Chapter 1

A Systems
Approach to
Modeling the
Water-Energy-
Land-Food Nexus
A Systems
Approach to
Modeling the
Water-Energy-
Land-Food Nexus
Defining and Analyzing
the Landscape
Volume I
Bernard Amadei
MOMENTUM PRESS, LLC, NEW YORK

A Systems Approach to Modeling the Water-Energy-Land-Food Nexus:
Defining and Analyzing the Landscape, Volume I
Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2019.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published by Momentum Press®, LLC

222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net
ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-352-3 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-353-0 (e-book)
Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection
Collection ISSN: 2376-5119 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2376-5127 (electronic)
Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America

Abstract
Water, energy, land, and food (WELF) resources are critical components
in the overall discourse on sustainable human development. Over the next
50 years, rapid population, urbanization, and economic growth worldwide
will create unprecedented demands for such resources, as well as for
health, transportation, waste disposal, communication, and other services.
The discussion on how to meet human needs for water, energy, land,
and food and how to guarantee their respective securities has changed
over time. The traditional way has been to look at all four sectors in
isolation, regardless of whether one is interested in supply and demand,
infrastructure planning and design, resource management and allocation,
and/or governance. Since 2011, however, there has been a new e mphasis
on understanding the interdependency of the four sectors through the
so-called WELF nexus.
The approach presented in this book responds to the overall agree-
ment in the WELF nexus literature that the management and allocation
of water, energy, land, and food resources at the community level need
to be examined in a more systemic, multidisciplinary, participatory, and
practical manner while seeking to increase synergies and reduce trade-offs.
Such an integrated approach is not yet mainstream among those involved
in the science and policy decision aspects of the nexus. This book was
written to explore the value proposition of that approach.
This two-volume book describes a flexible and adaptive system-based
methodology and associated guidelines for the management and a llocation
of community-based WELF resources. Volume 1 reviews the existing
literature about the nexus and focuses on defining the landscape in which
it operates. The proposed methodology is also outlined. Volume 2 explores
the quantitative and qualitative modeling of the nexus and landscape using
system modeling tools including system dynamics. It presents a road map
for the formulation, simulation, selection, and ranking of possible inter-
ventions, as well as the development of possible intervention plans.
vi • Abstract
The proposed methodology is designed to serve as a guide for

d ifferent groups of scientists, engineers, policy makers, and decision
makers when selecting intervention strategies for the management and
allocation of WELF resources within the broader context of community
development. The methodology focuses mostly on WELF-related issues
in small-scale and low-income communities where resources are limited
and securing resources is critical to their short- and long-term livelihood
and development.
KeyWords
adaptive; behavior; community; context; complexity; development

projects; patterns; participation; reflective practice; systems approach;
systems thinking; structure; satisficing; water-energy-land-food nexus;
system dynamics
Contents
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Preface xiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Representing and Analyzing the Nexus 12
1.3 Book Content 22
1.4 References 25
2 Proposed Methodology 33
2.1 Characteristics and Stages 33
2.2 Modeling the Development Story 42
2.3 From Modeling to Decision Making 43
2.4 Additional Remarks 44
2.5 References 47
3 The Welf Nexus and Its Components 49
3.1 Landscape Analysis 49
3.2 Water Security in the Nexus 61
3.3 Energy Security in the Nexus 84
3.4 Land and Soil Security in the Nexus 92
3.5 Food Security in the Nexus 96
3.6 Security Across the Nexus 102
3.7 Indicators and Performance Metrics Across the Nexus 117
3.8 References 124
4 Characterizing the Landscape in Which the
Nexus Unfolds 137
4.1 The Landscape as a System 138
4.2 Participatory Landscape Appraisal 147
4.3 Core Data and Information 156
viii • Contents
4.4 Mapping Interactions Across the Landscape 158

4.5 Human Systems 163
4.6 Natural Systems 168
4.7 Engineered Systems 170
4.8 Economic Systems 179
4.9 From Appraisal to Dynamic Hypotheses 180
4.10 Concluding Remarks 188
4.11 References 189
About the Author 197
Index 199
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. A three-legged stool representation of the WELF nexus. 14

Figure 1.2. A tetrahedral representation of the WELF-X nexus. 15
Figure 2.1. Stakeholder dynamics involving a combination of
bottom-up, top-down, and outside-in contributions
from community members, governments,
and outsiders. 35
Figure 2.2. Steps of the proposed methodology. 38
Figure 3.1. Blue water and green water paths. 63
Figure 3.2. Hierarchy of water requirements. 79
Figure 3.3. Plot influence vs. dependence for the values
of Table 3.8. 112
Figure 3.4. Plot of influence vs. dependence for the values
of Table 3.9. 116
Figure 4.1a. Systems involved in community development and
their multiple constraints. Each group of systems
consists of subsystems. Note: A simpler v ersion of
this graph was originally proposed by Jorge Vanegas
(personal communication 2000). 139
Figure 4.1b. Multilayered diagram showing the different groups of
systems at play in a conceptual model of a community.
Note: Intra-connections are represented by solid lines
connecting the nodes in each layer. Inter-connections
are represented by dotted lines across layers. Only a
limited number of possible linkages are shown. 140
Figure 4.2. Different tasks involved in (a) Conducting the
appraisal, and (b) Analyzing the results of the
appraisal. Note the various feedback mechanisms. 151
Figure 4.3. Example of problem tree for crop yield for a project
in Nepal. 185
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Double-entry table showing different forms of d ouble

causality between water, energy, land, and food
resources and their security 13
Table 3.1. A representation of the Köppen classification system
of earth climates 55
Table 3.2. Sustainability assessment tool 73
Table 3.3a. Ranking of technologies that can be used in the
different steps of the drinking water value chain
from acquisition to consumption in the context of
small-scale communities. L (Low, 1 point); M
(Medium, 5 points); H (High, 10 points) 77
Table 3.3b. Service option score and technology requirement
level (TRL) 79
Table 3.4. Levels of health concerns for four types of
water service 80
Table 3.5. Double entry table showing different forms of double
causality between water, energy, land/soil, and food
resources and their security. Expanded version
of Table 1.1 104
Table 3.6. Double-entry table showing risks to energy, food,
and water security associated with energy, food,
and water systems drivers and linkages 107
Table 3.7. Semi-quantitative scoring used to indicate the level
of enabling (positive) and constraining (negative)
influence of each sector of the nexus on the security
of the others 110
Table 3.8. Cross-impact analysis for the four sectors of the nexus
considered in the numerical example; positive and
negative influence and dependence are considered 112
xii • List of Tables
Table 3.9. Cross-impact analysis for the seven nexus indicators

considered in the numerical example 115
Table 3.10. Possible indicators to measure water, energy,
land/soil, and food security and influence of each
sector of the WELF nexus on the other three 119
Table 4.1. Non-exhaustive list of databases to be used in
describing the nexus and its landscape 159
Table 4.2. Double-entry table showing cross-impact interactions
between systems and natural hazards 162
Table 4.3. Non-exhaustive list of structural variables (indicators)
defining human systems 165
defining natural systems 169
defining engineered systems 170
Table 4.6. Breakdown of technical capacity factor CF4 into
four components for drinking water supply 174
Table 4.7. Capacity analysis of the Bacoor community 175
Table 4.8. Community technology management level (TML) 177
Preface
This two-volume book is a follow-up to my book titled A Systems

Approach to Modeling Community Development Projects published by
Momentum Press in 2015. More specifically, it addresses the application
of systems thinking and systems tools to model the complex dynamics
at play when considering the security of water, energy, land, and food
(WELF) resources at the community level. Managing these resources and
their allocation has become critical in the overall discourse on sustain-
able development as humanity is facing global challenges related to rapid
urbanization, population growth, economic growth, and climate change.
The discussion on how to meet human needs for water, energy, land,
and food, and how to guarantee their respective securities has changed
over time. The traditional way has been to look at all four sectors in iso-
lation, regardless of whether one is interested in supply and demand,
infrastructure planning and design, resource management and allocation,
and/or governance. Since 2011, however, there has been a new empha-
sis on understanding the interdependency of the four sectors through the
so-called WELF nexus. The literature on the WELF nexus is abundant
especially about the “why” and “what” of an integrated approach to the
management and allocation of WELF resources. Less clear is the “how”
of that management, the “who” of who should be involved in it, and the
importance of scale and context (“where” and “when”) when designing
appropriate management interventions that more often require decision
makers to select trade-offs rather than synergistic interventions.
The WELF nexus is addressed in this book using an integrated or
systemic approach. It has been my experience that the concept of sys-
temic approach resonates well with individuals who pride themselves in
showing that they are forward thinkers. Very often, however, they stop
short of applying systems tools to address complex challenges and fall
back into their more comfortable deterministic mindsets. Shallow sys-
tem thinking combined with an absence of follow-up decision making
xiv • Preface
remains an intellectual exercise with no meaningful results. This book

was designed to show aspiring systems thinking decision makers the value
proposition of qualitative and quantitative systems tools in addressing
complex problems.
At the outset, this book acknowledges that WELF nexus-related
problems belong to a class of complex problems that cannot be readily
formulated and modeled. These problems are sometimes referred to in
the literature as messy or ill-defined problems. The book also emphasizes
that the complexity and uncertainty of nexus-related problems should
be embraced and acknowledged, with all the advantages and limitations
this entails. Failure to recognize these attributes is equivalent to using
the wrong tools to solve a problem: it will lead to making the same mis-
takes that have been made in the past when addressing the sectors of the
nexus in isolation. These mistakes are emerging consequences of using a
traditional reductionist, deterministic, and rigid mindset that is based on
simplifying complex problems, breaking the problems into pieces, finding
experts to solve each piece, and putting the solutions side by side without
due consideration of initial links between the problems and links between
the proposed solutions. This traditional approach to tackling development
projects also makes the false claim that clear and optimal solutions to
complex and uncertain issues are possible.
This book is not meant to be an introductory book on systems or com-
munity development. It should be seen instead as a manual that provides
a methodology to address specific WELF resource-related challenges in
a specific context and at a given scale. The methodology emphasizes that
the management and allocation of WELF resources unfolds in a landscape
consisting of multiple interacting systems and subsystems. Furthermore,
it is a dynamic process that must be addressed in a participatory and mul-
tidisciplinary manner. Finally, the methodology requires decision makers
to become systems thinkers and use multiple system-related tools such
as system dynamics combined with other analysis tools such as causal
analysis, cross-impact analysis, network analysis, and multi-criteria

decision analysis.
This book emphasizes that the management and allocation of WELF
resources is always part of a community development story with a narrative
describing how community members envision progressing from a current
to a desired state of development. What is the story? How does it manifest
itself at the community level? Can a systemic structure be created to model
current community issues and behavior patterns and propose scenarios of
intervention to address these issues? Simply put, these questions cannot
be answered by decision makers who favor quick technical solutions to
Preface • xv
every problem. The management and allocation of WELF resources in the

context of community development is a journey that takes time. This book
is more about the methodology or road map necessary for that journey to
unfold in order to create long-lasting resource security and benefits.
This book is the third of a series of three books that I have written
about small-scale community development. As I have progressed in try-
ing to understand the multiple dimensions of that complex field of study
and have purposely worked on small-scale community projects, my
approach to community development has become more holistic and cer-
tainly less engineering like as time goes on. That journey has also helped
me to reinforce that human development is foremost about people, their
empowerment, and their transformation. More importantly, it is about the
human story.
After reading this book or parts thereof, I hope that you will be more
attentive to development stories. They are worth listening to. You may
also find yourself in most of them. I hope that this book will be useful to
you and your projects. The approach used in this book is not written in
stone. Feel free to develop new approaches and share them with the rest
of us.
I want to thank Momentum Press for giving me the opportunity to
publish my work. I also want to thank Ms. Allison Goldstein for editing
this book and three of my colleagues for reviewing the manuscript and pro-
viding feedback. Finally, I want to thank my wife Robin and our children
Elizabeth Ann and Alex for their support, patience, and love.
Bernard Amadei
Boulder, December 1, 2018
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This chapter presents a general overview of the water, energy, land, and
food (WELF) nexus and summarizes major insights that emerge from
reviewing the nexus literature, while pointing out the many questions
about the what, why, who, where, when, and how of the nexus that remain
unanswered when addressed at the community level. Finally, the c hapter
presents a value proposition for developing a system-based m
ethodology
to capture the dynamics at play between the nexus and the different
systems involved in small-scale community development. Simply put, the
nexus cannot be separated and understood in isolation from its complex
environment and the systems with which it interacts.
The decision-making landscape for the water-energy [land and

food] nexus is shaped by political, regulatory, economic, environ-
mental, and social factors, as well as available technologies. The
landscape is fragmented, complex, and evolving; incentive struc-
tures are overlapping and not necessarily consistent (adapted from
DOE 2014).
1.1 Background
Food, energy, and water resources are critical components in the overall
discourse on human development. They are necessary (but not sufficient)
components in “creating an environment in which people can develop their
full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs
and interests” (UNDP/HDR 1990). Since the 1990s, a key question in the
ongoing discussion of human development has been whether humankind
can live in a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous manner while relying
on existing resources and life support systems in a rapidly changing world.
2 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
There is an overall agreement that rapid population, urbanization,

and economic growth worldwide over the next 40 to 50 years will c reate
unprecedented demands for food, energy, water, and other resources
(von Grebmer et al. 2012; Dresden Nexus Conference 2015; Mohtar et al.
2015). By 2050, global food demand is expected to grow by 60 percent,
energy demand by 80 percent, and water demand by 55 percent (Ferroukhi
et al. 2015). This growth will occur in an existing context of uneven
resource scarcity and in which the consumptions of water, energy, and
food resources are already interconnected. In addition to meeting the
demands associated with population growth and providing the necessary
infrastructure, other issues affecting human development are climate
change mitigation and adaptation; increasingly competitive demands
for water, energy, and food resources within and across various sectors
(domestic, industrial, and agricultural); and demands from groups of con-
sumers who may or may not be on different sides of a geopolitical border.
If resource allocations are not properly addressed, trade-offs (instead of
synergies) in natural resource development, management, and allocation
across groups and sectors have the potential to create unintended negative
consequences, risks, and uncertainties that could negatively affect large
populations, especially those living in poor and marginalized communities
(Gutierrez 1999; FAO 2014).
Since the publication of Theory of Human Motivation by Maslow
(1943), various authors have debated what constitutes basic human needs
in development. Among them, water, energy, and food represent basic
physiological needs for well-being, health, and survival; other physiolog-
ical needs included air, sanitation, hygiene, health, sex, sleep, and so on.
According to Maslow, physiological needs are necessary but not sufficient;
other categories of needs include safety, love and belonging, esteem, and
self-actualization. A more recent discussion on the classification of human
needs can be found in Max-Neef (1991), who noted that human needs are
common in all cultures and have been so throughout history. However, the
way human needs are prioritized, addressed, and met varies significantly
across cultures and depends greatly on context and scale.
The discussion on how to meet the human needs for food, energy, and
water has changed over time. The traditional way has been to look at all
the three sectors in isolation (i.e., as decoupled), regardless of whether one
is interested in supply and demand, infrastructure planning and design,
resource development, management and allocation, and/or governance.
Since 2011, however, there has been a new emphasis on understand-
ing the interdependencies and relationships that exist between the food,
energy, and water sectors. It is now common practice in the development
Introduction • 3
literature to read about the food-energy-water, the energy-water-food,

or water-energy-food nexus, that is, the intersection of the three sectors
(which, henceforth, will be referred to as FEW). The concept of nexus
thinking has become an integral part of the human development’s vernac-
ular. As noted by United Nations, “water, food and energy are fundamen-
tal to the functioning of society, closely interlinked, and associated with
deep [social, political, and economic] security concerns” (UNU-INWEH
2013). Addressing the nexus requires an integrated perspective that con-
siders not only the characteristics of each component of the nexus but also
the components’ connectedness and the characteristics of their linkages.
It should be noted that the FEW nexus is not unique, as it is one
of many inter linkages that are at play in human development. All three
sectors often appear as components of multiple conceptual frameworks
proposed in the literature to measure levels of development, resilience,
sustainability, and security/insecurity at the country level. The water,
energy, and food sectors are included, for instance, in the Environmental
Performance Index, which uses 20 indicators to “rank countries’ perfor-
mance on high-priority environmental issues in two areas: protection of
human health and protection of ecosystems” (Hsu et al. 2016). The three
sectors also appear as indicators in the Notre-Dame Global Adaptation
Index (Chen et al. 2015; Global Adaptation Institute 2017), which mea-
sures how resilient countries are when adapting to climate change accord-
ing to their levels of readiness (based on 14 indicators) and vulnerability
(based on 36 indicators). One third and final example of a framework that
emphasizes the importance of water, energy, and food resources in human
development is the Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index
(Cloutier et al. 2014), which involves nine indicators, including water,
energy, and food management and various studies on human (in)security
that emerged from the 1994 human development report New Dimensions
of Human Security (UNDP 1994). It should be noted that in all these
frameworks, the indexes are calculated using regression analyses in which
the indicators are assumed to be independent.
To the three sectors of the FEW nexus, one could add health, land and
soils, ecosystems, climate, transportation, waste disposal, communication,
state security, human rights, labor, trade, and many other sectors. For
instance, transportation is critical to food, water, and energy distribution,
as well as going to market. Likewise, land (and soils) is often associated
with the FEW nexus, since land is important to produce food and energy,
supply water, and provides ecosystem services (Ringler et al. 2013; Weigelt
et al. 2015a; Müller et al. 2015; Hurni et al. 2015). The acronym WELF is
used instead of FEW when land and its connections to water, energy, and
food are explicitly included in the discussion. Another important com-

ponent, climate, is sometimes included in the nexus (e.g., water-energy-
climate; water-energy-food-climate; climate-land- energy-water) since
climate, water, energy, land, and food are closely related in the overall dis-
cussion of populations’ adaptations to change (WBCSD 2009; Waughray
2011; Hermann 2012; Beck and Walker 2013; Howells et al. 2013; B azilian
2014; Rasul and Sharma 2016; Faeth and Hanson 2016; Liu 2017). One
way of encompassing the many components that may interact with the
FEW nexus is to use the FEW-X acronym where X can be any of the
sectors mentioned earlier (Sperling 2017). This book uses both the WELF
and FEW acronyms based on whether land/soil resources are included in
the discussion.
A discussion on the history behind the FEW nexus and its evolution
since the early 1980s is beyond the scope of this book and can be found
in the literature (Bizikova et al. 2013; Allouche et al. 2015; Leck et al.
2015; Scott et al. 2015). In brief, the debate around the importance of
the FEW nexus in human development is not new and started as early as
1983, when the United Nations University led research on the food-energy
nexus (UNU 1990). Ten years before, the book The Limits to Growth by
Meadows et al. (1972) had already emphasized the finite nature of natural
resources and their interconnections. In the 1980s and 1990s, various
meetings were held to discuss the food-energy nexus and its interaction
with ecosystems such as water, forests, and land (Scott et al. 2015). The
importance of water, energy, land, and food resources in sustainable devel-
opment were also addressed by the Brandt Commission with the publica-
tion of Our Common Future (WCED 1987) and at the Earth Summit in
Rio with the publication of Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992).
Driven by a worldwide increase in food and energy prices from 2007 to
2011 (von Grebmer et al. 2012; Allouche et al. 2015) and global challenges
associated with climate change, population growth, and rapid urbanization,
discussion around the water-energy-food nexus gained momentum at the
2011 World Economic Forum (WEF). Two key publications are associated
with that event. The first, titled Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy-
Climate Nexus (Waughray 2011), looked specifically at the role water
played in linking the other nexus components together. The second pub-
lication, titled Global Risks 2011 (WEF 2011), identified the FEW nexus
as one of three critical global risks according to the WEF Risk Response
Network. More specifically, the forum participants concluded that:
A rapidly rising global population and growing prosperity are

putting unsustainable pressures on resources. Demand for water,
Introduction • 5
food and energy is expected to rise by 30–50 percent in the next

two decades, while economic disparities incentivize short-term
responses in production and consumption that undermine long-term
sustainability. Shortages could cause social and political instabil-
ity, geopolitical conflict and irreparable environmental damage.
Any strategy that focuses on one part of the water-food-energy
nexus without considering its interconnections risks s erious unin-
tended consequences. (WEF 2011)
The 2011 World Economic Forum was followed by the Bonn

2011 Water, Energy, and Food Security Nexus: Solutions for the Green
Economy conference (Hoff 2011); the 2014 Water, Food, Climate and
Energy C onference at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(UNC 2014); and the Bonn 2014 Sustainability in the Water-Energy-Food
conference (GWSP 2014). The World Economic Forum and Bonn con-
ference in 2011 represent two significant milestones in recognizing the
security part of the FEW nexus and its components.
Since 2011, multiple conferences, workshops, and research initiatives
(see reviews by Bizikova et al. 2013; Allouche et al. 2015; Leck et al.
2015; Daher and Mohtar 2015; Mohtar et al. 2015; Saundry 2016) have
emphasized the value proposition that—rather than considering water,
energy, and food in isolation—a nexus approach to the management and
allocation of water, energy, and food resources is more appropriate. The
2011 and 2014 Bonn conferences also recommended prioritizing the
development of coherent policy solutions for “enhan[cing] water, energy
and food security by increasing efficiency, reducing trade-offs, building
synergies and improving governance across sectors” (Hoff 2011, p. 4).
(Throughout this book, policy is understood as “a chosen course of action
significantly affecting a large number of people” [Simonovic and Fahmy
1999].) As noted by Leck et al. (2015), this recommendation is about
developing integrated policy choices for all sectors of the nexus.
The aforementioned conferences and workshops have also empha-
sized the importance of resource security—a concept that encompasses
the security of water, energy, land/soil, and food resources and the s ecurity
of all four components combined—to decision makers within the private,
public, and citizen sectors who are involved in human and economic
development worldwide. Simply put, the challenge is how “to feed more
people with lesser water, in a context of climate change and growing
energy demand, while maintaining healthy ecosystems” (WBCSD 2009).
It should be noted that the concept of security across the nexus is more
than just ensuring the availability and supply (quality and quantity) of
resources (Hoff 2011, p. 11). It is also about guaranteeing populations an

equitable access to properly managed resources and developing/building
the necessary capacity (institutional, financial, technical, human, and so
on) and resilience of populations to deal with various risks and unforeseen
circumstances associated with normal and extreme events. As noted by
Mohtar and Daher (2016), “food crises, water scarcity and energy shocks”
have often been cited “among the top five risks to the modern world in
terms of likelihood and impact” in the Global Risks Reports published by
the World Economic Forum from 2007 to 2015.
Since the 2011 and 2014 Bonn conferences, multiple (mostly
academic) publications have emphasized the dependencies and

relationships between food security and water, energy, and land secu-
rity. Key publications that have helped shape the discussion around the
FEW/WELF nexus in different contexts (urban vs. rural) and at differ-
ent scales (regional vs. country) include those of Bazilian et al. (2011),
Bizikova et al. (2013), Ringler et al. (2013), The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO 2014); Finley and Seiber (2014); Hurni et al. (2015);
Weigelt et al. (2015a); Wakeford et al. (2015); Leck et al. (2015); Daher
and Mohtar (2015); Basel and Mohtar (2015); Keairns et al. (2016); and
Chang et al. (2016). Special journal issues have even been dedicated to the
FEW nexus in publications such as (i) the Journal of Sustainable Produc-
tion and Consumption (Azapagic 2015); (ii) the Journal of Environmental
Science and Sustainability (Saundry 2016); and the Journal of Ecosystem
Services (Braat 2016). Still, despite the multitude of scholarly publica-
tions on the topic, clear practical frameworks for the integrated manage-
ment and allocation of water, energy, land and food resources, especially
at the local scale, are still missing.
Several major insights emerge from reviewing the FEW/WELF nexus
literature:
• The nexus is essential to human development everywhere on the

planet and is an integral part of the global sustainability world-
wide agenda (Weitz et al. 2014; Stephan et al. 2018). This point is
illustrated by the fact that the United Nations Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals or SDGs (SDSN 2015) make explicit reference to
food security (as part of Goal 2), energy security (as part of Goal
7), water security (as part of Goal 6), and protection of land and soil
resources (as part of Goal 15). In addition to these goals and their
respective targets, the SDGs consist of 13 other goals that, although
they do not mention water, energy, food, and land explicitly, inter-
act in one way or the other with these sectors through multiple
Introduction • 7
implicit feedback loops and interactions that are still being explored
(Le Blanc 2015; Coopman et al. 2016; Nilsson et al. 2016, 2017;
Zhang et al. 2016; ICSU 2017; Zelinka and Amadei 2017; Mohtar
and Daher 2017). As remarked by Weitz et al. (2014), the FEW/
WELF nexus can serve as an entry point to explore how all 17
SDGs (including their 169 targets and 230 indicators) are linked by
checking how the targets associated with the water, energy, food,
and land security-related goals and the other 13 goals are intercon-
nected. The rationale is that targets (and some indicators) cut across
many goals and act as an underlying connectivity among the goals
but not the other way around (Le Blanc 2015).
• The nexus needs to be considered using an integrated (e.g., systemic)
instead of a sectoral perspective by considering (i) the water,
energy, and food sectors and their respective supply chains (i.e., the
sequence of activities from acquisition to production and process-
ing, distribution, consumption, and waste disposal); (ii) how the
sectors and supply chains are linked; and (iii) the interaction of the
nexus as a whole with natural, human, infrastructure, and socio-
political-economic systems (Bazilian et al. 2011; Wakeford et al.
2015; Daher and Mohtar 2015; McCormick and Kapustka 2016;
Tevar et al. 2016; Saundry 2016; Davis et al. 2016). Simply put,
the nexus cannot be separated and understood in isolation from the
environment and the systems with which it interacts.
• Integrated or systemic (rather than sectored) management of FEW/
WELF resources is better suited for coherent policy making across
the nexus that considers how one sector of the nexus affects the
others either directly or indirectly. It also helps to explore syner-
gies or trade-offs across different sectors and how decisions at one
spatial or temporal scale impact decisions at other scales. This is
particularly important when considering climate change adaptation
strategies across the nexus rather than within each individual sector
(Rasul and Sharma 2016).
• Even though the needs for water, energy, land, and food are uni-
versal, addressing these needs and their interactions is context- and
scale-specific. Models of FEW/WELF resource development and
management and strategies of resource allocation cannot easily be
transferred from one context to the next without modifications—
for instance, from a rural to an urban context or from one climatic
region to another. Likewise, such solutions are dependent on scale,
both physical and temporal; as noted by de Blij (2012), the world
is not flat when it comes to population needs, natural resource
d istribution, and access to these resources. A good example of how

