Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Applying the food–energy–water nexus concept at the local scale

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 options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Study location.
Fig. 2: The FEW nexus.
Fig. 3: Pathways to FEW outcomes in rural Alaska.
Fig. 4: FEW nexus thinking at the local scale.

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

  1. 1.

    Sustainable Development Goals Report (United Nations Publications, 2019).

  2. 2.

    Hoff, H. Understanding the Nexus (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2011).

  3. 3.

    Global Risks 2011 6th edn (World Economic Forum, 2011).

  4. 4.

    Bazilian, M. et al. Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39, 7896–7906 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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).

  6. 6.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Keairns, D. L., Darton, R. C. & Irabien, A. The energy–water–food nexus. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 7, 239–262 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Smajgl, A., Ward, J. & Pluschke, L. Water–food–energy nexus—realising a new paradigm. J. Hydrol. 533, 533–540 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Houston we have a Solution: Scaling Moonshot Solutions to the Planet’s Biggest Problems (Launch Alaska, 2020); https://www.launchalaska.com/

  14. 14.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Grumbine, R. E. Assessing environmental security in China. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 403–411 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Contribution of Himalayan Ecosystems to Water, Energy, and Food Security in South Asia: a Nexus Approach (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, 2012).

  18. 18.

    The Water–Energy–Food Nexus: a New Approach in Support of Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FAO, 2014).

  19. 19.

    Liu, J. et al. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1, 466–476 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. & Kinzig, A. P. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9, 5 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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).

  22. 22.

    Goldsmith, S. G. Understanding Alaska’s Remote Rural Economy (Institute of Social and Economic Research, 2008).

  23. 23.

    Berman, M. & Schmidt, J. I. Economic effects of climate change in Alaska. Weather Clim. Soc. 11, 245–258 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Fall, J. A. & Kostick, M. L. Food Security and Wild Resource Harvest in Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2018).

  25. 25.

    Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to Assess the Arctic From an Inuit Perspective (Inuit Circumpolar Council, 2015).

  26. 26.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fall, J. A. Regional patterns of fish and wildlife harvests in contemporary Alaska. Arctic 69, 47–74 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Eichelberger, L. P. Living in utility scarcity: energy and water insecurity in northwest Alaska. Am. J. Public Health 100, 1010–1018 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cañizares, C., Nathwani, J. & Kammen, D. Electricity for all: issues, challenges, and solutions for energy-disadvantaged communities. Proc. IEEE 107, 1775–1779 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Loring, P. A. Threshold concepts for sustainability: features of a contested paradigm. FACETS 5, 182–199 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    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/

  37. 37.

    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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Power Cost Equalization (PCE) (Alaska Energy Authority, 2019); http://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Power-Cost-Equalization

  39. 39.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Chan, H. M. et al. Food security in Nunavut, Canada: barriers and recommendations. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 65, 416–431 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Biggs, E. M. et al. Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389–397 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Huntington, H. P. et al. How small communities respond to environmental change: patterns from tropical to polar ecosystems. Ecol. Soc. 22, 9 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report 2019 (IEA, IRENA, UNSD, WB, WHO, 2019).

  45. 45.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Meter, K. & Phillips, M. Building Food Security in Alaska (Food Policy Council, 2014).

  48. 48.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods 4th edn (SAGE, 2009).

  52. 52.

    Sandelowski, M. One is the liveliest number: the case orientation of qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 19, 525–529 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods 3rd edn (SAGE, 2002).

  54. 54.

    Weiss, R. S. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies (The Free Press, 1994).

  55. 55.

    Thomson, L. The guided tour: a research technique for the study of situated, embodied information. Libr. Trends 66, 511–534 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Wolcott, H. F. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation (SAGE, 1994).

  58. 58.

    Luborsky, M. R. & Rubinstein, R. L. Sampling in qualitative research: rationale, issues, and methods. Res. Aging 17, 89–113 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Huntington, H. P. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic 51, 237–242 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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 24 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

Affiliations

Authors

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

Correspondence to Henry P. Huntington.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing