture. 2, pp. 559–565. FAO, 2015a. FAOSTAT: Food Blance. Available at:. http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/FB/*/E.

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
 A. Galli et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

FAO, 2015b. Regional Overview of Food Insecurity - Near East and North Africa: Strength- Nordström, K., Coff, C., Jönsson, H., Nordenfelt, L., Görman, U., 2013. Food and health: in-
ening Regional Collaboration to Build Resilience for Food Security and Nutrition. FAO, dividual, cultural, or scientific matters? Genes Nutr. 8 (4), 357–363.
Cairo. Padilla, M., Ahmed, Z.S., Wassef, H.H., 2005. In the Mediterranean region: overall food se-
FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2016. Fishery Commodities and Trade Statis- curity in quantitative terms but qualitative insecurity. CIHEAM Analytic Note No 4 –
tics. Available on-line at. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-commodities- June 2005 http://portail2.reseau-concept.net/Upload/ciheam/fichiers/ANP4.pdf.
production/en. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., 2002. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries.
FAO, WHO, UNU, 1985. Protein and Energy Requirements. Food and Agriculture Organiza- Nature 374, 255–257.
tion, World Health Organization, United Nations University, Rome. Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and
Fischler, C., 1988. Food, self and identity. Soc. Sci. Inf. 19:937–953. 10.1177/ the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 (3), 660S–663S.
053901848001900603. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Pandya-Lorch, R., 1998. Food security and sustainable use of natu-
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., et al., 2005. Global consequences ral resources: a 2020 vision. Ecol. Econ. 26, 1–10.
of land use. Science 309, 570–574. Rastoin, J.L., Cheriet, F., 2010. Food security in the Mediterranean: a major geostrate-
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., et al., 2011. Solutions gic issue. IPEMED No 6. Institut de Prospective Economique du Monde
for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342. Méditerranéen (IPEMED) http://www.ipemed.coop/adminIpemed/media/fich_
Galli, A., 2015. On the rationale and policy usefulness of Ecological Footprint accounting: article/1316526334_LesnotesIPEMED_6B_FoodSecurity_ENG.pdf.
the case of Morocco. Environ. Sci. Pol. 48, 210–224. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., Ludwig, C., 2015. The trajectory of the
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., Lazarus, E., 2014. Ecological Footprint: implications for Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2, 81–98.
biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 173, 121–132. Tilman, D., Clark, M., 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human
Galli, A., Halle, M., Grunewald, N., 2015. Physical limits to resource access and utilization health. Nature 515, 518–522.
and their economic implications in Mediterranean economies. Environ. Sci. Pol. 51, UN-DESA, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. (ST/ESA/
125–136. SER.A/352). United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-
Garnett, T., 2011. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emis- DESA), Population Division, New York.
sions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36, s23–s32. UN-DESA, 2015. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Ad-
Gephart, J.A., Davis, K.F., Emery, K.A., Leach, A.M., Galloway, J.N., Pace, M.L., 2016. The en- vance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241. United Nations - Department of Eco-
vironmental cost of subsistence: optimizing diets to minimize footprints. Sci. Total nomic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), Population Division, New York.
Environ. 553, 120–127. UNEP, 2010. HERE and NOW - Education for Sustainable Consumption: Recommenda-
Gerbens-Leenes, W., Nonhebel, S., 2005. Food and land use. the influence of consumption tions and GuidelinesA publication from the United Nations Environment Programme
patterns on the use of agricultural resources. Appetite 45, 24–31. (UNEP) and the Marrakech Task Force on Education for Sustainable Consumption.
Global Footprint Network (GFN), 2014. National Footprint Accounts. 2014 ed. Available UNEP, 2012a. Global Outlook on Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies: Tak-
at. http://www.footprintnetwork.org. ing Action TogetherUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
Grunewald, N., et al., 2015. The Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean Diets. 32. CIHEAM UNEP, 2012b. The critical role of global food consumption patterns in achieving sustain-
Watch Letter, pp. 10–16. able food systems and food for allA UNEP Discussion Paper. UNEP, Paris Available
GTAP, 2014. Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP). https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/ at:. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/CIERP/~/media/Fletcher/Microsites/CIERP/Publications/
default.asp. 2012/UNEPGlobalFoodConsumption.pdf.
Iha, K., Kiyono, H., 2012. Japan Ecological Footprint Report 2012. WWF Japan, Global Foot- UNEP, 2012c. Avoiding future famines: strengthening the ecological foundation of food
print Network (GFN). security through sustainable food systems. A UNEP Synthesis Report Available at:.
IPCC, 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/avoidingfamines/portals/19/Avoiding_
Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press. Future_Famines.pdf.
Jalava, M., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., 2014. Diet change - a solution to Vieux, F., Darmon, N., Touazi, D., Soler, L.G., 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions of self-
reduce water use? Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 091003. selected individual diets in France: changing the diet structure or consuming less?
Jevons, W.S., 1866. VII. The Coal Question, second ed. Macmillan and Company, London . Ecol. Econ. 75, 91–101.
Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food, Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M., 1997. Human domination of
wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, earth's ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499.
cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489. Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on
Lacirignola, C., Capone, R., Debs, P., El Bilali, H., Bottalico, F., 2014. Natural resources - food the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada.
nexus: food-related environmental footprints in the Mediterranean countries. Front. M.Wackernagel, M., L.Onisto, L., P.Bello, P., A.Callejas Linares, A., I.S.Lopez Falfan, I.S.,
Nutr. 1:1–16. 10.3389/fnut.2014.00023. J.Mendez Garcıa, J., A.I.Suarez Guerrero, A.I., M.G.Suarez Guerrero, M.G., 1999. Natural
Leach, A.M., Emery, K.A., Gephart, J., Davis, K.F., Willem Erisman, J., Leip, A., Pace, M.L., capital accounting with the Ecological Footprint conceptEcol. Econ. 29 (3), 375–390.
D'Odorico, P., Carr, J., Cattell Noll, L., Castner, E., Galloway, J.N., 2016. Environmental Weinzettel, J., Steen-Olsen, K., Galli, A., Cranston, G., Ercin, E., Hawkins, T., Wiedmann, T.,
impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Policy Hertwich, E., 2011. Footprint Family Technical Report: Integration Into MRIO Model.
61, 213–223. One Planet Economy Network, London Available on-line at. http://www.
Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C., Molden, D., 2008. Saving water: from field to fork. SIWI Policy oneplaneteconomynetwork.org/resources/programme-documents/OPEN_EU_WP2_
Brief. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Available at:. EC_Deliverable_Technical_Document.pdf.
http://www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Policy_Briefs/PB_From_Filed_to_Fork_ Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E.G., Peters, G.P., Steen-Olsen, S., Galli, A., 2013. Affluence drives
2008.pdf. the global displacement of land use. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 433–438.
Macdiarmid, J.I., Kyle, J., Horgan, G.W., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A., McNeil, G., 2012. Sus- Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J., Wackernagel, M., 2006. Allocating Ecological Footprints
tainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to final consumption categories with input–output analysis. Ecol. Econ. 56 (1), 28–48.
by eating a healthy diet? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 10.3945/ajcn.112.038729 Zdruli, P., 2012. Land resources of the Mediterranean: status, pressures, trends and im-
Marlow, J.H., Hayes, W.K., Soret, S., Carter, R.L., Schwab, R.E., Sabate', J., 2009. Diet and the pacts on regional future development. Land Degradation & Development. Wiley
environment: does what you eat matter? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (suppl), 1699s-703. 10.1002/ldr.2150.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Syn- Zdruli, P., Lacirignola, C., Lamaddalena, N., Trisorio Liuzzi, G., 2007. The EU-funded
thesis. Island Press, Washington, DC Available at:. http://www.millenniumassessment. MEDCOASTLAND thematic network and its findings in combating land degradation
org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. in the Mediterranean region. In: Sivakumar, M.V.K., Ndiang'ui, N. (Eds.), Climate
Narayanan, G., Angel Aguiar, B., McDougall, R., 2012. Global Trade, Assistance, and Produc- and Land Degradation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
tion: The GTAP 8 Data Base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.

Please cite this article as: Galli, A., et al., Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: An Ecological Footprint viewpoint, Sci
Total Environ (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191