resource management and allocation across the nexus varies with
context and scale can be found in Wakeford et al. (2015). These
authors looked at how the nexus expresses itself and should be
considered in three socioeconomic and ecological regimes: agrarian
(in Malawi), industrial (in South Africa), and ecological (in Cuba).
• Addressing the FEW/WELF nexus must start with the fundamental
observation that there is unequal distribution of resources in the
world and uneven capacity (or ability) and willingness to provide
FEW/WELF services across the nexus. That baseline greatly con-
trols what is possible in developing nexus solutions. As noted by
von Grebmer et al. (2012) and Ringler et al. (2013), the dynamic
and importance of the FEW/WELF nexus are especially critical in
the poorest countries, regions, and communities that are already
facing food insecurity, malnutrition, land degradation, inequitable
access to land, limited access to clean water, water loss and/or
contamination (over pumping, increased salinity, and so on), and
limited access to modern forms of energy and technology. Climb-
ing the so-called water, energy, and/or food development ladders
and having equitable access to land (land tenure security) is more
difficult for those who live in situations of limited capacity and high
vulnerability and in a country that “suffers from historically low
levels of investment in technology and human capital as well as
weak institutions” (Waughray 2011).
• The management and allocation of water, energy, land, and food
resources is often challenged by many local, regional, and global
economic and geopolitical issues. Global issues are here to stay,
cannot be ignored, and impact local and regional issues (Hoff 2011).
For instance, changes in weather patterns associated with variations
in climate change are likely to result in degradation of water, energy,
food, and land and soil resources at different scales. Similarly,
urbanization places increasingly concentrated and interconnected
demands on resources that are completely disconnected from their
original sources (Beck and Walker 2013); what happens at the urban
level has environmental and economic impacts that extend all the
way out to rural areas (de Blij 2012), since water, energy, and food
must be gathered from distant sources. Inequalities in wealth, health,
and social power among rich and poor populations create further
challenges (UNDP/HDR 2011; Hoff 2011; World Bank 2013).
• The management and allocation of FEW/WELF resources becomes
more challenging across boundaries, whether they involve c ountries,
Introduction • 9
states, regions, or river basins (UNECE 2013, 2015). Transboundary

issues can become triggering mechanisms for conflict if coordinated
planning and collaboration does not happen (Muscat 2014). One
example is the complex WELF nexus dynamic in the Israel-West
Bank (Palestine)-Gaza-Jordan region, whose h istory is described in
the book Let there be Water by Siegel (2015). An economic analy-
sis between Israel and Jordan has shown the merits of exchanging
water and renewable energy between the two countries (EcoPeace
Middle East 2017). More specific nexus issues faced by Gaza and its
neighbors can be found in a report published by the United Nations
(UNSCO 2012). Kashmir is another area where water resource man-
agement (or lack thereof) causes conflict, because it is the source of
the Indus river system, which is of importance to the well-being of
millions of people in both India and Pakistan (Umar 2016). These
examples and many others show the strong feedback mechanisms
between water, energy, food, and land insecurity (which tend to hap-
pen all at the same time, as noted by Weigelt et al. 2015b) on the one
hand, and local, national, and/or regional insecurity due to conflicts
on the other hand.
• As noted by Sohofi et al. (2016), although there is a consensus in
the human development literature that a nexus approach to water,
energy, land, and food is better than considering each component
in isolation, “the challenge remains as to how the interlinkages
[synergy] between systems [i.e., the components of the nexus]
should be made explicit” and modeled. This confusion explains, to
a certain extent, why the FEW/WELF nexus has been handled in
a fragmented way by various groups of stakeholders, policy mak-
ers, and researchers in the past. For example, some nexus model-
ing platforms consider each component of the nexus in isolation,
whereas others consider two-sector nexus linkages; among them
the water-energy two-way interaction seems to be the most com-
mon. Sohofi et al. (2016) provide a literature review of tools that
have proposed to model water, energy, and food systems, but in
isolation. Even though each tool is incomplete by itself, all of them
are useful and effective for gaining an in-depth understanding of
how each component works. Nevertheless, these virtual models
fall short of truly capturing the dynamics at play between all com-
ponents of the nexus, which cannot be easily disentangled in the
real world. As noted by Perrone and Hornberger (2014), looking
at the nexus two components at a time helps “to understand the
link between resources, but [does] not explain how the resources
interact to affect the security of resources [as a whole],” which

can only be captured by considering three-way (FEW), four-way
(WELF), and multiple-way (WELF-X) interactions.
• The limited qualitative and quantitative understanding of the link-
ages between the sectors of the FEW/WELF nexus also explains
the limitations of existing decision-making methods used to select
and implement interventions across various components of the
nexus. Often, modeling and decisions-making tools are selected by
experts and policy makers (Bazilian et al. 2011; Daher and Mohtar
2015; Miralles-Wilhelm 2016) in one or several specific fields and
do not always include the stakeholders facing actual nexus issues.
Furthermore, these tools rarely cut across the various technical and
nontechnical (e.g., social and economic) disciplines that define the
context in which the nexus unfolds. As noted by Leck et al. (2015),
accepting “disciplinary ‘boundary crossing’” in the FEW/WELF
nexus is still a work in progress. Because of these limitations, deci-
sion making across the nexus has the potential to create risks and
conflicts with unintended consequences across the socioeconomic
and political sectors.
• The range of application of existing models of the FEW/WELF
nexus is limited due to current knowledge gaps in understanding
the nexus and its components (Hoff 2011). More specifically, there
is a need to collect data on water, energy, land, and food resources,
their respective life cycles, and how these components and their
supply chains interact (Hoff 2011; Ferroukhi et al. 2015; Kouper
et al. 2017). There is also a need for developing comprehensive
nexus databases, information portals, practices, and standards
across the nexus; understanding the impact of one component of
the nexus on the others; dealing with the complexity and uncer-
tainty inherent in the nexus; and creating indicators and multiscale
performance metrics for the nexus, keeping in mind the various
socioeconomic systems with which it interacts (Tevar et al. 2016;
King and C arbajales-Dale 2016). As suggested by Mohtar and Law-
ford (2016), these needs could be addressed by creating a multidis-
ciplinary “community of practice” across academics, practitioners
and policy decision makers interested in the nexus.
• Addressing the FEW/WELF nexus in an integrated manner does
not come without its own challenges. In addition to the needs
mentioned previously, there is a need to integrate the human
dimension into the nexus (Dresden Nexus Conference 2015). Better
governance, leadership, and specific policies and interventions for
Introduction • 11
the management and allocation of FEW/WELF resources can facil-

itate or impede progress toward human prosperity and well-being
in various contexts and at different scales (Wakeford et al. 2015).
This can be done by developing integrated solutions and applying
more coherence to “fragmented approaches to planning and policy
implementation” across the nexus (Scott et al. 2014), while also
stressing “resource use efficiency” (Hoff 2011). A case in point is
the added value that renewable energy could play in improving
water, energy, and food security (DOE 2014; Ferroukhi et al. 2015).
• Even though the concept of an integrated approach to the manage-
ment and allocation of FEW/WELF resources sounds innovative,
it has remained mostly academic in nature, and its value propo-
sition has not yet been fully operationally demonstrated in prac-
tice and conveyed in a comprehensive and nonacademic manner to
policy and decision makers (Mohtar and Daher 2016). As a result,
decision makers have been resistant to adopting a new integrated
mindset. As noted by Daher (2017), the “fragmentation between
the scientific and policy communities” needs to be addressed. It
is interesting to note that a similar remark was made by Biswas
(2016) in a paper on integrated water resources management.
• Finally, there is a need to develop a repertoire of well-documented
and transparent case studies in order to offer practical solutions on
what’s possible when addressing nexus-related problems that are
by nature ill-defined and messy (Rittel and Webber 1973). Ques-
tions remain, for instance, as to what represents a successful FEW/
WELF nexus approach (Leck et al. 2015), what are appropriate
success indicators, and how success depends on adopting a flexible,
adaptive, participatory, and integrated methodology that involves
assessing community needs and issues, defining and modeling the
issues, proposing strategies and interventions to address the issues,
implementing the interventions, and assessing their performance
over time.
All insights mentioned earlier lead to the consensus in the FEW/WELF

nexus literature that despite different opinions about what the nexus is and
how it should be approached (Allouche et al. 2015), the management and
allocation of water, energy, land, and food resources need to be looked at
in a more integrated (i.e., systemic), multidisciplinary, and practical (rather
than just academic) manner. This recommendation applies to all econo-
mies, regardless of their level of development. As best summarized by
the Stockholm Environment Institute (Hoff 2011), an integrated approach
to the FEW/WELF nexus must involve: innovative and efficient technol-

ogies to increase the productivity of resources with the least amount of
unintended consequences; techniques to reuse waste and by-products; eco-
nomic incentives for sustainable use of resources; coherence in governance
and policymaking; and sound ecosystem management and allocation, pres-
ervation, and enhancement. This book builds on these observations and
recommendations and proposes a flexible and adaptive system-based meth-
odology that is generic enough to serve as a guide for various stakehold-
ers (engineers, scientists, and p olicy and d ecision m
akers) when selecting
intervention strategies for the management and allocation of FEW/WELF
resources at the community (local) level and within the broader context of
community development. The methodology goes beyond just recognizing
that the nexus needs to be addressed in an integrated manner; it uses system
dynamics tools and other tools to explore in a qualitative and quantitative
manner the dynamics at play in the management and allocation of FEW/
WELF resources and the decision process necessary to intervene in the
landscape in which the nexus unfolds.
1.2 Representing and Analyzing the Nexus
1.2.1 Representing the Nexus
The integrated (i.e., systemic) nature of the WELF nexus can be i llustrated
in several ways. As an example, Table 1.1 summarizes possible forms of
double causality and impact between water, energy, land, and food resources
and their security. In this two-sector tabular representation, off-diagonal
boxes of the 4 × 4 table represent possible (among many) feedback mech-
anisms and interlinkages that exist as two parameters interact in an inter-
dependent manner across the nexus. As remarked by Arcade et al. (2014),
double causality tables can help identify the influence and dependence of
one component on the others. Hence, each row in Table 1.1 defines how
each sector of the nexus influences the security of the other three sectors.
Likewise, each column defines how the security of one sector of the nexus
depends on the other three sectors. It should be noted that Table 1.1 is a
simplified version of a more comprehensive double-entry table (Table 3.5)
showing interactions across the nexus and presented in Chapter 3.
The nexus across water, energy, and food can also be represented as
a three-legged stool sitting on land (Figure 1.1). The overall stability of
the stool, which represents the stability of the nexus or its overall s ecurity,
depends on the stability and strength of each leg (i.e., food security, energy
security, and water security) and all three legs simultaneously (integrated
Introduction • 13
Table 1.1. Double-entry table showing different forms of double causality

between water, energy, land, and food resources and their security
Water Energy Land/Soil Food

security security security security
Water Water for Water con- Water for
resources energy tributes to soil irrigation, crops,
extraction and and aquifer livestock, food
production, replenishing production and
and biofuel and vegeta- processing
processing tion growth
Energy Energy to Energy Energy for

resources run water for field mechanized
infrastructure, preparation, agriculture, land
pumping, irrigation, and preparation,
irrigation, and harvest irrigation,
desalination fertilization
Land/ Soil type and Soil type and Soil type and
Soil vegetation reg- vegetation land character-
resources ulate soil water affect the istics affect crop
saturation and energy con- yield
groundwater sumption for
land use
Food Agricultural Food, Agricultural

resources practices, food agricultural practices
demand and diet residues and impact land
impact water biomass used and vegetation
use for biofuels,
and biogas
production
FEW security). The stool in Figure 1.1 can also be described as a s ystem
consisting of three seemingly separate but connected systems (i.e., food
system, energy system, and water system). Each system consists of subsys-
tems and supply chain components (not shown in Figure 1.1) that describe
how the services of food, energy, and water transition from acquisition to
distribution, consumption, and disposal.
In Figure 1.1, the fourth component of the nexus, land, is as important
as the other three. It interacts with the three legs and its bearing capacity
(stability) controls the overall stability of the stool. Water, energy, and food
resources depend on land (Weigelt et al. 2015a; Ringler et al. 2013; Hurni
et al. 2015), and their management and allocation can create irreversible
changes to the natural environment.
Integrated WELF
security
Pressures Constraints
Water Energy
Food
Land
Figure 1.1. A three-legged stool representation of the WELF nexus.
Figure 1.1 can help illustrate how the integral nature of the nexus
could be compromised if at least one of its four sectors (or one of its
supply chain subcomponents) is weaker than the others. If one of the
stool’s legs were to increase and the others to decrease, this would simu-
late how focusing on and prioritizing one sector of the nexus could affect
the others. Furthermore, the stability of the stool depends on how it inter-
acts with its surrounding environment. That environment creates pressures
and constraints (internal or external, soft or hard) on the stool’s existence
and stability; too much pressure could even topple the stool. By analogy,
the overall security of the WELF nexus may be at risk due to pressures
(stressors) and constraints (limiters) that exist in the real world, which
can be socioeconomic, geopolitical, and/or environmental (Wakeford
et al. 2015). Such pressures and constraints may also relate to the global
issues of climate change, urbanization, conflict, and the degradation of the
resources base mentioned previously.
Figure 1.1 also shows that interventions selected to address issues
in the management and allocation of WELF resources—whether they
are technical or nontechnical and/or specific to water, energy, food, or
land—need to encompass the multiple dimensions of the nexus, c onsider
the environment in which the nexus unfolds, and be synchronized
across the nexus. In fact, solving one issue associated with one sector
of the nexus has the potential to affect (positively or negatively) one
or several other sectors. This is due to the dependence and influence
properties mentioned in Table 1.1. For instance, a water solution may
have influence (intended or unintended) on food, energy, and land. At the
Introduction • 15
Water
Energy
Land
Food
Figure 1.2. A tetrahedral representation of the WELF-X nexus.
same time, water security also depends on solutions in the food, energy,
and land sectors.
A third way to graphically represent the WELF nexus is to draw it
as a tetrahedron where each node corresponds to one sector of the nexus
(Figure 1.2). The edges of the tetrahedron capture the different forms of
double causality of Table 1.1, and the volume of the figure represents the
overall scope of the WELF nexus study of interest. In this representation, a
fifth node (defined as X) could be added at the centroid of the tetrahedron
and connected to the other nodes to represent the WELF-X nexus. A good
example could be “climate change,” since it has an impact on water,
energy, land, and food. Another possibility could be the population that
interacts with the four sectors.
1.2.2 Analyzing the Nexus
A review of the literature indicates that there are still many unanswered
questions about the FEW/WELF nexus, particularly pertaining to the
“who, where, when, and how” of the nexus. The “what and why” of the
nexus are more obvious and seem to be better understood.
The “what” of the nexus is first and foremost about the many char-
acteristics that water, energy, food, and land have in common in the
context of human development. As noted in Bazilian et al. (2011) and
Mirales-Wilhelm (2016), the characteristics of water, energy, and food can

be summarized as follows: (i) more people have limited access to all three;
(ii) there is a global demand for all three; (iii) many constraints act on
their demand; (iv) they are global goods traded internationally; (v) their
supply and demand vary at different scales; (vi) they are influenced by the
environment, climate change, urbanization, and globalization; (vi) they
are related to security (peace and stability) issues; and (vii) they are sub-
ject to different levels of risks. It should be noted that these characteristics
apply to land, as well.
The “what” of the FEW/WELF nexus can be explained by consider-
ing each one of its components (e.g., water, energy, land, and food) and
their synergistic interactions, as illustrated in Table 1.1. Unique proper-
ties of the nexus emerge through these interactions, properties that cannot
be predicted by considering the properties of each sector of the nexus in
isolation. The “what” of the FEW/WELF nexus recognizes the different
stages in the water, energy, land, and food supply chain services and their
interactions (Wakeford et al. 2015). The “what” of the nexus is about the
capacity to provide these services, where capacity is understood as the
“ability of individuals, organizations or systems to perform appropriate
functions effectively, efficiently, and sustainably” (Milѐn 2001). The func-
tions may include acquisition, processing, distribution, consumption, and
disposal. Finally, the “what” of the FEW/WELF nexus is also about the
environment (e.g., rules, constraints, and risks) and the different systems
of the landscape in which the nexus unfolds, and the land that water,
energy, and food depend on.
The “why” of the FEW/WELF nexus acknowledges that water,
energy, food, and land are key (core) components to human well-being
and that their security is of critical importance. Although security can
have different meanings for different people (Perrone et al. 2011; Perrone
and Hornberger 2014), security across the nexus is, in general, about
guaranteeing populations a safe (physical security) environment with
well-functioning management and allocation of resources and e quitable
access to properly managed water, energy, food, and land and soil
resources. Security is also about providing populations the capacity and
resilience to manage these resources when faced with risks associated
with adverse events (natural and non-natural). Working, but not yet fully
established, definitions of food, energy, and water security mentioned in
the literature include:
• Food security takes place when “… all people at all times have phys-
ical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
Introduction • 17
food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active,
healthy life” (FAO 1996).
• Energy security is about “… the uninterrupted availability of energy
sources at an affordable price” (IEA, n.d.).
• Water security guarantees “… the capacity of a population to
safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of a cceptable
quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and
socioeconomic development, for ensuring protection against

water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for pre-
serving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability”
(UNU-INWEH 2013).
Land and soil security can be approached in two different ways. One
way is to look at land and soils in a utilitarian manner, that is, as being
necessary for water, energy, and food security to unfold. In this case, soil
security is about:
• “The maintenance and improvement of the world’s soil resources

so that they continue to provide food, fiber, and fresh water, make
major contributions to energy and climate sustainability, and help
maintain biodiversity and the overall protection of ecosystem goods
and services” (Koch et al. 2013).
A second way to look at land security is to use a legal and human

rights perspective, which relates more specifically to land tenure. In this
case, it refers to:
• “People’s ability to control and manage land, use it, dispose

of its produce and engage in transactions, including transfers”
(IFAD 2015).
In general, water, energy, food, and land security are interconnected.

As noted by Perrone and Hornberger (2014), ensuring one form of secu-
rity can only be done at the expense of the others and requires trade-offs
(UNECE 2013). For instance, prioritizing the use of fresh water for energy
production over its use for growing crops (or vice versa) has consequences
that go well beyond water and energy. Not ensuring the security of one or
several of the FEW/WELF resources for populations would have major
consequences for populations (Wakeford et al. 2015). It is also clear that
the costs of inaction and mismanagement of FEW/WELF resources when
faced with increasing population growth, globalization, climate change,
and urbanization could create risks that would impact those at the bottom
of the economic pyramid the most (Hoff 2011).
Security of each component of the nexus and across the nexus is key
to human well-being and prosperity, but also to peace and social s tability.
A question remains as to how to guarantee these positive attributes over the
long term (i.e., sustainability) as the nexus components change over time
and are subject to multiple risks and change drivers (socioeconomic, envi-
ronmental, technological, and political), whether they are demand-side
drivers related to lifestyle and demographic changes, changing diets,
urbanization, industrial and technological development, trade, and
globalization, or supply-side drivers related to the depletion of resources
or the degradation of ecosystems (Wakeford et al. 2015). As suggested
by Voulvoulis (2012), there is a need to synergistically align the security
of all nexus components with each other to avoid the unintended conse-
quences associated with prioritizing the security of one nexus component
over the others.
The dynamic nature of the FEW/WELF nexus and its components,
and that of the community in which the nexus unfolds, implies that
“sustainability”—a term that is often used (and abused) in the FEW/WELF
nexus and development literature—may not be the most appropriate con-
cept when trying to communicate a need to develop resource management
strategies for the long term. This is because sustainability is often pre-
sented in the development literature as a static and equilibrium-based
process (i.e., keeping things constant), while at the same time the nexus
and the landscape/setting in which the nexus unfolds are constantly chang-
ing. A more appropriate approach is to recognize that sustainability is
instead a dynamic process of equilibrium between a population and its
environment (Ben-Eli 2012, 2018); that is, the population and the environ-
ment are coevolving. This dynamic process depends on the level of resil-
ience possessed by the different components of the landscape/setting (such
as social, natural, infrastructure, and economic systems) when subjected
to various adverse socioeconomic or geopolitical events, natural hazards,
and anthropocentric decisions related to climate change and urbanization.
Resilience can be seen, in general, as a dynamic ability or process
rather than an outcome—an adaptability rather than stability (Norris et al.
2008) of something to return to a new equilibrium, or a new normal, after
being disturbed. That something can be an individual, a household, a com-
munity, an ecological system, an institution, or an infrastructure facing
disturbance. A simpler way to look at something’s resilience is to check
whether its capacity to cope with disturbance is greater than its vulnerabil-
ity to it and how quickly that something can rebound to its original normal
Introduction • 19
state or adapt to a state of higher capacity, that is, a new normal. The
management of water, energy, land, and food resources at the community
level requires that enough capacity is in place at different levels to be able
to provide services such as water supply, food supply, wastewater treat-
ment, and energy supply to populations when faced with uncertainty. For
instance, Tendall et al. (2015) define food system resilience as “the capac-
ity over time of a food system and its units at multiple levels, to p rovide
sufficient, appropriate, and accessible food to all, in the face of various
and even unforeseen disturbances.” A similar definition could be used for
water system and energy system resilience, where “food” is replaced by
“water” and “energy,” respectively. Buck and Bailey (2014) provide spe-
cific recommendations on how to increase the capacity of agrosystems,
institutions, ecosystems, and household livelihoods. In general, resilience
requires developing coping and adapting strategies to risks in response to
the previously mentioned internal and external supply-side and demand-
side drivers over time.
In addition to the aforementioned challenges about the “who, where,
when, and how” of the FEW/WELF nexus, other challenging and practi-
cal questions about the nexus that are yet to be addressed and answered
include:
• How do the water, energy, food, and land sectors of the WELF nexus
interact at different physical (where) and temporal (when) scales?
• What are appropriate indicators of and performance metrics
by which to judge the security of separate sectors of the nexus
(water, energy, land, and food), the security of combined sectors
of the nexus (water/water, water/energy, and so on; see the 16
cells of Table 1.1), and overall resource security, and how are
they related?
• What criteria and measures (technical and nontechnical) need to be
selected to make appropriate decisions when intervening in differ-
ent sectors of the nexus and across the nexus and deciding on water,
energy, land, and food resource allocations?
• What qualitative and quantitative data should be collected about
the nexus so that they can best capture the two-, three- or four-way
interactions between nexus components and the various systems
with which the nexus interacts?
• How should nexus data be collected and analyzed in an integrated
manner?
• How should nexus databases be developed, administered, and
updated?
• How should context and scale be accounted for in modeling the

nexus and in making technical, nontechnical, and policy strategic
decisions about interventions across the nexus?
• How should objective (rational) and subjective (intuitive) decision
making be balanced when deciding about interventions across the
nexus?
• How should interventions be implemented to ensure long-term ben-
efits, resilience, and efficient services across the nexus and guaran-
tee an increased access to these services (Hoff 2011)?
• What are the indicators that confirm the integrated nature of solu-
tions for the management of resources across the nexus and the
success of these solutions?
• What should be done to “reduce the interdependencies of water,
energy, [land], and food though the use of policies, technologies,
and adapted human behaviors that increase system resilience and
reduce system interdependencies” (Mohtar and Daher 2017)?
• What defines success in the management and allocation of FEW/
WELF resources at the community level, and how can synergies be
maximized, and trade-offs reduced?
Answering these questions will, in general, contribute to u nderstanding

the dynamics at play across the nexus, developing appropriate solutions
to FEW/WELF-related issues, and informing policy making to ensure the
security of water, energy, land, and food in the short and long term.
In addition to the questions outlined earlier, there is also the question
about what should be the multi-stakeholder dynamic between those who
make decisions about the FEW/WELF nexus (the outsiders) and those at
the community level (the insiders) who depend on the nexus for their daily
well-being. More specifically, there is a need to identify: (i) who partici-
pates in modeling and making decisions across the nexus; (ii) who defines
the indicators and performance metrics of water, energy, food, soil, and
land tenure security; and (iii) who is responsible for the selection, imple-
mentation, operation, and assessment (monitoring and evaluation) of the
proposed solutions and interventions.
The question about the decision process across the nexus can be
framed within the broader ongoing discussion in the community devel-
opment literature about how those outside a development project should
interact with community insiders (i.e., the beneficiaries). As summarized
in one of my books (Amadei 2014), over the past 50 years, the “insid-
ers vs. outsiders” dynamic in development projects has evolved in four
stages: from no interaction (development aid promoting dependency), to
Introduction • 21
one-way interaction (technical assistance), two-way interaction (tech-

nical collaboration), and, more recently, participatory work (capacity
development emphasizing empowerment and community participation).
Development groups and agencies have acknowledged the importance of
participation and the use of participatory action research tools (Cornwall
and Jewkes 1995) in their project decision-making frameworks. More
recently, there has been a renewed interest in emphasizing the impor-
tance of so-called stakeholder dialogues in participatory development
(Künkel et al. 2011).
Finally, a question relates to what the expected quality and compre-
hensiveness of the solutions to nexus issues at the community level should
be. The traditional approach is to provide compartmentalized solutions to
water, energy, food, or land challenges. These solutions are either techni-
cal, economic, or political depending on the expertise of the outsiders and
how they perceive the nexus and its components. Thus, the solutions often
fall short of considering the connections between the sectors of the nexus
and/or cross-disciplinary issues. Combined with the lack of stakeholder
participation mentioned previously and the limited understanding between
science and policy (Daher 2017), the beneficiaries may not always get
what they had expected at the outset of projects that involve one of several
sectors of the nexus. Unfortunately, this dynamic is much too common in
development and aid.
As emphasized in this book, the comprehensive management and
allocation of FEW/WELF resources requires adopting a new systemic
and participatory mindset and a multidisciplinary methodology that spans
identifying problems across the nexus, developing multiobjective strate-
gies under constraints, implementing holistic solutions and interventions,
and adopting some coherence in governance and policy making in the
short and long term. The methodology presented herein departs from tra-
ditional approaches that address the sectors of the nexus in isolation in a
deterministic way and seek optimal solutions to sector issues. Because
of its systemic nature, the approach proposed herein may appear to deci-
sion and policy makers as being somewhat more challenging than tradi-
tional approaches. However, its overall value proposition is to be able to
reach a higher level of decision making when selecting interventions in
the management and allocation of FEW/WELF resources by incorporat-
ing the interactions across the sectors of the nexus and those between the
nexus and social, economic, infrastructure, and environmental systems at
the community level. The proposed methodology offers clear benefits in
terms of exploring ways to use water, energy, land, and food resources
more efficiently and reducing environmental impacts.
1.3 Book Content
This book presents an overall system-based methodology consisting of

guidelines and modeling tools to address the management and allocation
of community-based FEW/WELF resources in a participatory and inte-
grated manner. The proposed methodology is designed to be used by dif-
ferent groups of stakeholders (scientists, engineers, policy, and various
decision makers) involved in the interconnected technical, socioeconomi-
cal, and policy aspects of the management and allocation of FEW/WELF
resources at the community level. The methodology focuses mostly on
FEW/WELF-related issues in small-scale and low-income communities
for which resources are limited and securing the resources is critical to
their short and long-term livelihood and development. The book consists
of two volumes organized into a total of eight chapters and two appendixes.
Volume 1 consists of four chapters that focus on defining the land-
scape in which the nexus unfolds, and community development takes
place. The different sectors of the landscape are explored, and their inter-
linkages analyzed using cross-impact analysis. This approach helps to
identify and analyze the influence and dependence of each sector’s secu-
rity on the others. The same method of analysis is also used to explore the
mutual influence and dependence that exist among the social, economic,
environmental, and infrastructure systems that interact with the nexus at
the community level. At the end of Volume 1, the reader is expected to
have gained a good understanding of the preliminary work that needs to be
carried out before: (i) any system modeling of the nexus and the landscape
can be undertaken; (ii) alternative solutions to address selected issues are
outlined; and (iii) interventions are identified and ranked.
Chapter 2 gives a detailed description of the different stages of
the proposed methodology. The methodology was designed to be
incorporated into a conceptual framework for Integrated and Participatory
Community-Based Management of WELF Resources. It involves a combi-
nation of bottom-up, top-down, and outside-in decision making. For that
methodology to be effective, the participation of three groups of stake-
holders (community, governments, and outsiders) is needed.
Modeling and making decisions across the FEW/WELF nexus at the
community level requires a good understanding of the context and scale
(physical and temporal) at which, and the boundaries within which, the
nexus unfolds. Chapter 3 presents the rationale for including these char-
acteristics in the management and allocation of FEW/WELF resources
and reviews the various disciplines that could help in defining these
characteristics. The second part of Chapter 3 focuses on reviewing e xisting
Introduction • 23
indicators of water, energy, food, soil, and land tenure security, the inter-
actions that exist between components of the nexus, and the different parts
of the water, energy, and food supply chains. Finally, Chapter 3 illustrates
how to use cross-impact analysis (a soft systems approach) to capture the
dynamics at play and the three/four-way interactions across the sectors of
the FEW/WELF nexus.
Once context, scale, and boundaries are selected, the next stage of the
methodology is to characterize the setting, also called landscape in this
book, in which the nexus and community development unfold. C hapter 4
explores the various systems and subsystems that define the landscape.
The landscape and its components (some of which are complex and
adaptive) show patterns of behavior that are dictated by an underlying
structure. Addressing the nexus and the management and allocation of
FEW/WELF resources at the community level requires acquiring infor-
mation about that structure. This is done through participatory appraisal
of the landscape and its components, collection and analysis of data, and
conversion of data into meaningful information. From the acquired infor-
mation, key variables, issues, and problems can be identified and mental
models and dynamic hypotheses about the landscape and its components
formulated. Understanding the structure of the landscape in which com-
munity development and the nexus unfold is critical to modeling that land-
scape and identifying places and modes of intervention in the integrated
community-based management of WELF resources.
Volume 2 consists of four chapters and focuses on how to model the
nexus and landscape defined in Volume 1 using system modeling tools.
These tools are used to reproduce the mental models of the issues believed
to be at play across the nexus and the community in which it unfolds.
Modeling is also used to explore the outcome and consequences (intended
and unintended) of various modes of intervention considered in scenario
planning. At the end of Volume 2, the reader is expected to have gained
a good understanding of: (i) the different steps and feedback mechanisms
involved in modeling the nexus; (ii) what represents dynamic scenario
planning; and (iii) how to formulate, evaluate, and select satisfactory
interventions in an integrated manner.
Chapter 5 reviews different global and sector-specific soft and hard
system formulations that already exist in the literature to model various
aspects of the FEW/WELF nexus. It then presents the value proposition
for using qualitative and quantitative system dynamics (a hard system
modeling methodology) to formulate and model the structural dynamics at
play across the nexus, including interactions across the nexus components
and their interactions with social, natural, infrastructure, and economic
systems. System dynamics has unique characteristics that warrant its use
when selecting solutions and making management decisions across the
nexus and at the community level. The chapter presents the characteristics
of systems thinking followed by a brief review of system dynamics tools,
system archetypes, and the different steps involved in system dynamics
modeling. It concludes with a discussion of the value added by integrat-
ing network analysis in system dynamic modeling and the importance of
developing system dynamics models through group modeling.
Chapter 6 presents a series of generic system dynamics models con-
sisting of modules that can be used to understand the dynamics at play
between components of the FEW/WELF nexus and how the nexus inter-
acts with social, environmental, infrastructure, and economic systems. The
modules were developed using the Systems Thinking Experiential Learning
Laboratory with Animation (STELLA) Architect software (versions 1.6x)
by isee systems, Inc. Numerical examples of applications of the models are
found in Appendixes A and B. Interactive user interfaces for some of these
models can be found online. They were developed for people not familiar
with system dynamics and interested in exploring the models and conduct-
ing parametric studies. The models presented in the modules of Chapter 6
illustrate the value proposition of using system dynamics in capturing the
complex processes involved in the management and allocation of water,
energy, land, and food resources at the community scale.
The system dynamics modeling methodology provides a means to
formulate conceptual structural models capable of simulating and explain-
ing in a satisfactory manner the issues and their associated observed
behavior patterns formulated at the end of the system- or complexity-
aware appraisal. Once deemed satisfactory, there is a need to translate
these models (tools) into several alternative scenarios (or hypothetical
states) of intervention and strategically explore their advantages and lim-
itations. In the community-based management and allocation of FEW/
WELF resources, possible intervention scenarios need to be formu-
lated, simulated, selected, and implemented in a multiobjective manner.
Chapter 7 reviews various methodologies and frameworks that have been
proposed in the literature to make decisions across the FEW/WELF nexus.
Dynamic scenario analysis, a combination of system dynamics modeling
and backcasting from the field of Futures Research is then suggested as an
approach for decision makers to use when focusing on places to intervene
across the nexus—more specifically, places where nexus challenges are
critical, sometimes defined as nexus hotspots (Daher 2017). This can be
done using a combination of what-if sensitivity analysis and multicriteria
decision optimization methods.
Introduction • 25
Finally, Chapter 8 draws key conclusions on major themes addressed

in the book and, more specifically, the need for addressing the FEW/WELF
nexus at the community level in an integrated, dynamic, multidisciplinary,
and participatory manner. It emphasizes the need to create a portfolio of
case studies to operationalize this new approach and demonstrate its value
proposition in the management and allocation of FEW/WELF resources
at the community level.
1.4 References
Allouche, J., C. Middleton, and D. Gyawali. 2015. “Technical Veil, Hidden P olitics:
Interrogating the Power Linkages Behind the Nexus.” Water Alternatives 8,
no. 1, pp. 610–26.
Amadei, B. 2014. Engineering for Sustainable Human Development: A Guide to
Successful Small-Scale Development Projects. Reston, VA: ASCE Press.
Arcade, J., M. Godet, F. Meunier, and F. Roubelat. 1999. “Structural Analysis with
the MICMAC Method and the Actor’s Strategy with MACTOR Method.”
In Introduction to the Futures Methods Research Series. Futures Research
Methodology, V3.0, The Millennium Project. Washington, DC.
Azapagic, A. 2015. “Special Issue: Food-Water-Energy Nexus Resources.”
Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption 2, pp. 1–136.
Bassel, T.D., and R.H. Mohtar. 2015. “Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus Tool 2.0:
Guiding Integrative Resource Planning and Decision-Making.” Water Inter-
national. doi:10.1080/02508060.2015.1074148
Bazilian, M. January 13, 2014. “Energy, Water, Food, Climate: Considering
Decision-Making at the Nexus.” Presented at the JISEA Annual Meeting,
Boulder, Colorado. http://jisea.org/pdfs/2014_annual_meeting_bazilian.pdf
(accessed September 7, 2016).
Bazilian, M., H. Rogner, M. Howells, S. Hermann, D. Arent, D. Gielen, P. Steduto,
A. Mueller, P. Komor, R.S.J. Tol, and K.K. Yumkella. 2011. “Considering the
Energy, Water and Food Nexus: Towards an Integrated Modeling Approach.”
Energy Policy 39, no. 12, pp. 7896–906.
Beck, M.B., and R.V. Walker. 2013. “On Water Security, Sustainability, and the
Water-Food-Energy-Climate Nexus.” Frontiers of Environmental Science
Engineering 7, no. 5, pp. 626–39.
Ben-Eli, M. 2012. “The Cybernetics of Sustainability: Definition and Underly-
ing Principles.” Chapter 22 in Enough for All Forever. Common Ground
Publishers.
Ben-Eli, M. 2018. “Sustainability: Definition and Five Core Principles: A Systems
Perspective.” Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0564-3
Biswas, A.K. 2016. “Integrated Water Resources Management: Is it working?”
Water Resources Development 24, no. 1, pp. 5–22.
Bizikova, L., D. Roy, D. Swanson, H.D. Venema, and M. McCandless. 2013. The
Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Towards a Practical Planning and Decision-
Support Framework for Landscape Investment and Risk Management. Inter-
national Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg, Canada.
Braat, L.C., ed. 2016. “Enabling Management of the Water-Food-Energy-Ecosys-
tem Services Nexus.” Journal of Ecosystem Services 17, pp. 1–308.
Buck, L.E., and I.D. Bailey. 2014. “Managing for Resilience: Framing an Inte-
grated Landscape Approach for Overcoming Chronic and Acute Food Insecu-
rity.” Eco Agriculture Partners on Behalf of the Landscapes for People, Food
and Nature Initiative. Washington, DC.
Chang, Y., G. Li, Y. Yao, L. Zhang, and C. Yu. 2016. “Quantifying the Water-
Energy-Food Nexus: Current Status and Trends.” Energies 9, no. 2, 65.
doi:10.3390/en9020065
Chen, C., I. Noble, J. Hellmann, J. Coffee, M. Murillo, and N. Chawla. 2015.
“University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index: Country Index
Technical Report.” http://gain.nd.edu/assets/254377/nd_gain_technical_

document_2015.pdf (accessed November 10, 2017).
Cloutier, S., J. Jambek, and N. Scott. 2014. “The Sustainable Neighborhoods
for Happiness Index (SHNI): A Metric for Assessing a Community’s
Sustainability and Potential Influence on Happiness.” Ecological Indicator
40, pp. 147–52.
Coopman, A., D. Osborne, and F. Ullah. 2016. “Seeing the Whole: Implementing
the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way.” A Research Pilot by Stakeholder
Forum, Bioregional, and Newcastle University. http://stakeholderforum.org/
fileadmin/files/SeeingTheWhole.ResearchPilotReportOnSDGsImplementa-
tion.pdf (accessed July 6, 2017).
Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. “What is Participatory Research?” Social
Science and Medicine 41, no. 12, pp. 1667–76.
Daher, B.T., and R.H. Mohtar. 2015. “Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus Tool
2.0: Guiding Integrative Resource Planning and Decision-Making.” Water
International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1074148 (accessed
August 28, 2016).
Daher, B.T. 2017. “Sustainability in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Bridging
Science and Policy Making.” Policy Briefing, Water International, 6, January.
Davis, S.C., D. Kauneckis, N.A. Kruse, K.E. Miller, M. Zimmer, and G.D. Dabelko.
2016. “Closing the Loop: Integrative Systems Management of Waste in Food,
Energy, and Water Systems.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences
6, pp. 1111–24.
De Blij, H. 2012. Why Geography Matters More than Ever. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Department of Energy (DOE). 2014. “The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and
Opportunities.” Overview and Summary. https://energy.gov/under-secretary-
science-and-energy/downloads/water-energy-nexus-challenges-and-opportu-
nities (accessed February 21, 2018).
Introduction • 27
Dresden Nexus Conference. 2015. State of the Nexus Approach 2015—Management

of Environmental Resources. DNC2015 Conference Report. Dresden, United
Nations University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes
and Resources (UNU-FLORES).
EcoPeace Middle East/ Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. 2017. “Water Energy Nexus.”
In A Pre-Feasibility Study for Mid-East-Water-Renewable Energy Exchanges,
eds. D. Katz and A. Shafran. Jordan: Amman.
Faeth, P., and L. Hanson. 2016. “A Research Agenda for the Energy, Water, Land,
and Climate Nexus.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6,
pp. 123–26.
Finley, J.W., and J.N. Seiber. 2014. “The Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water.”
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 62, pp. 6255–62.
Ferroukhi, R., D. Nagpal, A. Lopez-Peña, T. Hodges, R.H. Mohtar, B. Daher,
S. Mohtar, and M. Keulertz. 2015. “Renewable Energy in the Water, Energy,
and Food Nexus.” United Arab Emirates: International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) Policy Unit. Retrieved from www.irena.org/Publications
(accessed August 31, 2016).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1996. Rome
Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action.
FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014. The
Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A New Approach in Support of Food Security and
Sustainable Agriculture. FAO, Rome.
Global Adaptation Institute. 2017. http://index.gain.org/about (accessed November
2, 2017).
Global Water Systems Project (GWSP). 2014. http://wef-conference.gwsp.org/
call-to-action.html (accessed August 19, 2016).
Gutierrez, E. 1999. “Boiling Point: Issues and Problems in Water Security and
Sanitation.” A Water Aid Briefing Paper. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.581.8862&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed February 21,
2018).
Hermann, S. 2012. “Finding CLEWS.” Exploring Sustainable Energy Develop-
ments: Looking at Climate-Land-Energy-Water Interactions Methodology
and Components. Presentation at Joint ICTP-IAEA Workshop on S ustainable
Energy Development, October 1–5, 2012. Trieste, Italy. http://indico.ictp.it/
event/a11197/session/40/contribution/30/material/0/0.pdf (accessed N ovember
15, 2017).
Hoff, H. 2011. Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn 2011
Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Envi-
ronment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hsu, A., A. Lloyd, and J.W. Emerson. 2016. Environmental Performance Index.
New Haven, CT: Yale University. http://epi.yale.edu
Hurni, H., M. Giger, H. Liniger, R. Mekdaschi Studer, P, Messerli, B. