Accepted Manuscript

Understanding and Managing the Food-Energy-Water Nexus –

Opportunities for Water Resources Research

Ximing Cai , Kevin Wallington , Majid Shafiee-Jood ,

Landon Marston

PII: S0309-1708(17)30447-5
DOI:10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.11.014
Reference: ADWR 3019

To appear in: Advances in Water Resources

Received date: 30 April 2017

Revised date: 6 November 2017
Accepted date: 12 November 2017

Please cite this article as: Ximing Cai , Kevin Wallington , Majid Shafiee-Jood , Landon Marston ,
Understanding and Managing the Food-Energy-Water Nexus – Opportunities for Water Resources
Research, Advances in Water Resources (2017), doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.11.014

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 FEW shares IWRM spirit, yet offers a clearer path to research and implementation
 Knowledge gaps exist in process, system, technology, and policy linking Water with
Food and Energy
 FEW provides a context for water researchers to utilize and extend disciplinary strengths

MANUSCR
IPT

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Understanding and Managing the Food-Energy-Water Nexus – Opportunities

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, Illinois 61801, United States,

xmcai@illinois.edu, kwallin2@illinois.edu, shafiee2@illinois.edu, ltmarston@ksu.edu

*
Corresponding Author

MANUSCR
IPT

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

Studies on the food, energy, and water (FEW) nexus lay a shared foundation for

researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and stakeholders to understand and manage linked

production, utilization, and security of FEW systems. The FEW nexus paradigm provides water

communities specific channels to move forward in interdisciplinary research where integrated

water resources management (IWRM) has fallen short. Here, we help water researchers identify,

articulate, utilize, and extend our disciplinary strengths within the broader FEW communities,

MANUSCR
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

IPT
as current research needs, for understanding FEW processes and systems and implementing

FEW solutions through innovations 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 common

sustainability development goals.

Keywords: FEW nexus, Process, System, Technology, Policy, Water Resources

3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MANUSCR
IPT

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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) (Bhaduri et al., 2015; Leck et al.,

2015; Ringler et al., 2013), given that 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 issues linking the three sectors (Bizikova et al., 2013; Hoff,

2011). These issues include resources allocation, infrastructure investment, socioeconomic

development, and environmental conservation. As water researchers come together with food

MANUSCR
and energy research communities, we share a working context that is broader than ever before,

and our community faces many research questions: How can water researchers contribute to

IPT
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 researchers 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, infrastructure, 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 contribute to emerging,

transdisciplinary FEW nexus literature.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

However, 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 connections with human society and the environment. Since then, advocacy for

interdisciplinary water research has been pervasive. Actually, 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 welfare in an equitable manner

without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems‖ (Global Water Partnership, 2000).

IWRM has been recognized as a key tenant of sustainable development by the United Nations

MANUSCR
(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

IPT
been criticized as a ―recipe for paralysis‖ (Merrey, 2008) and having ―the desire 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,

nonetheless, be required if the identified deficits are derived from activities based outside the

water sector.‖ In fact, IWRM has highlighted the linkage between water, food, and energy security

(Hoff, 2011).

In contrast to IWRM, we argue that the FEW nexus approach has a clearer scope of

integration since it explicitly sets the sectoral bounds (i.e., food, energy, and water resources) of

integration, whereas IWRM attempts to integrate seemingly all resources and objectives related

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to water, which is often subject to institutional barriers (Grigg, 2008; Mohtar and Lawford,

2016). Moreover, the three-pronged emphasis of FEW may engage government agencies and

other important stakeholders that have been reluctant to fully adopt IWRM since water related

issues are not their chief concern or mandate, and thus present a broader solution space (not

necessary centered around water) which allows the cross-pollination of ideas and integration of

solutions across disciplines. The nexus approach can also make the objectives of IWRM more

palatable to stakeholders across political boundaries, as is often the case in transboundary river

basins, since FEW does not require all solutions align with water management (Grigg, 2008).

Thus, under the scope of FEW, IWRM‘s broader goals of efficient resource management,

synergistic thinking, and equitable tradeoffs may seem more tenable to a wider set of

stakeholders, particularly those whose primary interest lie in the agriculture and energy sectors.

In addition, IWRM achievements in solving a country‘s key water-related development

MANUSCR
problems are limited due to the lack of innovative approaches (Biswas, 2008). On the other hand,

FEW has inspired numerous research interests and efforts from both academic and practical

IPT
communities in developing novel approaches and methods including models, decision making

theories and methods, and technologies, e.g., via the Innovation in Food, Energy and Water

Systems (INFEWS) program, a research program initialized at the U.S National Science

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 energy 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, Energy,

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and Food Security Nexus, which is the first comprehensive review on the FEW nexus, including

the discussion on the necessity and opportunities in FEW nexus studies and knowledge gaps in

relevant science, technology, and policy areas. The paper extends traditional food security

perspectives to the nexus of security of food, energy, and water sectors to improve resource use

efficiency, mitigate tradeoffs, building synergies, and improve governance across sectors.

Webber (2015) contends 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 sectors. Webber also illustrates the connectedness of FEW systems through key examples

of cascading failures in FEW systems, highlights synergistic technical solutions, and

acknowledges the lack of integrated policy implementation. More recently, Scanlon et al. (2017)

called for extending the ―power of the scientific community‖ to develop innovative, prescriptive

recommendations and adaptation pathways to deal with resources scarcity. The authors highlight

MANUSCR
the need for local and global nexus measurement and monitoring, resource conservation

technology to enhance supplies, decision making techniques to deal with tradeoffs, and more

IPT
efficient storage, transport, and trade of FEW resources to satisfy the demands at the global

scale.

The purpose of this perspective paper is to help water communities identify, articulate,

utilize, and extend our disciplinary strengths within the broader FEW communities, while also

informing scientists in the food and energy domains about the unique skill set we bring to

address the FEW nexus. We identify FEW-relevant issues that water scientists face and discuss

the existing and new methods to address those issues, organizing our insights as pertaining

processes, systems, technologies, or policies, as displayed in Figure 1. We illustrate that

research on the FEW nexus must progress our understanding of the interactions of connected

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

water-and-food and water-and-energy processes and systems and promote innovative water-

centric technologies, infrastructures, and policies toward the co-benefits of FEW systems. . First,

however, we present our vision of the FEW nexus in the following.

MANUSCR
Figure 1: The contents and structure of this perspective paper

2. Vision of FEW Nexus

IPT
Many review and perspective papers (e.g., Biggs et al., 2015; Keairns et al., 2016;

Perrone and Hornberger, 2014) have provided varying definitions of the FEW nexus. Since a

consensus has yet to be established, we share our perspective of the form and scope of

interconnected FEW systems, illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. The FEW nexus can be

characterized by the following three forms of interactions: i) physical, biophysical, and chemical,

ii) resource input-output, and iii) via institutions, markets, and infrastructure. First, food, energy,

and water are governed by separate but interconnected physical, biophysical, and chemical

processes, as displayed in the outermost linkages of Figure 2. The processes that connect food,

energy, and water drive the dynamics and performance of not only the individual systems but

also the integrated system, via mass and energy (heat) exchanges between the boundaries of each

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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).

MANUSCR
IPT
Figure 2: Interconnected processes, input-output relationships, and overlapped markets,
institutions, and infrastructure of a typical FEW system in U.S. Midwest

Second, food, energy, and water are critical inputs of production to the other resources, as

illustrated by the input-output relations in Figure 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

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

use; water treatment and food production, storage, and shipment compete for energy use). 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 administrations, 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

infrastructure - can be influenced by technological innovations, environmental changes, and

socioeconomic conditions.
MANUSCR
System analysis starts with defining the system and specifying the spatial and temporal

IPT
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 Figure 3). Likewise, temporal scales can vary from

seconds (for flow rate) to daily (for systems operations) to mid- and long-term horizons (resource

and infrastructure planning and development, policy development, and socio-economic and

environmental ramifications). Following IWRM, we argue that the river basin (or watershed) can

still be used as a fundamental 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 supplies and water demand cannot be as easily

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

resolved (Davis et al., 2016). In fact, water is largely restricted within its natural boundaries (i.e.,

the watershed or aquifer, and inter-basin transfers are often limited due to low value of water as a

commodity and high cost of energy to transfer water, in addition to the environmental impacts of

water transfers; while the bounds of food and energy systems are chiefly delineated by humans

and are thus more suitable for change. However, as commented by Grigg (2008), basin approaches

are ―essentially non-economic-or-social units‖ in many countries or regions, especially

where there is no river basin management authority, and thus the actions suggested might be

irrelevant to society‘s needs. 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.

Thus, 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.

MANUSCR
IPT

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MANUSCR
Figure 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,

IPT
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.

Moreover, cross-scale issues are a challenge for FEW system analysis because FEW

processes, system design, and assessment prevail at different spatial and temporal scales. It is

particularly difficult for researchers to integrate information across the FEW nexus (Watkins et.

al., 2015), 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

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 our collaboration opportunities

with food and energy 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 irrigation, water and wastewater

treatment, water supply, hydropower, or thermoelectric cooling, have been largely based on

MANUSCR
hydrologic science 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

IPT
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 requirement for biomass production (Christian-

Smith and Merenlender, 2010; Palmer, 2009; Richardson et al., 2011). In order to make the

hydrologic cycle and its processes integral to the FEW system, 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 between 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 challenges in

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

understanding the one-to-one process interactions and gaps, which prevent the characterization

and quantification of the nexus relationships.

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 particular, despite extensive study by ecologists and

hydrologists, understanding 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, irrigation and drainage

engineering measures are widely applied for manipulating soil moisture, yet these practices are

now challenged by more frequent and intense extreme weather events (droughts, heat waves, and

MANUSCR
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

IPT
rainfall (Pal et al., 2013; Wuebbles and Hayhoe, 2004), a tendency for a greater percentage of

rainfall to occur at extreme rates (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

requires 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.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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., In Press). Though numerous

studies have contributed to relating streamflow regime 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 impacts of land and water use activities (e.g., deforestation, damming for

hydropower, etc.), studies are needed to develop guidelines for watershed management and water

storage system operations which consider the interactions between hydrology and aquatic

habitats (Schnier et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2008).

3.1.2 Food to Water

MANUSCR
Agriculture production often uses large amounts of land, water, fertilizer, and pesticide

IPT
inputs, causing major environmental changes in many regions around the world. In particular, non-

point source pollution due to extraordinary fertilizer and pesticide use in agricultural production

has been a long-standing yet unresolved problem for environmental 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 effects 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

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

quality in the ecosystems, but recently 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 expenditures. However, there is no conclusive evidence

that problems of sedimentation, nutrient pollution, and biodiversity loss in agriculturally-

dominated basins have been ameliorated through governmental efforts (David et al., 2015, 2013).

Research is still needed for monitoring 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

MANUSCR
interferences (e.g., irrigation and land drainage). Research is also needed to develop technologies,

policies, and best management practices to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, retain nutrients in

IPT
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 mechanism 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

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 occurring 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 acceptable 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 unconventional and renewable energy

technologies, some of which have even larger water requirements compared to traditional thermal

MANUSCR
power (Mekonnen et al., 2015). Notably, concentrated solar power requires significant cooling,

with water use rates often exceeding that of similarly sized coal and nuclear power plants

IPT
(Bracken et al., 2015). Cultivation of biomass and processing to produce biofuels incurs

significant 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 severe water availability and

temperature limitations (Webber, 2015). This emphasizes the role of hydroclimatic forecasts,

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 example, energy use for

moving and treating water and wastewater represents 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. Recent 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 allocation (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,

MANUSCR
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

IPT
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 lingering 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 radium 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

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 proposed for energy provision purposes, hydropower

dams cause numerous 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)

MANUSCR
demonstrated to be the case for over half of globally installed hydropower. Moreover, the green

energy label attributed to hydropower may be misplaced according to emerging research

IPT
regarding the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from decomposition in reservoirs (Gunkel,

2009). In light of these findings, hydropower research should consider the full scope of FEW

system impacts within dam design and operation. In particular, balancing the often-conflicting

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 hydrologic 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).

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.3 Highlights of relevance to hydrologic research

The FEW nexus adds new dimensions to classic hydrologic problems, 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 propagates 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., 2015; 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

MANUSCR
and energy production and markets (Hamlet et al., 2002; Koch and Vögele, 2013).

Outstanding scale and scaling-up issues with FEW analysis and management, as

IPT
discussed earlier, can be based on and extend the knowledge of hydrologic communities

(Blöschl, 2001; Sivapalan, 2003; Soulsby et al., 2006). Advances in hydrologic modeling at large

scales such as national, continental, or global (Rajaram et al., 2015) provide scientific support for

FEW nexus understanding 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 interconnectedness at large

scales. These expanded nexus relationships at a regional or national scale can impact local water

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

resources development 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, regional 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., 2015). 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

MANUSCR
human dimension by involving stakeholders from multiple sectors and introduces more complex

tradeoffs and synergies (or co-benefits) among the stakeholders. This broader human dimension

IPT
interferes with the various physical processes and thematically complicates the interactions of

human and natural system dynamics. Recent studies on coupled nature-human systems (CNHS)

reemphasize the need to integrate work among researchers in social and physical communities

(Lund, 2015; Scanlon et al., 2017; Sivapalan 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

processes, which reemphasizes the role of hydrology  highlighting the interdisciplinary science

of water in the context of CNHS as proposed by Vogel

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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

understanding requires sound knowledge of the underlying processes and connections before the

system can be effectively managed through infrastructure 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 derived 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

MANUSCR
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 decades

IPT
(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

interdependencies within the FEW nexus. Following the discussion on interconnected 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

resources systems analysis can be extended to address the complexities with FEW systems.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.1 Interconnectedness, circular demands, and feedback loops

Complex FEW systems are diagnosed and described by their inherent, interdependent

linkages and feedbacks. These system properties may lead to emergent characteristics, which

arise from the web of interconnections 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 unexpected 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 electrical grid. Meanwhile, low streamflow reduced hydropower production.

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

MANUSCR
sectors and circulate back to the water system itself. . Identifying and understanding the

interconnections that initiate circular demands or feedback loops is foundational to designing and

managing overall FEW system behaviors.

IPT
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, 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

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

increases in irrigated area and hydropower capacity over multiple 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 essential to feed the growing global

population (Godfray et al., 2010). Yet, will agriculture and energy intensification insidiously lead

to similar 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

understand 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

MANUSCR
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

IPT
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 associated with extensive irrigation, which eventually

caused the environmental 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

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 ongoing work can inform FEW

nexus research, the FEW framework may offer a means for wider implementation of our work

through the inclusion and engagement of those that have previously evaded a water-centric

approach.

Within water systems, researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers have long

MANUSCR
considered tradeoffs of water quality versus water quantity, upstream beneficiaries versus

downstream beneficiaries, and environmental health versus economic production, among others.

IPT
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. (2015) 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 underlying

mechanisms that drive system outcomes. Food and energy markets, transportation infrastructure,

farm management, feedstock conversion rates, and emerging energy technologies are among the

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 leveraged 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 treatment 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 production and storage purposes

can generate synergies by 1) making more effective use of renewable energies given that wind mill

MANUSCR
and solar panel capacities are not fully used in many regions; 2) increasing food production or

reducing food waste; 3) making marginal water (saline water and wastewater) useful. The

IPT
potential synergies rising from FEW systems are informative to water, food and energy scientists

and engineers to design particular FEW systems that fit local resources and socioeconomic

conditions. Issues such as cost effectiveness, environmental 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

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

immediate needs of those reliant on the dam‘s water releases. However, years of continued

damming 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 impacting 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 happening 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 depleted aquifers that can be extracted later to irrigate food or

biofuel crops during drought (Scanlon et al., 2016). Further technological innovations, paired

MANUSCR
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).

IPT
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 efficient than open-loop cooling because it withdraws approximately

95% less water. However, closed-loop cooling can consume nearly 60% more water (DeNooyer

et al., 2016). Improving irrigation efficiencies may reduce water applied to crops but additional

energy inputs are needed to pressurize more water-efficient irrigation systems. Moreover,

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

measures of efficiency are highly dependent on the boundaries of analysis. Water efficiency

improvements at the site scale may have little effect on basin efficiency (defined as the ratio of

beneficial water consumption over total water consumption within a basin) since return flows

from ‗inefficient‘ water users can be utilized downstream for food production, hydro-energy

generation, and other purposes (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, system analysis techniques that have been developed in the

water sector can be extended 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 programming (Yang et al., 2016a), including multi-objective

optimization (Hurford and Harou, 2014), and water management simulation models (Perrone and

MANUSCR
Hornberger, 2016) have been employed to create tradeoff frontiers between water supply and

quality, food production, power generation, social outcomes, and environmental health. This

IPT
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). Embedded 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). Computable 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,

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2004; Yeh, 1985) can be extended to a larger system of multiple complementary energy sources

and water users under changing and uncertain 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

essential 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 applied system of systems models to

analyze the multi-dimensional tradeoffs and synergies among the water, food, and energy sub-

systems (Housh et al., 2015a). Agent-based modeling (ABM) is gaining traction within the water

MANUSCR
resources research community, as it can be particularly useful in representing diverse human

actors (Hu et al., 2017). Likewise, ABMs are promising for FEW systems analysis due to the

IPT
abilitys to represent heterogeneous behaviors among multiple stakeholders. Furthermore, ABMs

are often coupled with natural process models to address the interactions between human and

natural dynamics. 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 feedbacks

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

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

system (Kumar, 2015), which has been illustrated in water systems but have not yet been applied

specifically to FEW system analysis (to the authors‘ knowledge). For example, the work of

Ruddell and Kumar (2009a, 2009b) demonstrate the ability to produce process networks from

time-series data for 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.

MANUSCR
5. Technology Development in the Context of FEW Systems

FEW relevant water technologies and infrastructure design are rapidly advancing,

IPT
enabling new synergies and improved overall system efficiency. Water infrastructure

inherently relevant to the FEW nexus since it is often purposed to meet the water demands of the
is

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 3,700 large

dams planned or under construction globally (Zarfl et al., 2015), constituting a critical

opportunity to incorporate broader FEW system outcomes when planning, constructing 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

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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

complexity.

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 vulnerability 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 some cost-effective treatment (Becerra-Castro et al., 2015; Haruvy, 1997); use

MANUSCR
of food waste for bioenergy production using low environmental impact technologies (Lin et al.,

2013; Uçkun Kiran et al., 2014).

IPT
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 thermoelectric 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, organic 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

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

beware of the FEW example investigated 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 overlooked community, serving as a source of fuel and food for local

impoverished peoples (Rajagopal, 2008). As food, energy, and water 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 evaluation of water

technology and infrastructure to include the cascading effects throughout a FEW system. Walker

et al. (2014) evaluated 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

MANUSCR
various resource conservation priorities (Villarroel Walker et al., 2014). There is also evidence

that decentralized, small-scale water storage and hydropower schemes may sustainably balance

IPT
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 nutrient-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 account for interconnected FEW

processes and systems when evaluating technology and infrastructure.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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

analysis.. For example, data collected from aging water infrastructure retrofitted with smart

sensors can inform more flexible operating procedures 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 fundamental 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

stakeholder behaviors in different sectors be paired with physical and ecosystem 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

MANUSCR
harnessed, water and FEW system analysts will be empowered to more fully understand FEW

system complexity and thus guide future technological and infrastructural investments.

5.2 Systems design

IPT
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, traditional 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 efficiency 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

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

agricultural land can reduce sediment and nutrient runoff (Nelson et al., 2006), thereby

improving water quality and reducing the need for energy-intensive water treatment before

human consumption. Another case is to couple the production of multiple energy sources. Given

different weather conditions and the timing of energy demands, wind, solar, and hydropower can

be coupled to increase energy supply reliability. For example, General Electric recently began an

initiative to use massive wind turbines to pump water for storage at the top of a hill. 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 problems‘ (e.g., floods)

MANUSCR
through the lens of a FEW system will reframe how we manage, design, and set policies to

handle water issues. For instance, coastal flooding and erosion are typically mitigated by

IPT
structural (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 produces 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.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 responsibility to guide

technology development and infrastructure design with deepening understanding of FEW system

complexities.

Instances of misapplied technology leading to unintended consequences 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

MANUSCR
or reuse projects 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

IPT
on water quality throughout the country‘s irrigation network. The water became more saline and

polluted 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 solutions 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

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to change plans as new knowledge is gained (Pahl-Wostl, 2007). For example, when the

Northwest Power Act was passed in 1980, mandating the sustainable balancing of hydropower

development and fish conservation, 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 processes, may be misguided

regarding certain overall system characteristics (Kumar, 2015). As understanding of FEW

system complexity improves, unintended outcomes of technology and design can be avoided

more successfully.

MANUSCR
6. Governance and Institutions from Water to FEW system

IPT
Over the past several decades, different institutional frameworks and governance regimes

have been proposed to improve water management, particularly through integrated and multi-

sectoral coordination (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 inherent 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

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

are fragmented across food, energy, and water sectors (Hanlon et al., 2013) and a political

process requiring negotiations 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 progresses made in water institutions, governance, and science-policy interfaces –

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

MANUSCR
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

IPT
Over the years, water researchers have identified different policy issues and proposed

corresponding technical and institutional mechanisms 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

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 approach 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 projects in developing regions

could lead to out-migration of smallholder 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 descriptions of equitable water, energy,

MANUSCR
and food access and identify criteria for equitable management.

Another critical policy issue in water management which is likely to be magnified in the

IPT
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 management 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 imbalance 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 opportunities to

mitigate tradeoffs and conflicts, it may aggravate negative impacts on the environment and

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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. Because 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

MANUSCR
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

IPT
impacts within 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 technology development. Cross-sector organization and

comprehensive policy incentives, considering all major objectives relevant to food, energy and

water security, must be developed.

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 provide a clearer scope and path for policy integration than IWRM does. Here, we

highlight several essential elements of successful policy implementation. First, it is critical to

identify where food, energy, or water policies overlap with or contradict policies in the other

sectors, at different spatial and temporal scales (Bazilian et al., 2011; Leck et al., 2015). For

instance, Qin et al. (2015) found that the 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 constrain or accelerate

implementation of integrated FEW system management. Such efforts constitute a daunting task

MANUSCR
complicated by multi-tiered institutional arrangements and the involvement of stakeholders who

hold conflicting perspectives and objectives (Gerlak, 2005; Leck et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2011).

IPT
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 comprehensive science-policy interface and a lack of

understanding of the institutional structures (Hagemann and Kirschke, 2017). To improve effective

implementation of solutions, conditions, possibilities, and limitations of institutional change

should be identified (Hagemann and Kirschke, 2017; Kurian, 2004). A couple of examples are

provided below for illustration of the complexity in policy reforms. In the U.S.,

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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. To

implement the needed storage reallocation of large reservoirs would require the coordination of

federal and state institutions on water uses for food and energy production, 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 reallocating water from food production to these new energy sources should be explored to

avoid water use conflicts between food and energy sector, as occurred in Texas, where the water

need for hydraulic fracturing by natural gas producers competed with irrigation water use by

MANUSCR
farmers during drought (Cooley and Donnelly, 2012).

Third, dealing with weather and climate extremes (or climate shocks) has always been

IPT
one of the major challenges in water, food and energy supply and demand. The policy approaches

to climate shocks in most cases have focused on short-term solutions ignoring the factors that

significantly 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 risk management paradigm is required to

enhance the adaptive capacity of the system not only through economic development 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

characterize the resilience of a system to better inform policy makers. For example, Rushforth and

Ruddell (2016) adopted and extended a conceptual definition of ecological

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

resilience to address hydro-economic vulnerability and resilience of water resources in an urban

area. Some efforts were also 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 challenging 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 systems, 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

MANUSCR
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 to reach their large potential.

IPT
As mentioned before, while solar irrigation 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 southwestern

United States could raise the value of food production and reduce the amount of water applied to

crops. In general, economic instruments are needed to reconcile dissonance between natural

resource values and their prices, as commonly occurs with water (Bhaduri et al.,

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2015; OECD, 2014; Rosegrant et al., 2009; UNESCAP, 2013).

Next, it is important to target different entities and stakeholders from the various involved

communities. In the United States, for example, 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 tradeoffs, synergies, and uncertainties, and identify

optimal solutions (Bhaduri et al., 2015; Lele et al., 2013). Positive ―change can only happen if

MANUSCR
policy makers, business owners, and consumers alike better understand these interconnections‖

(Hanlon et al., 2013). Experiences in participatory water management during the past decades

IPT
will fit the campaign of policy innovations for FEW systems. For instance, integrating and

managing the FEW nexus in transboundary river basins is likely to be impeded by frictions and

conflicts-in-interest among riparian 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 entirely 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).

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7. Conclusions

In this perspective paper, we provide our vision of the FEW nexus, giving special

attention to how it pertains to water resources communities. Our vision is characterized by

interconnected FEW processes, input-output relationships, and overlapping institutions and

infrastructures. We discuss the relevance of existing and ongoing scholarship within the water

community and explore current research needs in FEW processes, systems, technologies and

infrastructures, and policies. We show water researchers paths for extending our disciplinary

strengths within the broader FEW communities, while informing 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

MANUSCR
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

IPT
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 be supported by fundamental research pertaining complexities in

processes 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 especially 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

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of systems or complex system theories and methods will be needed to test and develop

innovative FEW system models, decision making mechanisms, technologies, 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 coordinated management of food, energy and water

wherever needed. Early warning based on scientific prediction and monitoring should be

provided to possible externalities that are likely to result from FEW system implementations,

especially to the environment and underrepresented groups, as those occurring in water resources

development at many places around the world.

Following the historical efforts in IWRM, water communities are provided opportunities

for interdisciplinary studies amongst themselves and for collaborations with energy and food

MANUSCR
communities, united by a common path to achieve common sustainability development goals.

Considering the various efforts required to advance FEW nexus understanding and management,

IPT
every traditional water community, i.e., hydrologists, water resources engineers, economists, and

policy analysts, can have a role, but it is critical for all communities to integrate our work, both

within the water sector and across the food and energy sectors.

8. Acknowledgements

Senior authorship is shared for this paper. This research did not receive any specific grant

from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Edwin Cho conducted

the art design of Figures 2 and 3.

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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

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 practical considerations. Food Secur.
8, 123–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0526-x

MANUSCR
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

IPT
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, Henry David, McCandless, M., 2013. The Water-energy-
food Security Nexus: Towards a Practical Planning and Decision-support 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

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Solar Power and Water Issues in the U.S. Southwest, Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis.
Golden, CO (United 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

MANUSCR
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 agricultural

IPT
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

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 integrating the
concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management 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 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.

MANUSCR
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

IPT
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-hydrologic 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

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 efficiency 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 engineering: 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. The `seafood gap‘ in the food-water nexus literature—issues surrounding

MANUSCR
freshwater use in seafood production chains. Adv. Water Resour. In Press.
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.

IPT
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,
11155–62. doi: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

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 improving 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.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 towards 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.

MANUSCR
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–

IPT
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, stakeholders 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

51
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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. 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 intelligence 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

Development.
MANUSCR
IFAD, 2013. Smallholders, food security, and the environment, International Fund for Agricultural

Illinois EPA, 2015. Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

IPT
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 examination 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.

52
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 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 energy: 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 environmental 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 Precipitation 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). Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Labadie, J.W., 2004. Optimal Operation of Multireservoir Systems: State-of-the-Art Review. J. Water

MANUSCR
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, 15085–90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107177108

IPT
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 perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 426–464.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2EE23440H

53
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 implementation.
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, 8561–6. 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

MANUSCR
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.

IPT
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.

54
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

49, 30–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.49.9.30-43

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 decision-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, pp. 325–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1574-
0099(03)01013-1

Paris.
MANUSCR
OECD, 2014. New Perspectives on the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Forum Background Note, OECD.

Orlowsky, B., Seneviratne, S.I., 2012. Global changes in extreme events: regional and seasonal

IPT
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 governance 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 increasing 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.

55
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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‖ industrial 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

MANUSCR
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):

IPT
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.
doi: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/10.1111/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

56
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 characterization.
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 regions 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 Environmental Factors to
Fish Communities of the Fox River in Illinois. Environ. Manage. 57, 389–411.

MANUSCR
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-

IPT
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, in: 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

57
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 watershed 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 Interplay 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–

MANUSCR
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

IPT
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 reactivity 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.
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 projects. Water
Resour. Res. 44, W10417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006364

58
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 Hydraulic 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 energy-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 programs 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.,

MANUSCR
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, Energy, and Water Conservation Strategies, A report on the NSF workshop.
Houghton, Michigan.

IPT
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.

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

59
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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/doi: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, Pakistan. 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

MANUSCR
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.

IPT
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

60