Abstract
The food–energy–water (FEW) nexus describes interactions among domains that yield gains or trade-offs when analysed together rather than independently. In a project about renewable energy in rural Alaska communities, we applied this concept to examine the implications for sustainability and resilience. The FEW nexus provided a useful framework for identifying the cross-domain benefits of renewable energy, including gains in FEW security. However, other factors such as transportation and governance also play a major role in determining FEW security outcomes in rural Alaska. Here, we show the implications of our findings for theory and practice. The precise configurations of and relationships among FEW nexus components vary by place and time, and the range of factors involved further complicates the ability to develop a functional, systematic FEW model. Instead, we suggest how the FEW nexus may be applied conceptually to identify and understand cross-domain interactions that contribute to long-term sustainability and resilience.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
This paper is based on data available in the form of reports, videos and blogs at the project website, http://ine.uaf.edu/microfews. Upon completion of the project, the data will be transferred to a permanent archive.
References
Sustainable Development Goals Report (United Nations Publications, 2019).
Hoff, H. Understanding the Nexus (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2011).
Global Risks 2011 6th edn (World Economic Forum, 2011).
Bazilian, M. et al. Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39, 7896–7906 (2011).
Bizikova, L., Roy, D., Swanson, D., Venema, H. D. & McCandless, M. 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, 2013).
Allan, T., Keulertz, M. & Woertz, E. The water–food–energy nexus: an introduction to nexus concepts and some conceptual and operational problems. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 31, 301–311 (2015).
Leck, H., Conway, D., Bradshaw, M. & Rees, J. Tracing the water–energy–food nexus: description, theory and practice. Geogr. Compass 9/8, 445–460 (2015).
Keairns, D. L., Darton, R. C. & Irabien, A. The energy–water–food nexus. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 7, 239–262 (2016).
Smajgl, A., Ward, J. & Pluschke, L. Water–food–energy nexus—realising a new paradigm. J. Hydrol. 533, 533–540 (2016).
Al-Saidi, M. & Elagib, N. A. Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food nexus. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 1131–1139 (2017).
Albrecht, T. R., Crootof, A. & Scott, C. A. The water–energy–food nexus: a systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 043002 (2018).
Kurian, M. et al. One swallow does not make a summer: siloes, trade-offs and synergies in the water–energy–food nexus. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 32 (2019).
Houston we have a Solution: Scaling Moonshot Solutions to the Planet’s Biggest Problems (Launch Alaska, 2020); https://www.launchalaska.com/
Loring, P. A., Gerlach, S. C. & Huntington, H. P. The new environmental security: linking food, water, and energy for integrative and diagnostic social-ecological research. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev. 3, 55–61 (2013).
Grumbine, R. E. Assessing environmental security in China. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 403–411 (2014).
Shannak, S., Mabrey, D. & Vittorio, M. Moving from theory to practice in the water–energy–food nexus: an evaluation of existing models and frameworks. Water Energy Nexus 1, 17–25 (2018).
Contribution of Himalayan Ecosystems to Water, Energy, and Food Security in South Asia: a Nexus Approach (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, 2012).
The Water–Energy–Food Nexus: a New Approach in Support of Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FAO, 2014).
Liu, J. et al. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1, 466–476 (2018).
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. & Kinzig, A. P. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9, 5 (2004).
Allouche, J., Middleton, C. & Gyawal, D. Nexus Nirvana or Nexus Nullity? A Dynamic Approach to Security and Sustainability in the Water–Energy–Food Nexus Working Paper 63 (STEPS Centre, 2014).
Goldsmith, S. G. Understanding Alaska’s Remote Rural Economy (Institute of Social and Economic Research, 2008).
Berman, M. & Schmidt, J. I. Economic effects of climate change in Alaska. Weather Clim. Soc. 11, 245–258 (2019).
Fall, J. A. & Kostick, M. L. Food Security and Wild Resource Harvest in Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2018).
Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to Assess the Arctic From an Inuit Perspective (Inuit Circumpolar Council, 2015).
Loring, P. A. & Gerlach, S. C. Searching for progress on food security in the North American North: a research synthesis and meta-analysis of the peer-review literature. Arctic 68, 380–392 (2015).
Fall, J. A. Regional patterns of fish and wildlife harvests in contemporary Alaska. Arctic 69, 47–74 (2016).
Eichelberger, L. P. Living in utility scarcity: energy and water insecurity in northwest Alaska. Am. J. Public Health 100, 1010–1018 (2010).
Hossain, Y., Loring, P. A. & Marsik, T. Defining energy security in the rural North—historical and contemporary perspectives from Alaska. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 16, 89–97 (2016).
Penn, H. J. F., Loring, P. A. & Schnabel, W. E. Diagnosing water security in the rural North with an environmental security framework. J. Environ. Manag. 199, 91–98 (2017).
Cañizares, C., Nathwani, J. & Kammen, D. Electricity for all: issues, challenges, and solutions for energy-disadvantaged communities. Proc. IEEE 107, 1775–1779 (2019).
Cairns, R. & Krzywozynska, A. Anatomy of a buzzword: the emergence of ‘the water–energy–food nexus’ in UK natural resource debates. Environ. Sci. Policy 64, 164–170 (2016).
Martinez-Hernandez, E., Leach, M. & Yang, A. Understanding water–energy–food and ecosystem interactions using the nexus simulation tool NexSym. Appl. Energy 206, 1009–1021 (2017).
Loring, P. A. Threshold concepts for sustainability: features of a contested paradigm. FACETS 5, 182–199 (2020).
