Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Water Resources

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

Understanding and managing the food-energy-water nexus – opportunities T

for water resources research
Ximing Cai*, Kevin Wallington, Majid Shafiee-Jood, Landon Marston
Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Studies on the food, energy, and water (FEW) nexus lay a shared foundation for researchers, policy makers,
FEW nexus practitioners, and stakeholders to understand and manage linked production, utilization, and security of FEW
Process systems. The FEW nexus paradigm provides the water community specific channels to move forward in inter-
System disciplinary research where integrated water resources management (IWRM) has fallen short. Here, we help
Technology
water researchers identify, articulate, utilize, and extend our disciplinary strengths within the broader FEW
Policy
Water resources
communities, while informing scientists in the food and energy domains about our unique skillset. This paper
explores the relevance of existing and ongoing scholarship within the water community, as well as current
research needs, for understanding FEW processes and systems and implementing FEW solutions through in-
novations in technologies, infrastructures, and policies. Following the historical efforts in IWRM, hydrologists,
water resources engineers, economists, and policy analysts are provided opportunities for interdisciplinary
studies among themselves and in collaboration with energy and food communities, united by a common path to
achieve sustainability development goals.

1. Introduction
The production, utilization, and security of food, energy, and water
(FEW) are inextricably linked. As global demand for FEW resources
continues to increase, supplies of these interconnected resources are
becoming less secure. Hence, in a timely manner, the global research
communities have united their efforts to study the FEW nexus in a
holistic framework, with an aim to address Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) recently proposed by the United Nations (Bhaduri et al.,
2015; Leck et al., 2015; Ringler et al., 2013). It has been argued that the
SDGs are not well integrated, especially with respect to the FEW nexus
(Weitz et al., 2014). The FEW nexus paradigm is building up a common
podium for researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and stakeholders
from energy, food, and water sectors to understand and resolve various
complex issues linking the three sectors (Bizikova et al., 2013; Hoff,
2011). These issues include resources allocation, infrastructure invest-
ment, socioeconomic development, and environmental conservation. As
water researchers come together with food and energy research com-
munities, we share a working context that is broader than ever before,
and our community faces many research questions: How can water
researchers contribute to FEW system understanding and management
based on our existing experiences and skills? In what ways can we
extend methodologies traditionally used to analyze water systems to
now evaluate FEW systems? On what specific issues can water re-
searchers collaborate with those from energy and food sectors? For
hydrologists, how will fundamental hydrologic processes influence or
be influenced by processes of other sectors? For water engineers and
policy makers, what will be the new directions for technology, infra-
structure, and policy development as FEW understanding improves?
These questions motivate this perspective paper, as we attempt to
elucidate how water researchers and practitioners can uniquely con-
tribute to emerging, transdisciplinary FEW nexus literature.
The idea of integrated resources management is not new to water
researchers. Dating back to the Harvard Water Program (Maass et al.,
1962), there has been a call for researchers to study water within an
interdisciplinary framework to understand water's multifaceted con-
nections with human society and the environment. Since then, ad-
vocacy for interdisciplinary water research has been pervasive. Actu-
ally, the aim of FEW nexus studies, which is to improve system
efficiency, pursue sustainability, and increase system performance
through holistic understanding and management of resources, mirrors
the objectives of integrated water resources management (IWRM)
(Biswas, 2004). IWRM is defined as “a process which promotes the
coordinated development and management of water, land, and related
resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social wel-
fare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: xmcai@illinois.edu (X. Cai), kwallin2@illinois.edu (K. Wallington), shafiee2@illinois.edu (M. Shafiee-Jood), ltmarston@ksu.edu (L. Marston).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.11.014
Received 30 April 2017; Received in revised form 6 November 2017; Accepted 12 November 2017
Available online 14 November 2017
0309-1708/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Cai et al. Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273

vital ecosystems” (Global Water Partnership, 2000). IWRM has been

recognized as a key tenant of sustainable development by the United
Nations (United Nations, 2012), and has been promoted by many
leading international agencies (Hering and Ingold, 2012). Nonetheless,
IWRM has not been implemented as widely as expected and has been
criticized as a “recipe for paralysis” (Merrey, 2008) and having “the de-
sire to do too much at one time” (Schreiner and Hassan, 2011).
Hering and Ingold (2012) proposed that moving forward requires
“setting bounds for integration” and that “transsectoral integration may, Fig. 1. The contents and structure of this perspective paper.
nonetheless, be required if the identified deficits are derived from ac-
tivities based outside the water sector.” In fact, IWRM has highlighted the with tradeoffs, and more efficient storage, transport, and trade of FEW
linkage between water, food, and energy security (Hoff, 2011). resources to satisfy the demands at the global scale.
In contrast to IWRM, we argue that the FEW nexus approach has a The purpose of this perspective paper is to help water communities
clearer scope of integration since it explicitly sets the sectoral bounds identify, articulate, utilize, and extend our disciplinary strengths within
(i.e., food, energy, and water resources) of integration, whereas IWRM the broader FEW communities, while also informing scientists in the
attempts to integrate seemingly all resources and objectives related to food and energy domains about the unique skill set we bring to address
water, which is often subject to institutional barriers (Grigg, 2008; the FEW nexus. We identify FEW-relevant issues that water scientists
Mohtar and Lawford, 2016). Moreover, the three-pronged emphasis of face and discuss the existing and new methods to address those issues,
FEW may engage government agencies and other important stake- organizing our insights as pertaining to processes, systems, technolo-
holders that have been reluctant to fully adopt IWRM, since water re- gies, or policies, as displayed in Fig. 1. We illustrate that research on the
lated issues are not their chief concern or mandate, and thus present a FEW nexus must progress our understanding of the interactions of
broader solution space (not necessary centered around water) which connected water-and-food and water-and-energy processes and systems
allows the cross-pollination of ideas and integration of solutions across and promote innovative water-centric technologies, infrastructures, and
disciplines. The nexus approach can also make the objectives of IWRM policies toward the co-benefits of FEW systems. . First, however, we
more palatable to stakeholders across political boundaries, as is ne- present our vision of the FEW nexus in the following.
cessary in transboundary river basins, since FEW does not require all
solutions align with water management (Grigg, 2008). Thus, under the
2. Vision of FEW nexus
scope of FEW, IWRM's broader goals of efficient resource management,
synergistic thinking, and equitable tradeoffs may seem more tenable to
Many review and perspective papers (e.g., Biggs et al., 2015;
a wider set of stakeholders, particularly those whose primary interest
Keairns et al., 2016; Perrone and Hornberger, 2014) have provided
lie in the agriculture and energy sectors.
varying definitions of the FEW nexus. Since a consensus has yet to be
In addition, IWRM achievements in solving a country's key water-
established, we share our perspective of the form and scope of inter-
related development problems are limited due to the lack of innovative
connected FEW systems, illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3. The FEW nexus can
approaches (Biswas, 2008). On the other hand, FEW has inspired nu-
be characterized by the following three forms of interactions: i) phy-
merous research interests and efforts from both academic and practical
sical, biophysical, and chemical, ii) resource input-output, and iii) via
communities in developing novel approaches and methods including
institutions, markets, and infrastructure. First, food, energy, and water
models, decision making theories and methods, and technologies, e.g.,
are governed by separate but interconnected physical, biophysical, and
via the Innovation in Food, Energy and Water Systems (INFEWS) pro-
chemical processes, as displayed in the outermost linkages of Fig. 2. The
gram, a research program initialized at the U.S National Science
processes that connect food, energy, and water drive the dynamics and
Foundation (NSF). Eventually, we expect that the FEW nexus paradigm
will refine and focus the scope of IWRM and provide water communities
specific channels to move forward and collaborate with food and en-
ergy communities on many shared IWRM issues.
There are already a number of review and perspective papers on the
FEW nexus in the literature. A few are named here because of their
close relevance to the background of this paper. Hoff (2011) presented
the background paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, En-
ergy, and Food Security Nexus, which provides a comprehensive per-
spective on the FEW nexus for the first time, including a discussion on
the necessities and opportunities in FEW nexus studies and knowledge
gaps in relevant science, technology, and policy areas. The paper ex-
tends traditional food security perspectives to the nexus of security of
food, energy, and water sectors to improve resource use efficiency,
mitigate tradeoffs, build synergies, and improve governance across
sectors. Webber (2015) contended that the FEW nexus perspective is
especially critical in regard to large infrastructure investments, which
are difficult to adapt should they prove counter-productive across sec-
tors. Webber also illustrated the connectedness of FEW systems through
key examples of cascading failures in FEW systems, highlighted sy-
nergistic technical solutions, and acknowledged the lack of integrated
policy implementation. More recently, Scanlon et al. (2017) called for
extending the “power of the scientific community” to develop in-
novative, prescriptive recommendations and adaptation pathways to
deal with resources scarcity. The authors highlighted the need for local
and global nexus measurement and monitoring, resource conservation Fig. 2. Interconnected processes, input-output relationships, and overlapped markets,
institutions, and infrastructure of a typical FEW system in U.S. Midwest.
technology to enhance supplies, decision making techniques to deal

260
X. Cai et al.
performance of not only the individual systems but also the integrated
system, via mass and energy (heat) exchanges between the boundaries
of each resource. It should be noted that among the three sectors, water
is most directly subject to major natural variability, which then drives
much of the variability in other sectors (Ray et al., 2015; Scott and
Sugg, 2015). Additionally, water is largely controlled by a physical
boundary (i.e., aquifers, river basins), while food and energy sectors
have a stronger human influence shaping their spatial boundaries (e.g.,
people decide where to grow food and build electricity transmission
lines).
Second, food, energy, and water are critical inputs of production to
the other resources, as illustrated by the input-output relations in Fig. 2
(the inner interactions between the three sectors of the circle). Besides
the input-output interdependence, these sectors also compete for FEW
resources at local and regional scales (e.g., energy and food production
compete for water supplies; water treatment and food production,
storage, and shipment compete for energy supplies). In particular,
water often acts as the limiting resource that dictates system outcomes,
especially in arid and semi-arid regions and regions with extraordinary
water demand (Falkenmark and Molden, 2008; Gleick and Palaniappan,
2010). In fact, two-thirds of the world's population faces severe water
scarcity at least one month of the year (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016).
Third, food, energy, and water are regulated by separate adminis-
trations, markets, and engineering infrastructure, which often overlap
and interact but do not fully integrate their efforts due to differing
approaches, objectives and institutional settings. The effectiveness of
any solution for a specific FEW nexus problem depends on how these
independent entities coordinate with each other. Furthermore, each of
these three characteristic interactions - the interconnected processes,
resources supply and demand, and institutions, markets, and infra-
structure - can be influenced by technological innovations, environ-
mental changes, and socioeconomic conditions.
System analysis starts with defining the system and specifying the
spatial and temporal dimensions. The FEW nexus exists at various
spatial and temporal scales. Depending on the problem, spatial scales
can vary from microscopic to field, farm, or household to regional and
global levels (the mesoscale is shown in Fig. 3). Likewise, temporal
scales can vary from seconds (e.g., flow rate) to daily (e.g., systems
operations) to mid- and long-term horizons (e.g., resource and infra-
structure planning and development, policy development, and socio-
economic and environmental ramifications). Following IWRM, we
argue that the river basin (or watershed) can be used as a fundamental
261
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
Fig. 3. A diagram of an integrated FEW system. Interacting
FEW system entities and processes include a) groundwater
pumping, b) agricultural crop growth, c) livestock raising, d)
nutrient recovery, e/j) wastewater treatment, f) food and
bioenergy processing, g) biofuel crop growth, h) hydropower
production and associated dam impacts, i) industrial water
use and power generation, k) drinking water treatment, and l)
municipal water use. Here, arrows indicate flows from one
entity or process to another according to the following color
scheme: yellow – water, purple – nutrients, red – food or
feedstock, and black – waste.
scale because food and energy can easily be transferred from distant
locations to bolster regionally scarce resources or temporal variability
of these resources, while the spatial incongruence between water sup-
plies and water demand cannot be as easily resolved (Davis et al.,
2016). In fact, water is largely restricted within its natural boundaries
(although limited inter-basin water transfers occur), while the bounds
of food and energy systems are chiefly delineated by humans and are
thus more suitable for change. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that
basin approaches often do not align with economic or social boundaries
in many countries or regions, especially where there is no river basin
management authority, and thus, the suggested basin actions may be
difficult to implement (Grigg, 2008). Hagemann and Kirsche (2017)
argued that a basin or sub-basin scale that was used for the IWRM
approach might not be an appropriate scale for the FEW approach.
Therefore, an appropriate scale or spatial unit for FEW nexus analysis
and management may need to adhere to a particular society's needs of
water, energy, and food as critical supplies for both human and natural
systems.
Moreover, cross-scale issues are a challenge for FEW system analysis
because FEW processes, system design, and assessment prevail at dif-
ferent spatial and temporal scales. It is particularly difficult for re-
searchers to integrate information across the FEW nexus (Watkins et al.,
2015a), to create tiered temporal and spatial interventions that account
for and manage feedbacks across the FEW sectors (Hill and
Engle, 2013), to mitigate environmental impacts over appropriate
scales of time and space (Adger et al., 2005), and to assess tradeoffs and
synergies crossing scales (Davis et al., 2016; Kauneckis and Andersson,
2009; Oates and Portney, 2003).
Given our FEW vision as described above, the rest of this paper
discusses knowledge gaps and research potentials for water resources
researchers and the opportunities for collaboration with food and en-
ergy communities, with respect to processes, systems, technologies, and
policies.