Howarth, C. & Monasterolo, I. Opportunities for knowledge co-production across the energy–food–water nexus: making interdisciplinary approaches work for better climate decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy 75, 103–110 (2017).
Alaska Population Estimates by Borough, Census Area, City, and Census Designated Place (CDP), 2010 to 2019 (Alaska Department of Labor, 2020); https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/
Whitney, E. et al. MicroFEWs: a food–energy–water systems approach to renewable energy decisions in islanded microgrid communities in rural Alaska. Environ. Eng. Sci. 36, 843–849 (2019).
Power Cost Equalization (PCE) (Alaska Energy Authority, 2019); http://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Power-Cost-Equalization
Artioli, F., Acuto, M. & McArthur, J. The water–energy–food nexus: an integration agenda and implications for urban governance. Polit. Geogr. 61, 215–223 (2017).
Chan, H. M. et al. Food security in Nunavut, Canada: barriers and recommendations. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 65, 416–431 (2006).
Biggs, E. M. et al. Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389–397 (2015).
Machell, J., Prior, K., Allan, R. & Andresen, J. M. The water energy food nexus—challenges and emerging solutions. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 1, 15–16 (2015).
Huntington, H. P. et al. How small communities respond to environmental change: patterns from tropical to polar ecosystems. Ecol. Soc. 22, 9 (2017).
Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report 2019 (IEA, IRENA, UNSD, WB, WHO, 2019).
Vinca, A. et al. The NExus Solutions Tool (NEST) v1.0: an open platform for optimizing multi-scale energy–water–land system transformations. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 1095–1121 (2020).
Hellegers, P., Zilberman, D., Steduto, P. & McCornick, P. Interactions between water, energy, food and environment: evolving perspectives and policy issues. Water Policy 10, 1–10 (2008).
Meter, K. & Phillips, M. Building Food Security in Alaska (Food Policy Council, 2014).
Gragg, R. S., Anandhi, A., Jiru, M. & Usher, K. M. A conceptualization of the urban food–energy–water nexus sustainability paradigm: modeling from theory to practice. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 14 (2018).
Hamilton, L. C., Saito, K., Loring, P. A., Lammers, R. B. & Huntington, H. P. Climigration? population and climate change in Arctic Alaska. Popul. Environ. 38, 115–133 (2016).
Huntington, H. P. et al. Staying in place during times of change in Arctic Alaska: the implications of attachment, alternatives, and buffering. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 489–499 (2018).
Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods 4th edn (SAGE, 2009).
Sandelowski, M. One is the liveliest number: the case orientation of qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 19, 525–529 (1996).
Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods 3rd edn (SAGE, 2002).
Weiss, R. S. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies (The Free Press, 1994).
Thomson, L. The guided tour: a research technique for the study of situated, embodied information. Libr. Trends 66, 511–534 (2018).
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C. & Walter, F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual. Health Res. 26, 1802–1811 (2016).
Wolcott, H. F. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation (SAGE, 1994).
Luborsky, M. R. & Rubinstein, R. L. Sampling in qualitative research: rationale, issues, and methods. Res. Aging 17, 89–113 (1995).
Huntington, H. P. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic 51, 237–242 (1998).
Huntington, H. P., Gearheard, S., Mahoney, A. & Salomon, A. K. Integrating traditional and scientific knowledge through collaborative natural science field research: identifying elements for success. Arctic 64, 437–445 (2011).
Penn, H. J. F., Gerlach, S. C. & Loring, P. A. Seasons of stress: understanding the dynamic nature of people’s ability to respond to change and surprise. Weather Clim. Soc. 8, 435–446 (2016).
Loring, P. A., Gerlach, S. C. & Harrison, H. L. Seafood as local food: food security and locally caught seafood on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev. 3, 13–30 (2013).
Goldhar, C., Bell, T. & Wolf, J. Rethinking existing approaches to water security in remote communities: an analysis of two drinking water systems in Nunatsiavut, Labrador, Canada. Water Altern. 6, 462–486 (2013).
Walch, A., Bersamin, A., Loring, P., Johnson, R. & Tholl, M. A scoping review of traditional food security in Alaska. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 77, 1419678 (2018).
Acknowledgements
Funding for this work was provided by the US National Science Foundation, award no. 1740075, INFEWS/T3: Coupling infrastructure improvements to food–energy–water system dynamics in small cold region communities. The funding supported all authors except A.S., who contributed without outside support. No other funding was used to support this work. Figures 2–4 were prepared by M. Rohr, for which we are grateful. J. Selmont reviewed the paper before submission, for which we are also grateful.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
H.P.H., J.I.S., P.A.L., E.W. and W.E.S. developed the idea and contributed to writing and editing the paper. S.A., A.G.B., S.D., A.D.D., D.H., B.J., J.K., H.J.F.P., A.S., D.J.S., R.W.W. and M.W. wrote sections of the paper and contributed to editing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the final manuscript and approved it for submission and publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Chrysi Laspidou, James Magdanz and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huntington, H.P., Schmidt, J.I., Loring, P.A. et al. Applying the food–energy–water nexus concept at the local scale. Nat Sustain 4, 672–679 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00719-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00719-1
This article is cited by
-
Multi-disciplinary strategy to optimize irrigation efficiency in irrigated agriculture
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
The food-water-energy nexus and green roofs in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil, and Johannesburg, South Africa
npj Urban Sustainability (2023)
-
Crop switching for water sustainability in India’s food bowl yields co-benefits for food security and farmers’ profits
Nature Water (2023)
-
An integrated system with functions of solar desalination, power generation and crop irrigation
Nature Water (2023)
-
A watershed moment for healthy watersheds
Nature Sustainability (2023)