3. Interconnected processes
Considering the above vision of the FEW nexus, a critical element of
FEW system understanding is knowledge of the underlying individual
processes and their connectedness. Some issues that have traditionally
been addressed as water resources development and management
problems are truly part of a larger, interconnected FEW system and
should be addressed as such. The analyses of those issues such as
X. Cai et al.
irrigation, water and wastewater treatment, water supply, hydropower,
or thermoelectric cooling, have been largely based on hydrologic sci-
ence and engineering principles; yet, these issues are pertinent to the
food and energy sectors as well. Furthermore, recent progress in eco-
hydrology and ecosystem restoration practices have provided deeper
understanding of interactions between water and ecosystem services
(Bakker, 2012), especially those for food and energy production, e.g.,
flow regime and water quality for aquatic fish habitats and water re-
quirement for biomass production (Christian-Smith and Merenlender,
2010; Palmer, 2009; Richardson et al., 2011). To integrate under-
standing of the hydrologic cycle and its processes with understanding of
FEW systems, many outstanding issues connecting hydrologic processes
to those in agriculture and energy areas must still be addressed. In the
following we identify knowledge gaps from a water perspective be-
tween water and food and between water and energy. Although the
FEW nexus approach emphasizes the interactions of the three sectors,
we argue that there are still many knowledge gaps and research chal-
lenges in understanding the one-to-one process interactions and gaps,
which prevent the characterization and quantification of the nexus re-
lationships.
3.1. Processes connecting water and food sectors
3.1.1. Water to food
Hydrologic processes of precipitation, evapotranspiration, and flow
in porous medium are all integral to agriculture production. In parti-
cular, despite extensive study by ecologists and hydrologists, under-
standing crop evapotranspiration, a fundamental process dictating crop
water requirement (Allen et al., 1998), has remained a research need,
particularly under climate change and environmental change (e.g.,
variations in soil salinity) (Droogers and van de Giesen, 2010; Nistor
et al., 2017). In order to improve various stages of crop growth, irri-
gation and drainage engineering measures are widely applied for ma-
nipulating soil moisture, yet these practices are now challenged by
more frequent and intense extreme weather events (droughts, heat
waves, and floods) due to climate change. Numerous recent studies
have revealed complex temporal and spatial variability in precipitation.
For example, in the Corn Belt, the shifting seasonality of rainfall (Pal
et al., 2013; Wuebbles and Hayhoe, 2004), a tendency for a greater
percentage of rainfall to occur during extreme events (Kunkel et al.,
2012), alternating periods of excessive wetness and dryness
(Orlowsky and Seneviratne, 2012), and the impact of land use and land
cover change on soil moisture across the region collectively make
agriculture decisions more complex, e.g., the crop land traditionally
facilitated by drainage infrastructure in the late spring now often re-
quires irrigation in the late summer. How to make crops more capable
of adapting to frequent and abrupt soil moisture changes, via biological
and hydrological engineering measures, and how such conditions
evolve in the future are pertinent research questions for the provision of
adequate water for food production.
Although irrigated agriculture often comes to mind when discussing
“water-for-food”, water is also essential for aquaculture, an important
source of food around the world, especially in coastal regions.
Nevertheless, relatively little research has been published regarding the
connections between hydrology and fisheries (Gephart et al., 2017).
Though numerous studies have contributed to relating streamflow re-
gime to aquatic habitats (e.g., hydrologic alteration index – IHA,
Poff et al., 2010), collaboration between hydrologists and fishery
ecologists is still under the call to develop more ecologically-based
hydrological indices and more explicit linkages between terrestrial and
marine systems (Endo et al., 2017) . Given the wide and intensive im-
pacts of land and water use activities (e.g., deforestation, damming for
hydropower, etc.), studies are needed to develop guidelines for wa-
tershed management and water storage system operations which con-
sider the interactions between hydrology and aquatic habitats (Schnier
et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2008).
262
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
3.1.2. Food to water
Agriculture production often uses large amounts of land, water,
fertilizer, and pesticide inputs, causing major environmental changes in
many regions around the world. In particular, non-point source pollu-
tion due to extraordinary fertilizer and pesticide use in agricultural
production has been a long-standing yet unresolved problem for en-
vironmental protection and water supply quality. For example, in the
U.S. Midwest, grain production and subsequent utilization for animal
foodstuffs, food processing, and ethanol production have pervasive ef-
fects on water quantity and quality in downstream environments both
locally (95% of waters have elevated nitrogen and phosphorus) and
nationally (e.g., hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico) (EPA, 2015).
Nutrient loading in waterways accelerates aquatic vegetative growth,
disrupts ecosystems, and increases water treatment costs. In the past,
society's major concern was water quality in the ecosystems, but re-
cently the concern has also been aggravated by the situation of water
supply. The Des Moines Water Works argued in a recent lawsuit that
their water supply was adversely impacted by nitrate runoff from three
grain producing counties in northwest Iowa, illuminating how food-to-
water processes can exacerbate tensions between local stakeholders
(Eller, 2015).
Nutrient load problems within the United States have sparked a
significant increase in federal natural resource and environment ex-
penditures. However, there is no conclusive evidence that problems of
sedimentation, nutrient pollution, and biodiversity loss in agricultu-
rally-dominated basins have been ameliorated through governmental
efforts (David et al., 2015, 2013). Research is still needed for mon-
itoring and simulating nutrient stocks and flows in soil (Woo and
Kumar, 2016), nutrient loading and transport across scales from field to
watershed and basin, and water quality response to nutrient dynamics
under both climatic variability and human interferences (e.g., irrigation
and land drainage). Research is also needed to develop technologies,
policies, and best management practices to reduce fertilizer and pesti-
cide use, retain nutrients in soil, and extract nutrients from wastewater
(i.e., resource recovery, Cai et al., 2013; Jarvie et al., 2015), as detailed
later in this paper.
Agricultural activities also affect natural flow regimes, yet the me-
chanism of the effects has not been well understood. Return flow from
irrigation systems (non-consumptive portion of water withdrawals)
complicates flow balance and water use accounting at a basin scale
(Cai et al., 2003c) and affects water quality (de Moraes et al., 2010).
Determining return flow, especially the utilizable return flow volume, is
important for not only understanding water balance in streams and
aquifers but also determining water availability for the development of
more reasonable (and sustainable) water rights at the river basin scale
(Grafton et al., 2012). The usefulness of return flow depends on the
path of the flow (i.e., via natural systems such as aquifers and interflow,
or man-made pathways such as drainage systems), the time lag occur-
ring in the flow process, and its quality—all of which are very difficult
to monitor and simulate. Hydrologic heterogeneity and a dearth of data
have encumbered the development of inexpensive and widely accep-
table methods for quantifying return flow at the river basin level.
3.2. Processes connecting water and energy sectors
3.2.1. Water to energy
Energy production and supply, both from traditional and emerging
energy sources, is often highly dependent on water supplies. It is well-
known that considerable amounts of water are used for hydro-energy
generation and cooling within thermoelectric and nuclear power plants.
Yet recently, energy generation has been shifting toward unconven-
tional and renewable energy technologies, some of which have even
larger water requirements compared to traditional thermal power
(Mekonnen et al., 2015). Notably, concentrated solar power requires
significant cooling, with water use rates often exceeding that of simi-
larly sized coal and nuclear power plants (Bracken et al., 2015).
X. Cai et al.
Cultivation of biomass and processing to produce biofuels incurs sig-
nificant water consumption (Housh et al., 2015b; Song et al., 2016).
Hydraulic fracturing of unconventional hydrocarbons requires 1.4 to 4
times as much water over its life cycle as conventional natural gas
(Clark et al., 2013). Thus, energy production and supply, including both
the traditional and emerging energy sources, can be highly dependent
on water supplies. Furthermore, hydroclimatic variability propagates to
the interlinked energy system and leads to diminished energy output.
Many power plants or stations must adjust operations in response to
extreme water conditions, such as droughts and heat waves due to se-
vere water availability and temperature limitations (Webber, 2015).
This emphasizes the role of hydroclimatic forecasts, especially seasonal
forecasts in water-energy nexus studies (Conway et al., 2015; Perrone
and Hornberger, 2016).
3.2.2. Energy to water
On one hand, water supply and delivery depend on energy; for ex-
ample, energy use for moving and treating water and wastewater re-
presents over 12% of total U.S. primary energy consumption
(Sanders and Webber, 2012). On the other hand, water withdrawal for
and water discharge from energy generation have caused problems in
water quantity and water quality, especially for local ecosystems. Re-
cent development of bioenergy and natural gas (facilitated by hydraulic
fracturing) has brought new threats to water quality and riparian
health. For example, in the U.S. Midwest, recent increases in corn-based
ethanol production have further constrained existing resource alloca-
tion (i.e., competing land and water with corn as food and feed crops)
and threatened the regional environment (Simpson et al., 2008). For
many mid-sized Corn Belt cities, ethanol plants are the largest water
user and discharge the largest quantities of wastewater to local sanitary
districts; phosphorus concentration in grain processing wastewater is
several times greater than that of typical domestic wastewater (Illinois
EPA, 2015; Kim and Dale, 2005; Watkins et al., 2015b). Natural gas
extraction creates substantial risk for water degradation, with the lin-
gering threat of pollution from transportation spills, well casing leaks,
leaks through fractured rock, drilling site discharge, and wastewater
disposal (Rozell and Reaven, 2012). For example, Vengosh et al. (2014)
analyzed the published data in the U.S. (through January 2014) and
found evidence for stray gas contamination, surface water impacts in
areas of intensive shale gas development, and the accumulation of ra-
dium isotopes in natural gas disposal and spill sites.
Thus, increasing pollutant loads from new energy generation and
distribution pathways have made water quality and environmental
problems more complex than before. This has stimulated both basic
scientific research and technology development. For example, plant
biologists have been exploring the second generation of bioenergy
feedstocks that are both efficient in energy production and friendly to
the environment (McIsaac et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2013). Hydrologists
can join the effort to assess the water requirement and impacts on water
quantity and quality of these second generation feedstocks (Housh
et al., 2015b; Le et al., 2011; Ng et al., 2010).
The utility of hydropower remains a longstanding global debate
within water resources development (WCD, 2000). While often pro-
posed for energy provision purposes, hydropower dams cause nu-
merous incidental benefits and damages - including the benefits for
water storage for drought mitigation, flood regulation, and recreation
and damages from disrupted sediment transport and inhibited fish
migration. Also, the timing of hydropower demand and other water
demands, namely irrigation, can cause competition between benefits, as
Zeng et al. (2017) demonstrated to be the case for over half of globally
installed hydropower. Moreover, the green energy label attributed to
hydropower may be misguided according to emerging research re-
garding the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from decomposition in
reservoirs (Gunkel, 2009). In light of these findings, hydropower re-
search should consider the full scope of FEW system impacts within
dam design and operation. In particular, balancing the often-conflicting
263
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
requirements of aquatic habitats, energy demand, water supply, and
other water uses remains a challenge for the joint work of ecologists,
hydrologists, and water resources engineers, especially under hydro-
logic inflow uncertainty and variability (Suen et al., 2009; Yang and
Cai, 2011). Mitigating the tradeoffs among a dam's various purposes
will require understanding of relevant physical processes such as flow
states, sediment transport (Wild and Loucks, 2014), and hydrodynamic
conditions for fish within and downstream of reservoirs (Xu et al.,
2017).
3.3. Highlights of relevance to hydrologic research
The FEW nexus adds new dimensions to classic hydrologic pro-
blems, as demonstrated in the preceding section (also see Smajgl et al.
(2016)). However, it is not surprising that some classic problems for
water scientists will remain and become even more complex in the
context of the FEW nexus. In particular, quantifying and managing
uncertainty is a long-standing issue within in the hydrology community
(Rajaram et al., 2015), especially that of extreme events such as
droughts, heat waves, and floods. Hydroclimatic uncertainty propa-
gates to all sectors relying on water as a resource or being affected by
water processes (e.g., flooding). Additional complexity arises from the
correlation of the various uncertainty sources from food, energy, and
water sectors and their joint impacts on the performance of the FEW
system (Leck et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2015a; Yang et al., 2016b).
Research on hydroclimatic forecasts, characterized by forecast horizon
and accuracy, should consider the specific needs to secure the stability
of food and energy production and markets (Hamlet et al., 2002; Koch
and Vögele, 2013).
Exploration of outstanding scale and scaling-up issues with FEW
analysis and management, as discussed earlier, can be based on and
extend the knowledge of hydrologic communities (Blöschl, 2001;
Sivapalan, 2003; Soulsby et al., 2006). Advances in hydrologic mod-
eling at large scales such as national, continental, or global
(Rajaram et al., 2015) provide scientific support for FEW nexus un-
derstanding at those scales by providing water availability assessment
(e.g., WaterGap global model (Döll and Schmied, 2012)), streamflow
and flood forecasts (e.g., National Water Model (Maidment, 2016)), and
demand and trade modeling of food (Rosegrant et al., 2002) and energy
(Hejazi et al., 2015). Engineering measures (such as long-distance water
transfer) and food and energy markets enhance the FEW nexus inter-
connectedness at large scales. These expanded nexus relationships at a
regional or national scale can impact local water resources develop-
ment and the hydrologic cycle and thus increase the relevant scale of
the “local” water system (e.g., via inter-basin water transfer, pumping
and lifting, or food market that drives virtual water flow). In turn, re-
gional or national outcomes are impacted by local outcomes that trickle
up through interconnections. These feedback loops that cross scales
offer an exciting avenue for exploration among hydrologists (Watkins
et al., 2015a). On the other hand, some FEW nexus cases may indeed be
confined to a local scale. For example, treatment of brackish water in
coastal areas to irrigate crops and vegetables with high salt tolerance
does not interact with a surrounding watershed or sub-watershed.
Another research direction arising from the FEW nexus paradigm,
and coinciding with the current concern of the hydrologic community,
is the human dimension of the hydrologic cycle, including anthropogenic
alterations and hydrologic co-evolution with human systems (Rajaram
et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2015). The inter-sectoral connectedness of the
FEW nexus extends the human dimension by involving stakeholders
from multiple sectors and introduces more complex tradeoffs and sy-
nergies (or co-benefits) among the stakeholders. This broader human
dimension interferes with the various physical processes and themati-
cally complicates the interactions of human and natural system dy-
namics. Recent studies on coupled nature-human systems (CNHS) re-
emphasize the need to integrate work among researchers in social and
physical communities (Lund, 2015; Scanlon et al., 2017; Sivapalan
X. Cai et al.
et al., 2012) and to link ecosystem services, critical to food and energy
production, with various stakeholder outcomes (de Groot et al., 2010;
Hein et al., 2006). From a water perspective, we are concerned with
water supply of sufficient quantity and quality for food and energy
production and the feedbacks of those water uses to hydrologic pro-
cesses, which reemphasizes the role of hydrology − highlighting the
interdisciplinary science of water in the context of CNHS as proposed by
Vogel et al. (2015).
The above processes and connections make up the complex system
discussed hereafter. We highlight these processes because they are
particularly impactful within FEW systems and they represent current
knowledge gaps. As with any complex system, FEW system under-
standing requires sound knowledge of the underlying processes and
connections before the system can be effectively managed through in-
frastructure, technology, institutions, and policy.
4. The unique role of water in FEW system analysis
Managing integrated FEW systems represents a fundamental shift
from the traditional but narrow goal of solely increasing benefits de-
rived from either food, energy, or water resources, with limited regard
for the other FEW components. Instead, a system of systems approach
targets overall efficiency of FEW resources utilization and produces
synergistic societal and environmental benefits. Water's foundational
role in so many facets of human society, as well as natural processes,
has necessitated systems thinking amongst water researchers for dec-
ades (Brown et al., 2015; Rogers and Fiering, 1986; Maass et al., 1962).
As water scientists, our long-history of system thinking may act as
springboard to understanding and managing the complex inter-
dependencies within the FEW nexus. Following the discussion on in-
terconnected processes in the preceding section, here, we address the
interactions between food, energy, and water within a systems context.
We give special attention to the features and issues within water sub-
systems that will propagate up to the broader FEW system and may act
as the key driver of FEW system outcomes. Broadly, we identify sources
of system complexity that challenge water resource system analysis
(and, hence, FEW system analysis), and demonstrate how water re-
sources systems analysis can be extended to address the complexities
with FEW systems.
4.1. Interconnectedness, circular demands, and feedback loops
Complex FEW systems are diagnosed and described by their in-
herent, interdependent linkages and feedbacks. These system properties
may lead to emergent characteristics, which arise from the web of in-
terconnections in a complex system (Kumar, 2015). Water systems are
complex by themselves but many traditional water-centric problems
may need to be addressed in the context of FEW systems to avoid un-
expected consequences. For instance, during a severe drought in 2012,
Kolkata, India suffered a major blackout due to the linkages among the
regional water and energy sectors (Webber, 2015). In response to the
drought, farmers increased groundwater pumping; in turn, increased
groundwater pumping placed increased demands on the regional elec-
trical grid. Meanwhile, low streamflow reduced hydropower produc-
tion. Ultimately, the drought event caused 690 million people to lose
power (Webber, 2015). This example illustrates how shocks to the
water system can propagate through the food and energy sectors and
circulate back to the water system itself. . Identifying and under-
standing the interconnections that initiate circular demands or feed-
back loops is foundational to designing and managing overall FEW
system behaviors.
Water scientists have long studied the coupling between water and
human systems, noting the complicated nonlinear response of water
systems to both natural (Němec and Schaake, 1982) and human
(Thomas et al., 2013; Van Der Zaag and Gupta, 2008; Wang and Cai,
2010) perturbations. The couplings between FEW components, society,
264
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
and ecosystems with nonlinear feedbacks and circular demands may
create even more complex patterns of system performance across
multiple spatial and temporal scales. In particular, instances of small,
gradual changes to either food, energy, or water resources can emerge
as large (and even disastrous) changes in the overall FEW system or
broader environment. This is evident in the Aral Sea Basin, where
steady increases in irrigated area and hydropower capacity over mul-
tiple decades led to a precipitous drop in the Aral Sea's surface area
once a critical threshold of upstream irrigation was reached (Cai et al.,
2003b). Agriculture intensification, which was seen in the Aral Sea
Basin and typically requires additional water and energy inputs, is es-
sential to feed the growing global population (Godfray et al., 2010).
Yet, will agriculture and energy intensification insidiously lead to si-
milar environmental catastrophes in basins around the world? Will
additional demand for water to irrigate food and biofuel crops lead to
circular demands for FEW resources? To answer these questions, water
scientists need to work with food and energy scientists to better un-
derstand local interconnected FEW processes and institutions (see
Section 6) which determine water availability for food and energy
production, as well as the environmental impacts associated with these
water uses.
Additionally, we need to understand the telecouplings between
local resource use and the distant consumers that are remotely driving
the system through the invisible hand of the global market
(Marston and Konar, 2017). After all, in the Aral Sea Basin, besides
irrigated grains for local consumption, irrigated cotton as both a major
income source for people in Central Asia and a mandate for 95 percent
of cotton used in the former Soviet Union, was one of the primary water
users in the Aral Sea Basin.
The short-term policies and profit-driven decision-making exhibited
in the case of the Aral Sea Basin did not account for externalities as-
sociated with extensive irrigation, which eventually caused the en-
vironmental disaster in the region (Cai et al., 2003b). No study within
the water resources literature has fully explained the tipping point
leading to the sharp drop of inflow to the Aral Sea and corresponding
recession of its surface area beginning in the 1970s and continuing
today. The Aral Sea represents a complex FEW system and highlights a
specific instance where joint efforts from water, agriculture, and energy
(hydropower in the upstream of the basin) communities are needed to
explain the nonlinear phenomena and propose solutions to reverse an
environmental and socioeconomic disaster.
4.2. Tradeoffs, synergies, and system efficiency
Nexus thinking requires a shift from a singular focus on production
maximization to improving system efficiencies, capturing synergies,
and managing tradeoffs. The entangled and diverse uses of water have
necessitated nexus thinking well before the FEW nexus came to the
forefront of scientific discourse. While water scientists’ past and on-
going work can inform FEW nexus research, the FEW framework may
offer a means for wider implementation of our work through the in-
clusion and engagement of those that have previously evaded a water-
centric approach.
Within water systems, researchers, practitioners, and decision-ma-
kers have long considered tradeoffs of water quality versus water
quantity, upstream beneficiaries versus downstream beneficiaries, and
environmental health versus economic production, among others. In
the context of FEW, these tradeoffs become increasingly complicated as
more sectors and stakeholders become involved. Our understanding of
water resources is not complete without nexus thinking. For example,
Housh et al. (2015b) showed how adopting a second generation biofuel
crop (Miscanthus) in a central Illinois watershed will improve biofuel
production efficiency and reduce nutrient discharge but increase cost
and volume of freshwater consumption compared to the current use of
corn as feedstock. The FEW nexus approach allows us to view this issue
beyond tradeoffs of water quality vs. water quantity and understand the
X. Cai et al.
underlying mechanisms that drive system outcomes. Food and energy
markets, transportation infrastructure, farm management, feedstock
conversion rates, and emerging energy technologies are among the
drivers of this system. Extending our boundaries of analysis will make
evident previously hidden and poorly understood tradeoffs. Dealing
with such complicated tradeoffs needs stronger scientific support for
the understanding of processes, interventions, and outcomes and
stronger institutional support to balance the benefits of multiple groups
of stakeholders.
In addition, positive synergies in integrated FEW systems can be le-
veraged to overcome issues that have persistently plagued the water
community. For example, in arid or semi-arid areas with marginal
water resources (e.g., saline groundwater and wastewater) and plentiful
renewable energy sources (e.g., solar and/or wind power), the energy
sources can be used for desalination of saline groundwater and treat-
ment of wastewater, which can be applied to irrigating high-value crops
via vertical agriculture (vertically stacked layers of farmed land in a
building). Such coupling of water and energy resources for food pro-
duction and storage purposes can generate synergies by 1) making more
effective use of renewable energies given that wind mill and solar panel
capacities are not fully used in many regions; 2) increasing food pro-
duction or reducing food waste; 3) making marginal water (saline water
and wastewater) useful. The potential synergies rising from FEW sys-
tems are informative to water, food and energy scientists and to en-
gineers who design particular FEW systems that fit local resources and
socioeconomic conditions. Issues such as cost effectiveness, environ-
mental impact and social impact (see Section 6 for more discussion)
must be addressed via FEW system analysis.
However, the expected synergies in FEW systems can be weakened
or even replaced by tradeoffs under changing environmental and social
conditions. Within water resources, multi-purpose reservoirs provide
one such example. Dams are often designed to serve multiple purposes,
including hydropower, fishing, irrigation, public water supply, among
others. During design, objectives such as energy production and crop
irrigation are balanced so as to meet the immediate needs of those re-
liant on the dam's water releases. However, years of continued dam-
ming of upstream waters, land-use change, and climate change have
altered hydrologic regimes, as well as the timing of water requirement
for hydropower and food production (Zeng et al., 2017), thereby im-
pacting the dam's operational synergies. Moreover, changes in societal
values regarding the environment and fish habitat have called into
question previous water allocations (Marston and Cai, 2016).
Natural and societal change is unavoidable, and seemingly hap-
pening more rapidly. Working together, FEW researchers can make the
food, energy, and water sectors more resilient to future changes by
designing adaptable infrastructure and utilizing excess resources from
each sector. An example of this is conjunctive water use (CU) and
managed aquifer recharge (MAR), which stores excess water in de-
pleted aquifers that can be extracted later to irrigate food or biofuel
crops during drought (Scanlon et al., 2016). Further technological in-
novations, paired with forward-looking policy, can lead to additional
FEW synergies and make each sector more resilient to variability in
natural and humans systems (see Section 5 for more discussion).
Increasing water use efficiency amongst the energy and food sectors
(the two largest water users globally) has been a long-term effort in
water science and technology communities. However, improving water
use efficiency does not necessarily lead to better system performance
when considering broader or different FEW objectives. Within the FEW
nexus, even the conceptual basis of efficiency must be reevaluated. For
instance, closed-loop thermoelectric cooling is considered more effi-
cient than open-loop cooling because it withdraws approximately 95%
less water. However, closed-loop cooling can consume nearly 60% more
water than open-loop cooling (DeNooyer et al., 2016). Improving irri-
gation efficiencies may reduce water applied to crops but additional
energy inputs are needed to pressurize more water-efficient irrigation
systems. Moreover, measures of efficiency are highly dependent on the
265
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
boundaries of analysis. Water efficiency improvements at the site scale
may have little effect on basin efficiency (defined as the ratio of ben-
eficial water consumption over total water consumption within a basin)
since return flows from ‘inefficient’ water users can be utilized down-
stream for food production, hydro-energy generation, and other pur-
poses (Cai et al., 2003c).
4.3. Systems analysis techniques
There is no singular method or clear best practice for understanding
highly complex systems (Shalizi, 2006). Indeed, several system analysis
techniques that have been developed in the water sector can be ex-
tended for even more sophisticated analysis of FEW systems. First,
water researchers have employed several approaches to evaluate water
related tradeoffs in a holistic manner. For instance, mathematical pro-
gramming (Yang et al., 2016a), including multi-objective optimization
(Hurford and Harou, 2014), and water management simulation models
(Perrone and Hornberger, 2016) have been employed to create tradeoff
frontiers between water supply and quality, food production, power
generation, social outcomes, and environmental health. This permits
decisions-makers and other stakeholders to visualize nexus outcomes
and consider non-economic goals alongside profits from water supply,
food production, and power generation (Jägerskog et al., 2013). Em-
bedded resource accounting approaches, such as life cycle assessment
and footprint assessment methods, can also reveal the hidden linkages
between FEW resources and the tradeoffs and synergies throughout the
value chain (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2012; Marston et al., 2015). Com-
putable general equilibrium (CGE) models with an ecological sector
have been used to establish tradeoffs between economic benefits and
the environment (Llop and Ponce-Alifonso, 2012). Finally, stochastic
optimization techniques that have been developed for hydropower
operation under hydroclimatic variability and uncertainty (Labadie,
2004; Yeh, 1985) can be extended to a larger system of multiple com-
plementary energy sources and water users under changing and un-
certain environmental and socioeconomic conditions (Cai et al., 2009).
FEW systems interact not only in the physical environment but also
the socio-economic environment, which requires appropriate modeling
tools to analyze the interactions between natural and social systems.
Hydro-economic models (Cai, 2008; Harou et al., 2009) integrate es-
sential hydrologic and economic relationships in a consistent model to
analyze the interactions between water supply, water demand and
economic policies. Such an approach can be naturally extended to FEW
systems by adding physical-economic relations of food and energy (e.g.,
Cai et al., 2003a). More recently, water resource researchers have ap-
plied system of systems models to analyze the multi-dimensional tra-
deoffs and synergies among the water, food, and energy sub-systems
(Housh et al., 2015a). Agent-based modeling (ABM) is gaining traction
within the water resources research community, as it can be particu-
larly useful in representing diverse human actors (Hu et al., 2017).
Likewise, ABMs are promising for FEW systems analysis due to the
ability to represent heterogeneous behaviors among multiple stake-
holders. Furthermore, ABMs are often coupled with natural process
models to address the interactions between human and natural dy-
namics. For instance, Ng et al., (2011) studied land allocation between
food and biofuel crops and its impact on hydrologic flows and water
quality. In general, the framework of coupled natural-human system
(CNHS) is well suited to FEW analysis to simulate the dynamic feed-
backs between natural system (mainly with water) and human systems
(with stakeholders from all sectors) (Elshafei et al., 2015).
Finally, networks depicting connections among processes, state
variables, and fluxes (known as process networks) can provide a highly
informative snapshot of the state of a complex system (Kumar, 2015),
which has been illustrated in water systems but have not yet been ap-
plied specifically to FEW system analysis (to the authors’ knowledge).
For example, the work of Ruddell and Kumar (2009a, 2009b) demon-
strate the ability to produce process networks from time-series data for
X. Cai et al.
a complex eco-hydrologic network and should serve as proof of concept
worth pursuing further in the FEW context. Another systems modeling
method, system dynamics, has been used to study the behavior of
complex, non-linear systems in water resources, but it has not yet been
utilized in FEW system analysis to its full potential (Halbe et al., 2015;
Mirchi et al., 2012). Each of the above methods has proven valuable in
a small sample of hydrologic and water resource systems applications,
and warrant further extension by water scientists in collaboration with
food and energy scientists to diagnose and describe linkages, feedbacks,
and emergent characteristics in FEW systems, thereby advancing FEW
understanding.
5. Technology development in the context of FEW systems
FEW relevant water technologies and infrastructure design are ra-
pidly advancing, enabling new synergies and improved overall system
efficiency. Water infrastructure is inherently relevant to the FEW nexus
since it is often purposed to meet the water demands of the energy and
food sectors. Yet, water technologies and infrastructure design often do
not consider FEW interdependencies (Bazilian et al., 2011; Webber,
2015). Currently there are 3700 large dams planned or under con-
struction globally (Zarfl et al., 2015), constituting a critical opportunity
to incorporate broader FEW system outcomes when planning, con-
structing and operating these new dams. New water infrastructure and
technologies should aim to increase total FEW benefits (not just those
derived from water) amongst a wide-range of stakeholders, including
the environment. Here we review a few key advancements in water
technology and infrastructure, highlight the ability of system designers
to reimagine existing technology, and warn of the surprises which may
arise if implementation does not fully account for FEW system com-
plexity.
5.1. Technology innovations
Many water technologies and infrastructure designs offer avenues to
reduce tradeoffs, enhance efficiencies, or improve reliability within the
FEW system. For instance, advancements in both multi-stage flash
distillation and reverse osmosis technologies have increased the energy
efficiency of desalination plants, thereby reducing the energy versus
water tradeoff (Khawaji et al., 2008). Development of drought-tolerant
crops (Tester and Langridge, 2010) can mitigate water shortage vul-
nerability and also save energy for irrigation systems. Other examples
include the use of saline water to irrigate some salt-tolerant crops
(Rozema and Flowers, 2008); reuse of wastewater after cost-effective
treatment (Becerra-Castro et al., 2015; Haruvy, 1997); use of food
waste for bioenergy production using low environmental impact tech-
nologies (Lin et al., 2013; Uçkun Kiran et al., 2014).
Another pathway to FEW savings has been the shift toward utilizing
waste as a resource, recently spearheaded by wastewater engineers. In
particular, water reclaimed at treatment plants is used for thermo-
electric power generation or to irrigate food and biofuel crops
(Dong et al., 2016); wastewater treatment systems have demonstrated
the economic feasibility of recovering thermal energy for heating, or-
ganic compounds which are incinerated for energy production, and
nutrients used to fertilize crops (Hering et al., 2013). With innovative
resource recovery technologies, the environment and downstream
water users benefit from improved water quality, while farmers who
apply captured phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewater to their fields
can benefit from increased crop yields and reduced fertilizer cost.
However, water scientists must beware of the FEW example in-
vestigated by Rajagopal (2008), for example, where societal benefits
unexpectedly decreased as “wasteland” was converted into agricultural
land for biofuel development. As it turned out, what planners had
viewed as “wasteland” was actually a valuable resource for an over-
looked community, serving as a source of fuel and food for local im-
poverished peoples (Rajagopal 2008). As food, energy, and water
266
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
operations are further integrated, new opportunities may emerge for
water scientists to utilize food and energy system “waste” or to redirect
water system “waste” to systems where it may serve as a resource.
Though limited, some studies and projects have extended the eva-
luation of water technology and infrastructure to include the cascading
effects throughout a FEW system. Villarroel Walker et al. (2014) eval-
uated the effects of four water-sector technologies on the “metabolism”
of the city of London – the city's intake and output of nutrients, energy,
and water. Through multi-sectoral systems analysis, they show which
combinations of technologies are preferred for various resource con-
servation priorities (Villarroel Walker et al., 2014). There is also evi-
dence that decentralized, small-scale water storage and hydropower
schemes may sustainably balance the multiple objectives of food, water,
and energy security in developing countries (Van Der Zaag and
Gupta, 2008). Decentralized approaches have been shown to provide
greater access to energy and water for food production amongst
smallholder farmers, who produce most of low-income country's food
supply (IFAD, 2013; Stevens and Gallagher, 2015). Furthermore, the
stronger coupling between local stakeholders and water infrastructure
may provide additional FEW synergies, such as applying dredged nu-
trient-rich river sediments to cropland to boost food production, which
simultaneously extends the life of the dam (Lembke et al., 1983).
Moving forward, water resource system analysts must increasingly ac-
count for interconnected FEW processes and systems when evaluating
technology and infrastructure.
The growing capabilities of technologies such as remote sensing,
geographic information systems (GIS), low-cost sensors, and smart
phone applications can provide critical data concerning FEW systems
and may help water researchers accomplish this more integrated ana-
lysis. For example, data collected from aging water infrastructure ret-
rofitted with smart sensors can inform more flexible operating proce-
dures and improved decision support visualization, ultimately leading
to more efficient use of FEW resources and environmentally friendlier
operation. While developing these advanced data tools, some funda-
mental questions must be addressed: How can the resource use of
heterogeneous and fragmented users be monitored and measured? How
can information describing human processes, institutions, and stake-
holder behaviors in different sectors be paired with physical and eco-
system data in a meaningful way? What data are needed to understand
the spatial and temporal evolution of FEW systems? As answers to these
questions are developed and more data sensing capabilities are har-
nessed, water and FEW system analysts will be empowered to more
fully understand FEW system complexity and thus guide future tech-
nological and infrastructural investments.
5.2. Systems design
The FEW nexus will also allow water engineers new freedom to
combine existing technologies and infrastructures in new ways for an
improved overall FEW system (Garcia and You, 2016). Especially, tra-
ditional water uses, technology, and infrastructure can be reimagined
(i.e., system re-design) to exploit synergies within the broader FEW
system. The incorporation of interdependent food, energy, and water
processes in design opens opportunities to improve resource use effi-
ciency and achieve synergistic societal benefits. One case is to reduce
the energy required to supply clean water by integrating engineered
water treatment and natural watershed management. For example,
biofuel production from herbaceous perennial crops in marginal agri-
cultural land can reduce sediment and nutrient runoff (Nelson et al.,
2006), thereby improving water quality and reducing the need for en-
ergy-intensive water treatment before human consumption. Another
case is to couple the production of multiple energy sources. Given dif-
ferent weather conditions and the timing of energy demands, wind,
solar, and hydropower can be coupled to increase energy supply re-
liability. For example, General Electric recently began an initiative to
use massive wind turbines to pump water for storage at the top of a hill.
X. Cai et al.
When electricity is needed, water is released downhill and run through
a hydropower generator. In essence, water is used as a battery to store
excess power from wind turbines. This is an extension of “pump and
hydropower generation” where water is pumped to elevated reservoirs
at night (when energy demand is reduced) and the water is released
(and its energy captured) during the day when the electricity and water
demand are higher (Grumet, 2016).
In addition, viewing issues traditionally thought of as ‘water pro-
blems’ (e.g., floods) through the lens of a FEW system will reframe how
we manage, design, and set policies to handle water issues. For in-
stance, coastal flooding and erosion are typically mitigated by struc-
tural (e.g., dykes, groins) or policy measures (e.g., flood insurance); yet,
what would flood resilience look like within the context of FEW? One
example can be seen in small island nations, where the rehabilitation of
mangrove habitats not only better protects local populations from
coastal flooding and erosion but also improves water quality and pro-
duces food with minimal disruption to water and energy supplies
(Biggs et al., 2015).
Many important synergies, such as in the examples above, are only
accessible to system designers if food, energy, and water systems are
analyzed and managed collectively. Water researchers and practitioners
must design unorthodox solutions such as this in the face of increasingly
limited FEW resources.
5.3. Externalities of technology development
New technologies and systems often require tremendous investment
to develop and implement, and such investments may be wasted or
even cause additional problems if they are not guided by an adequate
understanding of FEW system complexities (Webber, 2015). Therefore,
systems analysts in water and other sectors have a tremendous re-
sponsibility to guide technology development and infrastructure design
with deepening understanding of FEW system complexities.
Instances of misapplied technology leading to unintended con-
sequences and surprises are abundant. For water scientists, a classical
example is the increase of water consumption in response to improved
irrigation technologies. This phenomenon, known as Jevon's Paradox,
indeed occurs in the energy and food sectors as well. (Ceddia et al.,
2013; Dumont et al., 2013; Freeman et al., 2016; Ward and Pulido-
Velazquez, 2008). As another example, water recycling or reuse pro-
jects can improve water use efficiencies but also have unintended
consequences across the nexus. In Egypt, continual recycling and reuse
of irrigation runoff had negative effects on water quality throughout the
country's irrigation network. The water became more saline and pol-
luted as it was recycled, reducing crop yield. In addition, the upstream-
downstream dynamics of water recycling created issues of unequal
access for Egyptian farmers (Barnes, 2014). Thus, two intuitive solu-
tions to water resource scarcity – improved efficiency and resource
reuse – must not be pursued hastily but through careful consideration of
their broader impacts across the FEW system and society at large.
These examples also provide impetus for developing adaptive water
management techniques. Even the most carefully considered plans may
yield surprising outcomes, given the complexity of FEW systems, and
adaptive management techniques could enable water managers to
change plans as new knowledge is gained (Pahl-Wostl, 2007). For ex-
ample, when the Northwest Power Act was passed in 1980, mandating
the sustainable balancing of hydropower development and fish con-
servation, the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
(CRBFWP) initiated an adaptive management strategy. The CRBFWP
immediately began taking mitigation measures but also created systems
to measure the impact of habitat enhancements on salmon spawning
rates as they were employed. Thus, the CRBFWP was able to continuously
learn and adapt its management strategies (Lee, 1989; Lee and
Lawrence, 1986).
In general, infrastructure design and the application of technology
based on understanding only input-output relations, or other individual
267
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
processes, may be misguided regarding certain overall system char-
acteristics (Kumar, 2015). As understanding of FEW system complexity
improves, unintended outcomes of technology and design can be
avoided more successfully.
6. Governance and institutions from water to FEW system
Over the past several decades, different institutional frameworks
and governance regimes have been proposed to improve water man-
agement, particularly through integrated and multi-sectoral coordina-
tion (Meinzen-Dick, 2007; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010). Considering IWRM
as one of the latest examples, the introduction of IWRM was recognized
as an attempt for policy integration across sectors, embracing the in-
herent complexity of the managed system (Grigg, 2008; Pahl-Wostl
et al., 2012). In fact, IWRM was developed based on the premise that
governing water, land, and other related resources in an integrated
manner is essential to effectively address problems such as equity,
economic efficiency, and ecosystem sustainability (Global Water
Partnership, 2000; Hagemann and Kirschke, 2017).
Similarly, in terms of the FEW nexus, the overarching governance
issue is that policies are fragmented across food, energy, and water
sectors (Hanlon et al., 2013) and a political process requiring negotia-
tions among the different actors, representing different sectors, is
needed to improve cross-sectoral policy integration (Weitz et al., 2017).
Failing to consider the connections among sectors in FEW governance,
either in policy analysis or in implementation, therefore could result in
unintended consequences, and worsen the overall resource security
(Bizikova et al., 2013). While some researchers cast doubt about the
effectiveness of IWRM in its implementation (Biswas, 2008; Hering and
Ingold, 2012; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012), we would argue that the pro-
gresses made in water institutions, governance, and science-policy in-
terfaces – especially the lessons learnt from IWRM implementations –
could in fact benefit addressing the rising institutional challenges with
FEW systems. However, it also should be noted that with a paradigm
shift from water governance to FEW governance, new challenges and
opportunities will emerge. This section reviews and discusses how
water management institutions can contribute to and be reshaped for
efficient and sustainable management of FEW systems.
6.1. Relevance of outstanding water policy issues to the FEW nexus
Over the years, water researchers have identified different policy
issues and proposed corresponding technical and institutional me-
chanisms to address the issues. Among them, social equity has been a
great concern appearing in the various water governance frameworks.
In fact, social equity is one of the main pillars of IWRM, along with
economic efficiency and environmental sustainability (Grigg, 2008;
Peña, 2011). Peña (2011) argued that assessing social equity in water
management should go beyond the water sector and be addressed in the
context of equity for all relevant groups in the society by considering all
the possible ways in which water impacts the welfare of people, directly
or indirectly.
In FEW nexus governance, it is also suggested that policy integration
can be facilitated if the issues are framed around “strong political
motivators” such as quality and access (Bazilian et al., 2011; Middleton
et al., 2015). However, while it is expected that a full-functioning FEW
nexus framework could provide a more reasonable and pragmatic ap-
proach to address issues such as equity, it should be noted that adding
more dimensions to this ‘messy’ problem would likely create more
challenges due to increases in tradeoffs, not only between multiple
objectives (i.e., resource efficiency and equity of access), but also across
the sectors. For example, investment in hydropower to secure energy
generation occasionally has had negative impacts on access to water for
local, usually under-represented, stakeholders (Bhaduri et al., 2015;
Hensengerth, 2015). Large-scale water diversion and hydropower pro-
jects in developing regions could lead to out-migration of smallholder
X. Cai et al.
farmers, thus influencing agricultural production and nearby urban
settlements (Foran, 2015). To advance equity studies in the context of
FEW systems, researchers need to develop more generalizable de-
scriptions of equitable water, energy, and food access and identify
criteria for equitable management.
Another critical policy issue in water management which is likely to
be magnified in the context of the FEW nexus is the so-called the ripple
effect, or the cascading effect. Currently, the decision landscapes in
FEW sectors are highly compartmentalized, and there are still artificial
divides between the individual sectors; energy, food and water man-
agement and policy making are usually conducted independently
without considering the cross-sectoral interactions and externalities
(Hanlon et al., 2013; Vora et al., 2017). This single-minded approach in
management and governance, especially when there is power im-
balance between sectors, can create sub-optimal solutions, and lead to
unintended and detrimental consequences (Hensengerth, 2015; Hoff,
2011). Moreover, while cross-sectoral policy making may provide op-
portunities to mitigate tradeoffs and conflicts, it may aggravate nega-
tive impacts on the environment and society if decisions are not well
aligned with environmental and socioeconomic objectives. Examples of
ripple effects and unintended outcomes due to the ignorance of FEW
nexus abound (Bhaduri et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2016). To name a few,
China's change to its soy trade policy in 2000–2001 led to global water
savings associated with soy trade in 2007 because Brazil, Argentina,
and the United States, the three main soy exporters to China, produce
soy with less water than China. However, deforestation of Amazon
rainforests accompanied Brazilian expansion of soybean production and
is likely to have significant impacts on local and regional water cycles
(Dalin et al., 2012). Rapid biofuel expansion and its impact on food
prices in the mid-2000s stands out as another important example. Be-
cause biofuel feedstocks compete for agricultural land, supplies of
certain food commodities struggled to meet demand (Naylor et al.,
2007) and caused international food prices to skyrocket, ultimately
contributing to a global food crisis in 2008. In this instance, an “energy”
policy had a negative impact on food production, with pronounced
impacts on the world's poor whose food access was reduced
(Rosegrant, 2008). There are also many cases where national “food”
policies had detrimental impacts within the water sector. For example,
in India, a policy of unmetered power supply for the agricultural sector,
provided to increase agricultural output and reduce rural poverty, has
led to significant decline in groundwater levels (Gulati and Pahuja,
2015; Shah et al., 2012); or in China, agricultural policies aiming to
improve food security and food self-sufficiency have been related to
ongoing irreversible damages to local groundwater resources
(Ghose, 2014).
The issues discussed above and others require institutional reform,
as well as the support of process-based scientific research and tech-
nology development. Cross-sector organization and comprehensive
policy incentives, considering all major objectives relevant to food,
energy and water security, must be developed.
6.2. Challenges in policy integration
Integrating and operationalizing policies in the nexus framework is,
and will continue to be, a difficult task (Bizikova et al., 2013; Leck
et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2011), although the FEW approach may pro-
vide a clearer scope and path for policy integration than IWRM does.
Here, we highlight several essential elements of successful policy im-
plementation. First, it is critical to identify where food, energy, or water
policies overlap with or contradict policies in the other sectors, at dif-
ferent spatial and temporal scales (Bazilian et al., 2011; Leck et al.,
2015). For instance, Qin et al. (2015) found that China's plans to meet
growing energy demand while reducing GHG emissions could conflict
with the country's so-called “3 Red Lines” water policies, introduced in
2011 to address regional imbalance in water availability. Cross-sectoral
analysis would help identify how current policies in each of the sectors
268
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
constrain or accelerate implementation of integrated FEW system
management. Such efforts constitute a daunting task complicated by
multi-tiered institutional arrangements and the involvement of stake-
holders who hold conflicting perspectives and objectives (Gerlak, 2005;
Leck et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2011).
Second, governance innovations at both local and national levels are
needed to facilitate policy making in the context of the FEW nexus
(Bhaduri et al., 2015; DOE, 2014). Similar to IWRM, although FEW
nexus research is likely to improve the scientific basis for decision-
making (Karthe et al., 2015), it is difficult to integrate specific technical
solutions into an institutional framework due to the lack of a compre-
hensive science-policy interface and a lack of understanding of the in-
stitutional structures (Hagemann and Kirschke, 2017). To improve ef-
fective implementation of solutions, conditions, possibilities, and
limitations of institutional change should be identified (Hagemann and
Kirschke, 2017; Kurian, 2004). Two examples are provided below for
illustration of the complexity in policy reforms. In the U.S., operation
and storage allocation for many dams remains essentially unchanged
since their construction, despite changes in societal preferences, water
demand for food and energy production, and hydrologic conditions and
supply capacities that affect water availability. Implementation of sto-
rage reallocation for large reservoirs would require the coordination of
federal and state institutions on water uses for food and energy pro-
duction, as well as other purposes designed for the reservoirs
(Marston and Cai, 2016). As another example, water availability in
some areas could restrict the expansion of biofuel crop production and
the use of water-intensive oil and gas extraction technologies (Nicot and
Scanlon, 2012; Scanlon et al., 2014). Since most water rights are for
irrigated agriculture, tradeoffs and synergies associated with re-
allocating water from food production to these new energy sources
should be explored to avoid water use conflicts between food and en-
ergy sectors, as occurred in Texas, where the water need for hydraulic
fracturing by natural gas producers competed with irrigation water use
by farmers during drought (Cooley and Donnelly, 2012).
Third, weather and climate extremes (or climate shocks) have al-
ways presented major challenges for water, food and energy supply and
demand management. Policy approaches to climate shocks in most
cases have focused on short-term solutions, ignoring factors that sig-
nificantly affect the resilience of water, food and energy systems in the
long term (Adger et al., 2011; Fulton and Cooley, 2015). Thus, a
transition to a risk management paradigm is required to enhance the
adaptive capacity of the system, not only through economic develop-
ment and technological solutions but also through improved, pro-active
policies (Wilhite et al., 2000; Adger et al., 2011). While this transition
has proved to be challenging, some progress has been made to char-
acterize the resilience of a system to better inform policy makers. For
example, Rushforth and Ruddell (2016) adopted and extended a con-
ceptual definition of ecological resilience to address hydro-economic
vulnerability and resilience of water resources in an urban area. Efforts
have also been made to track the resilience in global food systems (Béné
et al., 2016; Suweis et al., 2015; Seekell et al., 2017). However, building
resilience to climate shocks in FEW systems can be even more chal-
lenging due to the complexity and interconnectedness of the system and
the lack of holistic policy making channels (Conway et al., 2015; Scott
et al., 2015). California's Central Valley, for example, has experienced a
chronic drought event recently and caused many complicating issues
such as the decline of hydropower generation, the increase of electricity
use for deep groundwater pumping, and the cut of water use permits for
irrigation and municipal and industrial sectors (Famiglietti, 2014;
Gleick, 2016). To better cope with future climate shocks in FEW sys-
tems, holistic policy integration among the various sectors will be a
critical need (Fulton and Cooley, 2015).
Fourth, economic instruments must be coordinated and well-aligned
in each of the sectors to mitigate tradeoffs (Bird, 2016). Fishman et al.
(2015) showed that without appropriate economic incentives, adoption
of groundwater conservation technologies in India would probably fail
X. Cai et al.
to reach their large potential. As mentioned before, while solar irriga-
tion pumping is potentially a sustainable technology, subsidized solar
irrigation pumps might lead to over pumping if there is no incentive for
farmers to redirect surplus power into the grid (Bird, 2016). On the
other hand, if economic incentives are implemented appropriately, they
can motivate farmers to conserve water and use water more efficiently
(Rosegrant et al., 2009). For example, Ward (2014) showed that public
subsidies to convert flood irrigation to drip irrigation in the south-
western United States could raise the value of food production and
reduce the amount of water applied to crops. In general, economic in-
struments are needed to reconcile dissonance between natural resource
values and their prices, as commonly occurs with water (Bhaduri et al.,
2015; OECD, 2014; Rosegrant et al., 2009; UNESCAP, 2013).
Fifth, it is important to target different entities and stakeholders
from the various involved communities. In the United States, for ex-
ample, there is little policy effort by the federal government to address
the FEW nexus (Hanlon et al., 2013). While local governments tend to
respond to emerging challenges in the context of FEW by picking up the
slack, legislations and policies at the national level should also target
FEW nexus management by improving data monitoring programs and
encouraging integrated resource management (Hanlon et al., 2013).
Likewise, quantifying energy and water footprints associated with food
and energy production and trade can help policy makers develop more
effective and holistic policies (Vora et al., 2017).
Finally, organization is needed to bring together stakeholders from
different sectors so that they may understand the issues such as trade-
offs, synergies, and uncertainties and identify optimal solutions
(Bhaduri et al., 2015; Lele et al., 2013). Positive “change can only
happen if policy makers, business owners, and consumers alike better
understand these interconnections” (Hanlon et al., 2013). Experiences
in participatory water management during the past decades will fit the
campaign of policy innovations for FEW systems. For instance, in-
tegrating and managing the FEW nexus in transboundary river basins is
likely to be impeded by frictions and conflicts-in-interest among ri-
parian countries. As stated by Belinskij (2015), “the nexus approach to
transboundary cooperation requires a long-term capacity and trust
building between riparian states to create new opportunities through
cooperation.” It is important to recognize that it is not possible to en-
tirely eliminate the tradeoffs across sectors and across stakeholders;
however, framing policies within the nexus approach can help reduce
the tensions among stakeholders by maximizing the potential synergies
(Kim et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2011).
7. Conclusions
In this perspective paper, we provide our vision of the FEW nexus,
giving special attention to how it pertains to the water resources
community. Our vision is characterized by interconnected FEW pro-
cesses, input-output relationships, and overlapping institutions and in-
frastructures. We discuss the relevance of existing and ongoing scho-
larship within the water community and explore current research needs
in FEW processes, systems, technologies and infrastructures, and po-
licies. We identify the paths for water researchers to extend our dis-
ciplinary strengths within the broader FEW communities, while in-
forming scientists in the food and energy domains about our unique
skillset.
The FEW nexus paradigm has a clear scope of integration over the
interacting areas of food, energy and water sectors, which may allow
interdisciplinary research to progress and research outcomes to be
implemented where IWRM has had limited success. Analysts must be
aware that, due to the FEW nexus relationships, technology and policy
changes can end with either co-benefits or unintended tradeoffs and
environmental impacts depending on how the changes are guided.
Furthermore, FEW resource-use efficiency should be approached by
mitigating multiple-dimension tradeoffs and enhancing existing or
creating new positive synergies. All of these advancements will have to
269
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
be supported by fundamental research pertaining complexities in pro-
cesses and systems. To build on traditional empirical knowledge and
methods in water resources systems, researchers need to establish new
relationships of water-and-food and water-and-energy processes using
the various sources of existing and newly observed data. Synthesis of
real-world nexus issues across the various FEW systems can be espe-
cially helpful in discovering generic knowledge. To complement the
continuation of work with traditional systems by sector (i.e., water,
energy, and food), exploratory research in system of systems or complex
system theories and methods will be needed to test and develop in-
novative FEW system models, decision making mechanisms, technolo-
gies, and institutions. In particular, knowledge of generic, FEW-system
mechanisms must be gleaned from new, interdisciplinary studies to
augment the existing numerous case studies in the current literature.
For management purposes, there is an urgent need to reform the current
institutions, whose focus are on individual sectors, and explore co-
ordinated management of food, energy, and water wherever needed.
Early warning based on scientific prediction and monitoring should be
provided to possible externalities and unintended consequences re-
sulting from FEW system implementations, especially to the environ-
ment and underrepresented groups, as those occurring with water re-
sources development at many places around the world.
Following the historical efforts in IWRM, the water community is
provided opportunities for interdisciplinary studies amongst themselves
and for collaborations with energy and food communities, united by a
common path to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
Considering the various efforts required to advance FEW nexus under-
standing and management, every traditional water study group i.e.,
hydrologists, water resources engineers, economists, and policy ana-
lysts, can have a role, but it is critical for all groups to integrate our
work, both within the water sector and across the food and energy
sectors.
Acknowledgements
Senior authorship is shared for this paper. This research did not
receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, com-
mercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Edwin Cho conducted the art design of
Figs. 2 and 3.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.11.014.
References
Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Tompkins, E.L., 2005. The political economy of cross-scale
networks in resource co-management. Ecol. Soc. 10 art9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-01465-100209.
Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Nelson, D.R., Berkes, F., Eakin, H., Folke, C., Galvin, K.,
Gunderson, L., Goulden, M., O'Brien, K., Ruitenbeek, J., Tompkins, E.L., 2011.
Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.:
Climate Change 2, 757–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.133.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines
for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and drainage paper No. 56, FAO.
Rome.
Barnes, J., 2014. Mixing waters: The reuse of agricultural drainage water in Egypt.
Geoforum 57, 181–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.019.
Bazilian, M., Rogner, H., Howells, M., Hermann, S., Arent, D., Gielen, D., Steduto, P.,
Mueller, A., Komor, P., Tol, R.S.J., Yumkella, K.K., 2011. Considering the energy,
water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39,
7896–7906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039.
Becerra-Castro, C., Lopes, A.R., Vaz-Moreira, I., Silva, E.F., Manaia, C.M., Nunes, O.C.,
2015. Wastewater reuse in irrigation: A microbiological perspective on implications
in soil fertility and human and environmental health. Environ. Int. 75, 117–135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.001.
Belinskij, A., 2015. Water-Energy-Food Nexus within the Framework of International
Water Law. Water 7, 5396–5415. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w7105396.
Béné, C., Headey, D., Haddad, L., von Grebmer, K., 2016. Is resilience a useful concept in
the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and
X. Cai et al.
practical considerations. Food Secur 8, 123–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-
015-0526-x.
Bhaduri, A., Ringler, C., Dombrowski, I., Mohtar, R., Scheumann, W., 2015. Sustainability
in the water–energy–food nexus. Water Int 40, 723–732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02508060.2015.1096110.
Biggs, E.M., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, J.M.A., Horsley, J., Pauli, N., McNeill, K., Neef,
A., Van Ogtrop, F., Curnow, J., Haworth, B., Duce, S., Imanari, Y., 2015. Sustainable
development and the water–energy–food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods.
Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002.
Bird, J., 2016. Five years after the Bonn Nexus Conference - Implications for irrigation
and drainage. ICID NEWS 2–3.
Biswas, A.K., 2004. Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. Water Int
29, 248–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060408691775.
Biswas, A.K., 2008. Integrated water resources management: Is it working? Int. J. Water
Resour. Dev. 24, 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900620701871718.
Bizikova, L., Roy, D., Swanson, D., Venema, HenryDavid, McCandless, M., 2013. The
Water-energy-food Security Nexus: Towards a Practical Planning and Decision-sup-
port Framework For Landscape Investment and Risk Management. International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada.
Blöschl, G., 2001. Scaling in hydrology. Hydrol. Process. 15, 709–711. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/hyp.432.
Bracken, N., Macknick, J., Tovar-Hastings, A., Komor, P., Gerritsen, M., Mehta, S., 2015.
Concentrating Solar Power and Water Issues in the U.S. Southwest. Joint Institute for
Strategic Energy Analysis, Golden, COUnited States. http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/
1176743.
Brown, C.M., Lund, J.R., Cai, X., Reed, P.M., Zagona, E.A., Ostfeld, A., Hall, J., Characklis,
G.W., Yu, W., Brekke, L., 2015. The future of water resources systems analysis:
Toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management. Water Resour. Res.
51, 6110–6124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017114.
Cai, T., Park, S.Y., Li, Y., 2013. Nutrient recovery from wastewater streams by microalgae:
Status and prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 360–369. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.030.
Cai, X., 2008. Implementation of holistic water resources-economic optimization models
for river basin management - Reflective experiences. Environ. Model. Softw. 23,
2–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.03.005.
Cai, X., McKinney, D.C., Lasdon, L.S., 2003a. Integrated Hydrologic-Agronomic-Economic
Model for River Basin Management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 129, 4–17. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:1(4).
Cai, X., McKinney, D.C., Rosegrant, M.W., 2003b. Sustainability analysis for irrigation
water management in the Aral Sea region. Agric. Syst. 76, 1043–1066. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00028-8.
Cai, X., Rosegrant, M.W., Ringler, C., 2003c. Physical and economic efficiency of water
use in the river basin: Implications for efficient water management. Water Resour.
Res. 39, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000748.
Cai, Y.P., Huang, G.H., Yang, Z.F., Tan, Q., 2009. Identification of optimal strategies for
energy management systems planning under multiple uncertainties. Appl. Energy 86,
480–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.025.
Ceddia, M.G., Sedlacek, S., Bardsley, N.O., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., 2013. Sustainable agri-
cultural intensification or Jevons paradox? The role of public governance in tropical
South America. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 1052–1063. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2013.07.005.
Christian-Smith, J., Merenlender, A.M., 2010. The disconnect between restoration goals
and practices: A case study of watershed restoration in the Russian River basin,
California. Restor. Ecol. 18, 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.
00428.x.
Clark, C.E., Horner, R.M., Harto, C.B., 2013. Life Cycle Water Consumption for Shale Gas
and Conventional Natural Gas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11829–11836. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1021/es4013855.
Conway, D., van Garderen, E.A., Deryng, D., Dorling, S., Krueger, T., Landman, W.,
Lankford, B., Lebek, K., Osborn, T., Ringler, C., Thurlow, J., Zhu, T., Dalin, C., 2015.
Climate and southern Africa's water–energy–food nexus. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5,
837–846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2735.
Cooley, H., Donnelly, K., 2012. Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the
Frack from the Fiction. Pacifc Institute, Oakland, California.
Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rodriguez-iturbe, I., 2012. Evolution of the global
virtual water trade network. PNAS 109 8353–8353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1206123109.
David, M.B., Flint, C.G., Gentry, L.E., Dolan, M.K., Czapar, G.F., Cooke, R.A., Lavaire, T.,
2015. Navigating the Socio-Bio-Geo-Chemistry and Engineering of Nitrogen
Management in Two Illinois Tile-Drained Watersheds. J. Environ. Qual. 44, 368.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.01.0036.
David, M.B., Flint, C.G., McIsaac, G.F., Gentry, L.E., Dolan, M.K., Czapar, G.F., 2013.
Biophysical and social barriers restrict water quality improvements in the Mississippi
River Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11928–11929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es403939n.
Davis, S.C., Kauneckis, D., Kruse, N.A., Miller, K.E., Zimmer, M., Dabelko, G.D., 2016.
Closing the loop: integrative systems management of waste in food, energy, and
water systems. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6, 11–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13412-
016-0370-0.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in in-
tegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, man-
agement and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
de Moraes, M.M.G.A., Cai, X., Ringler, C., Albuquerque, B.E., Vieira da Rocha, S.P.,
Amorim, C.A., 2010. Joint Water Quantity-Quality Management in a Biofuel
Production Area—Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Modeling Analysis. J. Water
270
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
Resour. Plan. Manag. 136, 502–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-
5452.0000049.
DeNooyer, T.A., Peschel, J.M., Zhang, Z., Stillwell, A.S., 2016. Integrating water resources
and power generation: The energy–water nexus in Illinois. Appl. Energy 162,
363–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.071.
DOE, 2014. The Water Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities. U.S. Department of
Energy.
Döll, P., Schmied, H.M., 2012. How is the impact of climate change on river flow regimes
related to the impact on mean annual runoff? A global-scale analysis. Environ. Res.
Lett. 7, 14037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014037.
Dong, S., Lu, J., Plewa, M.J., Nguyen, T.H., 2016. Comparative Mammalian Cell
Cytotoxicity of Wastewaters for Agricultural Reuse after Ozonation. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50, 11752–11759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04796.
Droogers, P., van de Giesen, N., 2010. Food and Water: Analysis of potentially new
themes in water management - future trends and research needs, FutureWater.
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Dumont, A., Mayor, B., López-Gunn, E., 2013. Is the Rebound Effect or Jevons Paradox a
Useful Concept for better Management of Water Resources? Insights from the
Irrigation Modernisation Process in Spain. Aquat. Procedia 1, 64–76. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2013.07.006.
Eller, D., 2015. Fight over Des Moines Water Works lawsuit heats up [WWW Document].
Des Moines Regist. URL. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/
agriculture/2015/05/14/water-works-nitrates-lawsuit/27331305/ (accessed March
2017).
Elshafei, Y., Coletti, J.Z., Sivapalan, M., Hipsey, M.R., 2015. A model of the socio-hy-
drologic dynamics in a semiarid catchment: Isolating feedbacks in the coupled
human-hydrology system. Water Resour. Res. 51, 6442–6471. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/2015WR017048.
Endo, A., Tsurita, I., Burnett, K., Orencio, P.M., 2017. A review of the current state of
research on the water, energy, and food nexus. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 11, 20–30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.11.010.
EPA, 2015. Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force 2015 Report
to Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Falkenmark, M., Molden, D., 2008. Wake Up to Realities of River Basin Closure. Int. J.
Water Resour. Dev. 24, 201–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900620701723570.
Famiglietti, J.S., 2014. The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 945–948.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2425.
Fishman, R., Devineni, N., Raman, S., 2015. Can improved agricultural water use effi-
ciency save India's groundwater? Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 84022. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/10/8/084022.
Foran, T., 2015. Node and regime: Interdisciplinary analysis of water-energy-food nexus
in the Mekong region. Water Altern 8, 655–674.
Freeman, R., Yearworth, M., Preist, C., 2016. Revisiting Jevons’ Paradox with System
Dynamics: Systemic Causes and Potential Cures. J. Ind. Ecol. 20, 341–353. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12285.
Fulton, J., Cooley, H., 2015. The Water Footprint of California's Energy System,
1990–2012. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 3314–3321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es505034x.
Garcia, D.J., You, F., 2016. The water-energy-food nexus and process systems en-
gineering: A new focus. Comput. Chem. Eng. 91, 49–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compchemeng.2016.03.003.
Gephart, J.A., Troell, M., Henriksson, P.J.G., Beveridge, M.C.M., Verdegem, M., Metian,
M., Mateos, L.D., Deutsch, L., 2017. The `seafood gap’ in the food-water nexus lit-
erature—issues surrounding freshwater use in seafood production chains. Adv. Water
Resour. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.03.025.
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Lienden, A.R., van, Hoekstra, A.Y., van der Meer, T.H., 2012.
Biofuel scenarios in a water perspective: The global blue and green water footprint of
road transport in 2030. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 764–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.04.001.
Gerlak, A.K., 2005. Federalism and U.S. Water Policy: Lessons for the Twenty-First
Century. Publius J. Fed. 36, 231–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/publius/pji032.
Ghose, B., 2014. Food security and food self-sufficiency in China: from past to 2050. Food
Energy Secur 3, 86–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fes3.48.
Gleick, P.H., 2016. Impacts of California's Ongoing Drought: Hydroelectricity Generation.
Pacific Institute, Oakland, California.
Gleick, P.H., Palaniappan, M., 2010. Peak water limits to freshwater withdrawal and use.
PNAS 107, 11155–11162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004812107.
Global Water Partnership, 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management, Global Water
Partnership. Stockholm.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty,
J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food Security: The Challenge of
Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327, 812–818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
1185383.
Grafton, R.Q., Libecap, G.D., Edwards, E.C., O'Brien, R.J.(Bob), Landry, C., 2012.
Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray–Darling Basin of
Australia and the Western USA. Water Policy 14, 175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/
wp.2011.016.
Grigg, N.S., 2008. Integrated water resources management: balancing views and im-
proving practice. Water Int 33, 279–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02508060802272820.
Grumet, T., 2016. This Unique Combo Of Wind And Hydro Power Could Revolutionize
Renewable Energy [WWW Document]. GE Reports URL. http://www.gereports.
com/unique-combo-wind-hydro-power-revolutionize-renewable-energy/ (accessed
March 2017).
Gulati, M., Pahuja, S., 2015. Direct Delivery of Power Subsidy to Manage Energy–ground
Water–agriculture Nexus. Aquat. Procedia 5, 22–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
X. Cai et al.
aqpro.2015.10.005.
Gunkel, G., 2009. Hydropower - A Green Energy? Tropical Reservoirs and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water 37, 726–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
clen.200900062.
Hagemann, N., Kirschke, S., 2017. Key Issues of Interdisciplinary NEXUS Governance
Analyses: Lessons Learned from Research on Integrated Water Resources
Management. Resources 6, 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources6010009.
Halbe, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Lange, M.a., Velonis, C., 2015. Governance of transitions to-
wards sustainable development – the water–energy–food nexus in Cyprus. Water Int
8060, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1070328.
Hamlet, A.F., Huppert, D., Lettenmaier, D.P., 2002. Economic value of long-lead
streamflow forecasts for Columbia River hydropower. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.
128, 91–101.
Hanlon, P., Madel, R., Olson-Sawyer, K., Rabin, K., Rose, J., 2013. Food, Water and
Energy: Know the Nexus. GRACE Communications Foundation, New York, NY.
Harou, J.J., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Rosenberg, D.E., Medellín-Azuara, J., Lund, J.R.,
Howitt, R.E., 2009. Hydro-economic models: Concepts, design, applications, and
future prospects. J. Hydrol. 375, 627–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2009.06.037.
Haruvy, N., 1997. Agricultural reuse of wastewater: nation-wide cost-benefit analysis.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 66, 113–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(97)
00046-7.
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006. Spatial scales, stake-
holders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57, 209–228. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005.
Hejazi, M.I., Voisin, N., Liu, L., Bramer, L.M., Fortin, D.C., Hathaway, J.E., Huang, M.,
Kyle, P., Leung, L.R., Li, H.-Y., Liu, Y., Patel, P.L., Pulsipher, T.C., Rice, J.S., Tesfa,
T.K., Vernon, C.R., Zhou, Y., 2015. 21st century United States emissions mitigation
could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating. PNAS 112,
1421675112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421675112.
Hensengerth, O., 2015. Where is the power? Transnational networks, authority and the
dispute over the Xayaburi Dam on the Lower Mekong Mainstream. Water Int 40,
911–928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1088334.
Hering, J.G., Ingold, K.M., 2012. Water Resources Management: What Should Be
Integrated? Science 336, 1234–1235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1218230.
Hering, J.G., Waite, T.D., Luthy, R.G., Drewes, J.E., Sedlak, D.L., 2013. A Changing
Framework for Urban Water Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 10721–10726.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4007096.
Hill, M., Engle, N.L., 2013. Adaptive Capacity: Tensions across Scales. Environ. Policy
Gov. 23, 177–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.1610.
Hoff, H., 2011. Understanding the Nexus. In: Background Paper for the Bonn 2011
Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus, Stockholm Environment
Institute.
Housh, M., Cai, X., Ng, T.L., McIsaac, G.F., Ouyang, Y., Khanna, M., Sivapalan, M., Jain,
A.K., Eckhoff, S., Gasteyer, S., Al-Qadi, I., Bai, Y., Yaeger, M.A., Ma, S., Song, Y.,
2015a. System of Systems Model for Analysis of Biofuel Development. J. Infrastruct.
Syst. 21, 4014050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000238.
Housh, M., Yaeger, M.A., Cai, X., McIsaac, G.F., Khanna, M., Sivapalan, M., Ouyang, Y.,
Al-Qadi, I., Jain, A.K., 2015b. Managing Multiple Mandates: A System of Systems
Model to Analyze Strategies for Producing Cellulosic Ethanol and Reducing Riverine
Nitrate Loads in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49,
11932–11940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02712.
Hu, Y., Quinn, C.J., Cai, X., Garfinkle, N.W., 2017. Combining human and machine in-
telligence to derive agents’ behavioral rules for groundwater irrigation. Adv. Water
Resour. 109, 29–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.08.009.
Hurford, A.P., Harou, J.J., 2014. Balancing ecosystem services with energy and food
security–Assessing trade-offs from reservoir operation and irrigation investments in
Kenya's Tana Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 3259–3277. http://dx.doi.org/10.
5194/hess-18-3259-2014.
IFAD, 2013. Smallholders, food security, and the environment. International Fund for
Agricultural Development.
Illinois, EPA, 2015. Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
Jägerskog, A., Clausen, T.J., Lexén, K., Holmgren, T., 2013. Cooperation For a Water Wise
World – Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Stockholm International Water
Institute. SIWI, Stockholm.
Jarvie, H.P., Sharpley, A.N., Flaten, D., Kleinman, P.J.a, Jenkins, A., Simmons, T., 2015.
The Pivotal Role of Phosphorus in a Resilient Water–Energy–Food Security Nexus. J.
Environ. Qual. 44, 1049–1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.01.0030.
Karthe, D., Hofmann, J., Ibisch, R., Heldt, S., Westphal, K., Menzel, L., Avlyush, S., Malsy,
M., 2015. Science-based IWRM implementation in a data-scarce central Asian region:
Experiences from a research and development project in the Kharaa River Basin,
Mongolia. Water (Switzerland) 7, 3486–3514. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
w7073486.
Kauneckis, D., Andersson, K., 2009. Making decentralization work: A cross-national ex-
amination of local governments and natural resource governance in Latin America.
Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 44, 23–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12116-008-9036-6.
Keairns, D.L., Darton, R.C., Irabien, A., 2016. The Energy-Water-Food Nexus. Annu. Rev.
Chem. Biomol. Eng. 7, 239–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-
080615-033539.
Khawaji, A.D., Kutubkhanah, I.K., Wie, J.-M., 2008. Advances in seawater desalination
technologies. Desalination 221, 47–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.
067.
Kim, H., Yoon, S., Cho, E., Kim, J., 2015. A Study on Policy Directions For the Water-
Food-Energy Nexus (I). Korea Environment Institute, Sejong, Republic of Korea.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2005. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for
271
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
producing biofuels: Bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29, 426–439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.06.004.
Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Ng, W.J., Liu, Y., 2014. Bioconversion of food waste to en-
ergy: A review. Fuel 134, 389–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.05.074.
Koch, H., Vögele, S., 2013. Hydro-climatic conditions and thermoelectric electricity
generation - Part I: Development of models. Energy 63, 42–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.energy.2013.10.018.
Kumar, P., 2015. Hydrocomplexity: Addressing water security and emergent environ-
mental risks. Water Resour. Res. 51, 5827–5838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
2015WR017342.
Kunkel, K.E., Easterling, D.R., Kristovich, D.a.R., Gleason, B., Stoecker, L., Smith, R.,
2012. Meteorological causes of the secular variations in observed extreme pre-
cipitation events for the conterminous United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 13,
1131–1141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-11-0108.1.
Kurian, M., 2004. Institutional Analysis of Integrated Water Resources Management in
River Basins - A methodology Paper (No. 79). Integrated Water Management Institute
(IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Labadie, J.W., 2004. Optimal operation of multireservoir systems: state-of-the-art review.
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 130, 93–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9496(2004)130:2(93).
Le, P.V.V, Kumar, P., Drewry, D.T., 2011. Implications for the hydrologic cycle under
climate change due to the expansion of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United
States. PNAS 108, 15085–15090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107177108.
Leck, H., Conway, D., Bradshaw, M., Rees, J., 2015. Tracing the Water-Energy-Food
Nexus: Description, Theory and Practice. Geogr. Compass 9, 445–460. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/gec3.12222.
Lee, K.N., 1989. The Columbia River Basin: Experimenting with Sustainability. Environ.
Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 31, 6–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1989.
9928950.
Lee, K.N., Lawrence, J., 1986. Adaptive Management: Learning From The Columbia River
Basin Fish And Wildlife Program. Environ. Law 16, 431–460.
Lele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., Goswami, S., 2013. Good Governance for Food, Water and
Energy Security. Aquat. Procedia 1, 44–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2013.
07.005.
Lembke, W.D., Mitchell, J.K., Fehrenbacher, J.B., Barcelona, M.J., 1983. Dredged
Sediment for Agriculture: Lake Paradise, Mattoon, Illinois, Water Resources Center.
Lin, C.S.K., Pfaltzgraff, L.A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E.B., Abderrahim, S., Clark, J.H.,
Koutinas, A.A., Kopsahelis, N., Stamatelatou, K., Dickson, F., Thankappan, S.,
Mohamed, Z., Brocklesby, R., Luque, R., 2013. Food waste as a valuable resource for
the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global per-
spective. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 426–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2EE23440H.
Llop, M., Ponce-Alifonso, X., 2012. A never-ending debate: demand versus supply water
policies. A CGE analysis for Catalonia. Water Policy 14, 694. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2166/wp.2012.096.
Lund, J.R., 2015. Integrating social and physical sciences in water management. Water
Resour. Res. 51, 5905–5918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017125.
Maass, A., Hufschmidt, M.M., Dorfman, R., Thomas Jr., H.A., Marglin, S.A., Fair, G.M.,
1962. Design of Water-Resource Systems: New Techniques For Relating Economic
Objectives, Engineering Analysis, and Governmental Planning. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Maidment, D.R., 2016. Open Water Data in Space and Time. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
52, 816–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12436.
Marston, L., Cai, X., 2016. An overview of water reallocation and the barriers to its im-
plementation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 3, 658–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
wat2.1159.
Marston, L., Konar, M., 2017. Drought impacts to water footprints and virtual water
transfers of the Central Valley of California. Water Resour. Res. 53, 1–18. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020251.
Marston, L., Konar, M., Cai, X., Troy, T.J., 2015. Virtual groundwater transfers from
overexploited aquifers in the United States. PNAS 112, 8561–8566. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1500457112.
McIsaac, G.F., David, M.B., Mitchell, C.A., 2010. Miscanthus and Switchgrass Production
in Central Illinois: Impacts on Hydrology and Inorganic Nitrogen Leaching. J.
Environ. Qual. 39, 1790. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0497.
Meinzen-Dick, R., 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions. PNAS 104, 15200–15205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702296104.
Mekonnen, M.M., Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. The consumptive water
footprint of electricity and heat: a global assessment. Environ. Sci. Water Res.
Technol. 1, 285–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5EW00026B.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity.
Sci. Adv. 2, e1500323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323.
Merrey, D.J., 2008. Is normative integrated water resources management implementable?
Charting a practical course with lessons from Southern Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth 33,
899–905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.026.
Middleton, C., Allouche, J., Gyawali, D., Allen, S., 2015. The rise and implications of the
water-energy-food nexus in Southeast Asia through an environmental justice lens.
Water Altern 8, 627–654.
Mirchi, A., Madani, K., Watkins, D., Ahmad, S., 2012. Synthesis of System Dynamics Tools
for Holistic Conceptualization of Water Resources Problems. Water Resour. Manag.
26, 2421–2442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0024-2.
Mohtar, R.H., Lawford, R., 2016. Present and future of the water-energy-food nexus and
the role of the community of practice. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6, 192–199. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s13412-016-0378-5.
Naylor, R.L., Liska, A.J., Burke, M.B., Falcon, W.P., Gaskell, J.C., Rozelle, S.D., Cassman,
K.G., 2007. The Ripple Effect: Biofuels, Food Security, and the Environment. Environ.
Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 49, 30–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.49.9.30-43.
X. Cai et al.
Nelson, R.G., Ascough, J.C., Langemeier, M.R., 2006. Environmental and economic
analysis of switchgrass production for water quality improvement in northeast
Kansas. J. Environ. Manage. 79, 336–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2005.07.013.
Němec, J., Schaake, J., 1982. Sensitivity of water resource systems to climate variation.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 27, 327–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626668209491113.
Ng, T.L., Eheart, J.W., Cai, X., Braden, J.B., 2011. An agent-based model of farmer de-
cision-making and water quality impacts at the watershed scale under markets for
carbon allowances and a second-generation biofuel crop. Water Resour. Res. 47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010399.
Ng, T.L., Eheart, J.W., Cai, X., Miguez, F., 2010. Modeling Miscanthus in the Soil and
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to Simulate Its Water Quality Effects As a Bioenergy
Crop. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 7138–7144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es9039677.
Nicot, J.-P., Scanlon, B.R., 2012. Water Use for Shale-Gas Production in Texas, U.S.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3580–3586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es204602t.
Nistor, M.-M., Cheval, S., Gualtieri, A.F., Dumitrescu, A., Boţan, V.E., Berni, A., Hognogi,
G., Irimuş, I.A., Porumb-Ghiurco, C.G., 2017. Crop evapotranspiration assessment
under climate change in the Pannonian basin during 1991-2050. Meteorol. Appl. 24,
84–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/met.1607.
Oates, W.E., Portney, P.R., 2003. The Political Economy of Environmental Policy, in:
Handbook of Environmental Economics. Elsevier Masson SAS 325–354. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0099(03)01013-1.
OECD, 2014. New Perspectives on the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Forum Background
Note. OECD, Paris.
Orlowsky, B., Seneviratne, S.I., 2012. Global changes in extreme events: regional and
seasonal dimension. Clim. Change 110, 669–696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-011-0122-9.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2007. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate
and global change. Water Resour. Manag. 21, 49–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-006-9040-4.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., Knieper, C., 2010. Analyzing complex water gov-
ernance regimes: The Management and Transition Framework. Environ. Sci. Policy
13, 571–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.006.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., Nikitina, E., 2012. From applying panaceas to
mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ.
Sci. Policy 23, 24–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.014.
Pal, I., Anderson, B.T., Salvucci, G.D., Gianotti, D.J., 2013. Shifting seasonality and in-
creasing frequency of precipitation in wet and dry seasons across the U.S. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 40, 4030–4035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50760.
Palmer, M.A., 2009. Reforming Watershed Restoration: Science in Need of Application
and Applications in Need of Science. Estuaries and Coasts 32, 1–17. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s12237-008-9129-5.
Peña, H., 2011. Social Equity and Integrated Water Resources Management, Global Water
Partnership.
Perrone, D., Hornberger, G., 2016. Frontiers of the food–energy–water trilemma: Sri
Lanka as a microcosm of tradeoffs. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 14005. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014005.
Perrone, D., Hornberger, G.M., 2014. Water, food, and energy security: scrambling for
resources or solutions? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 1, 49–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/wat2.1004.
Poff, N.L., Richter, B.D., Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Naiman, R.J., Kendy, E., Acreman,
M., Apse, C., Bledsoe, B.P., Freeman, M.C., Henriksen, J., Jacobson, R.B., Kennen,
J.G., Merritt, D.M., O'keeffe, J.H., Olden, J.D., Rogers, K., Tharme, R.E., Warner, A.,
2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for
developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw. Biol. 55, 147–170.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02204.x.
Qin, Y., Curmi, E., Kopec, G.M., Allwood, J.M., Richards, K.S., 2015. China's energy-water
nexus – assessment of the energy sector's compliance with the “3 Red Lines” in-
dustrial water policy. Energy Policy 82, 131–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2015.03.013.
Rajagopal, D., 2008. Implications of India's biofuel policies for food, water and the poor.
Water Policy 10, 95–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2008.055.
Rajaram, H., Bahr, J.M., Blöschl, G., Cai, X., Scott Mackay, D., Michalak, A.M., Montanari,
A., Sanchez-Villa, X., Sander, G., 2015. A reflection on the first 50 years of Water
Resources Research. Water Resour. Res. 51, 7829–7837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
2015WR018089.
Ray, D.K., Gerber, J.S., MacDonald, G.K., West, P.C., 2015. Climate variation explains a
third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/ncomms6989.
Richardson, C.J., Flanagan, N.E., Ho, M., Pahl, J.W., 2011. Integrated stream and wetland
restoration: A watershed approach to improved water quality on the landscape. Ecol.
Eng. 37, 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.09.005.
Ringler, C., Bhaduri, A., Lawford, R., 2013. The nexus across water, energy, land and food
(WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
5, 617–624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.002.
Rogers, P.P., Fiering, M.B., 1986. Use of systems analysis in water management. Water
Resour. Res. 22, 146S–158S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR022i09Sp0146S.
Rosegrant, M.W., 2008. Biofuels and Grain prices: Impacts and Policy Responses.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X., Cline, S.A., 2002. World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with
Scarcity. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Rosegrant, M.W., Ringler, C., Zhu, T., 2009. Water for Agriculture: Maintaining Food
Security under Growing Scarcity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 205–222. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.030308.090351.
Rozell, D.J., Reaven, S.J., 2012. Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas
Extraction from the Marcellus Shale. Risk Anal 32, 1382–1393. http://dx.doi.org/10.
272
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01757.x.
Rozema, J., Flowers, T., 2008. Crops for a Salinized World. Science 322, 1478–1480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1168572.
Ruddell, B.L., Kumar, P., 2009a. Ecohydrologic process networks: 1. Identification. Water
Resour. Res. 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007279.
Ruddell, B.L., Kumar, P., 2009b. Ecohydrologic process networks: 2. Analysis and char-
acterization. Water Resour. Res. 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007280.
Rushforth, R.R., Ruddell, B.L., 2016. The vulnerability and resilience of a city's water
footprint: The case of Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Water Resour. Res. 52, 2698–2714.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018006.
Sanders, K.T., Webber, M.E., 2012. Evaluating the energy consumed for water use in the
United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 34034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
7/3/034034.
Scanlon, B.R., Reedy, R.C., Faunt, C.C., Pool, D., Uhlman, K., 2016. Enhancing drought
resilience with conjunctive use and managed aquifer recharge in California and
Arizona. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 35013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/
035013.
Scanlon, B.R., Reedy, R.C., Philippe Nicot, J., 2014. Will water scarcity in semiarid re-
gions limit hydraulic fracturing of shale plays? Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 124011. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124011.
Scanlon, B.R., Ruddell, B.L., Reed, P.M., Hook, R.I., Zheng, C., Tidwell, V.C., Siebert, S.,
2017. The food-energy-water nexus: Transforming science for society. Water Resour.
Res. 53, 3550–3556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020889.
Schnier, S., Cai, X., Cao, Y., 2016. Importance of natural and anthropogenic environ-
mental factors to fish communities of the fox river in Illinois. Environ. Manage. 57,
389–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0611-0.
Schreiner, B., Hassan, R., 2011. Lessons and Conclusions. In: Schreiner, B., Hassan, R.
(Eds.), Transforming Water Management in South Africa: Designing and
Implementing a New Policy Framework. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., pp.
271–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9367-7_14.
Scott, C.A., Kurian, M., Wescoat, J.L., 2015. The water-energy-food nexus: enhancing
adaptive capacity to complex global challenges. Governing the Nexus. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 15–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
05747-7_2.
Scott, C.A., Pierce, S.A., Pasqualetti, M.J., Jones, A.L., Montz, B.E., Hoover, J.H., 2011.
Policy and institutional dimensions of the water–energy nexus. Energy Policy 39,
6622–6630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.013.
Scott, C.A., Sugg, Z.P., 2015. Global energy development and climate-induced water
scarcity-Physical limits, sectoral constraints, and policy imperatives. Energies 8,
8211–8225. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en8088211.
Seekell, D., Carr, J., Dell'Angelo, J., D'Odorico, P., Fader, M., Gephart, J., Kummu, M.,
Magliocca, N., Porkka, M., Puma, M., Ratajczak, Z., Rulli, M.C., Suweis, S., Tavoni,
A., 2017. Resilience in the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/aa5730.
Shah, T., Giordano, M., Mukherji, A., 2012. Political economy of the energy-groundwater
nexus in India: exploring issues and assessing policy options. Hydrogeol. J. 20,
995–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0816-0.
Shalizi, C.R., 2006. Methods and techniques of complex systems science: An overview. In:
Deisboeck, T.S., Kresh, J.Y. (Eds.), Complex Systems Science in Biomedicine. Springer
US, Boston, MA, pp. 33–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-33532-2_2.
Simpson, T.W., Sharpley, A.N., Howarth, R.W., Paerl, H.W., Mankin, K.R., 2008. The new
gold rush: fueling ethanol production while protecting water quality. J. Environ.
Qual. 37, 318. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0599.
Sivapalan, M., 2003. Process complexity at hillslope scale, process simplicity at the wa-
tershed scale: is there a connection? Hydrol. Process 17, 1037–1041. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.5109.
Sivapalan, M., Savenije, H.H.G., Blöschl, G., 2012. Socio-hydrology: A new science of
people and water. Hydrol. Process. 26, 1270–1276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.
8426.
Smajgl, A., Ward, J., Pluschke, L., 2016. The water–food–energy Nexus – Realising a new
paradigm. J. Hydrol. 533, 533–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.
033.
Smith, C.M., David, M.B., Mitchell, C.a, Masters, M.D., Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.,
Bernacchi, C.J., DeLucia, E.H., 2013. Reduced Nitrogen losses after conversion of row
crop agriculture to perennial biofuel crops. J. Environ. Qual. 42, 219–228. http://dx.
doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0210.
Song, Y., Cervarich, M., Jain, A.K., Kheshgi, H.S., Landuyt, W., Cai, X., 2016. The inter-
play between bioenergy grass production and water resources in the United States of
America. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 3010–3019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.
5b05239.
Soulsby, C., Tetzlaff, D., Dunn, S.M., Waldron, S., 2006. Scaling up and out in runoff
process understanding: insights from nested experimental catchment studies. Hydrol.
Process. 20, 2461–2465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6338.
Stevens, L., Gallagher, M., 2015. The Energy–Water–Food Nexus At Decentralized Scales.
Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/
9781780448954.
Suen, J.-P., Eheart, J.W., Herricks, E.E., Chang, F.-J., 2009. Evaluating the potential
impact of reservoir operation on fish communities. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.
135, 475–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2009)135:6(475).
Suweis, S., Carr, J.A., Maritan, A., Rinaldo, A., D'Odorico, P., 2015. Resilience and re-
activity of global food security. PNAS 112, 6902–6907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1507366112.
Tester, M., Langridge, P., 2010. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a
changing world. Science 327, 818–822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183700.
Thomas, B.F., Vogel, R.M., Kroll, C.N., Famiglietti, J.S., 2013. Estimation of the base flow
recession constant under human interference. Water Resour. Res. 49, 7366–7379.
X. Cai et al.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20532.
UNESCAP, 2013. The Status of the Water-Food-Energy Security Nexus in Asia and the
Pacific region, United Nations Economic and Social Comission for Asia and the
Pacific.
United Nations, 2012. Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,
United Nations. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Van Der Zaag, P., Gupta, J., 2008. Scale issues in the governance of water storage pro-
jects. Water Resour. Res. 44, W10417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006364.
Vengosh, A., Jackson, R.B., Warner, N., Darrah, T.H., Kondash, A., 2014. A critical review
of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hy-
draulic fracturing in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 8334–8348. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es405118y.
Villarroel Walker, R., Beck, M.B., Hall, J.W., Dawson, R.J., Heidrich, O., 2014. The en-
ergy-water-food nexus: Strategic analysis of technologies for transforming the urban
metabolism. J. Environ. Manage. 141, 104–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2014.01.054.
Vogel, R.M., Lall, U., Cai, X., Rajagopalan, B., Weiskel, P.K., Hooper, R.P., Matalas, N.C.,
2015. Hydrology: The interdisciplinary science of water. Water Resour. Res. 51,
4409–4430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017049.
Vora, N., Shah, A., Bilec, M.M., Khanna, V., 2017. Food–energy–water nexus: quantifying
embodied energy and ghg emissions from irrigation through virtual water transfers in
food trade. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5, 2119–2128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.6b02122.
Wang, D., Cai, X., 2010. Recession slope curve analysis under human interferences. Adv.
Water Resour. 33, 1053–1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.06.010.
Ward, F.a., 2014. Economic impacts on irrigated agriculture of water conservation pro-
grams in drought. J. Hydrol. 508, 114–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2013.10.024.
Ward, F.a, Pulido-Velazquez, M., 2008. Water conservation in irrigation can increase
water use. PNAS 105, 18215–18220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805554105.
Watkins, D.W., Agusdinata, D.B., Bahel, E., Becker, J., Bruce, A., Burnham, M., Cai, X.,
Childers, D., Davis, K., del Buono, L., D'Odorico, P., Dunn, J., Endres, J., Firestone, J.,
Floress, K., Fuentes, J., Green, S., Halvorsen, K., Handler, R., Heidari, A., Howe, K.,
Hughes, S., Kasper, D., Knowlton, J., Lagalo, L., Liao, Q., Lenczewski, M., Ma, Z.,
Martinez, C., McCarty, J., Minakata, D., Mirchi, A., 2015a. Coupled production-
consumption systems for climate change mitigation: designing equitable food, en-
ergy, and water conservation strategies. A report on the NSF workshop, Houghton,
Michigan.
Watkins, D.W., de Moraes, M.M.G.A., Asbjornsen, H., Mayer, A.S., Licata, J., Lopez, J.G.,
Pypker, T.G., Molina, V.G., Marques, G.F., Carneiro, A.C.G., Nuñez, H.M., Önal, H.,
da Nobrega Germano, B., 2015b. Bioenergy Development policy and practice must
recognize potential hydrologic impacts: lessons from the americas. Environ. Manage.
56, 1295–1314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0460-x.
WCD, 2000. Dams and Development: A new Framework For Decision-Making. Earthscan
Publications Ltd. Landon and Sterling, VA.
273
Advances in Water Resources 111 (2018) 259–273
Webber, M.E., 2015. A puzzle for the planet. Sci. Am. 312, 62–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/scientificamerican0215-62.
Weitz, N., Nilsson, M., Davis, M., 2014. A nexus approach to the post-2015 agenda:
formulating integrated water, energy, and food SDGs. SAIS Rev. Int. Aff. 34, 37–50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sais.2014.0022.
Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E., Nilsson, M., 2017. Closing the governance gaps
in the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from integrative governance. Glob. Environ.
Chang. 45, 165–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.006.
Wild, T.B., Loucks, D.P., 2014. Managing flow, sediment, and hydropower regimes in the
Sre Pok, Se San, and Se Kong Rivers of the Mekong basin. Water Resour. Res. 50,
5141–5157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015457.
Wilhite, D.A., Hayes, M.J., Knutson, C., Smith, K.H., 2000. Planning for drought: moving
from crisis to risk management. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36, 697–710. http://dx.
doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04299.x.
Woo, D.K., Kumar, P., 2016. Mean age distribution of inorganic soil-nitrogen. Water
Resour. Res. 52, 5516–5536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017799.
Wuebbles, D.J., Hayhoe, K., 2004. Climate change projections for the United States
Midwest. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 9, 335–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1023/B:MITI.0000038843.73424.de.
Xu, Z., Yin, X., Sun, T., Cai, Y., Ding, Y., Yang, W., Yang, Z., 2017. Labyrinths in large
reservoirs: An invisible barrier to fish migration and the solution through reservoir
operation. Water Resour. Res. 53, 817–831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
2016WR019485.
Yang, Y.C.E., Cai, X., Herricks, E.E., 2008. Identification of hydrologic indicators related
to fish diversity and abundance: A data mining approach for fish community analysis.
Water Resour. Res. 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005764.
Yang, Y.C.E., Ringler, C., Brown, C., Mondal, M.A.H., 2016a. Modeling the Agricultural
Water–Energy–Food Nexus in the Indus River Basin. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.
142, 4016062. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000710.
Yang, Y.C.E., Wi, S., Ray, P.A., Brown, C.M., Khalil, A.F., 2016b. The future nexus of the
Brahmaputra River Basin: Climate, water, energy and food trajectories. Glob.
Environ. Chang. 37, 16–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.002.
Yang, Y.C.E., Cai, X., 2011. Reservoir Reoperation for fish ecosystem restoration using
daily inflows — case study of Lake Shelbyville. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 137,
470–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000139.
Yeh, W.W., 1985. Reservoir Management and operations Models: A state-of-the-Art
Review. Water Resour. Res. 21, 1797–1818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
WR021i012p01797.
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A.E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., Tockner, K., 2015. A global boom in
hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00027-014-0377-0.
Zeng, R., Cai, X., Ringler, C., Zhu, T., 2017. Hydropower versus irrigation—an analysis of
global patterns. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 34006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/aa5f3f.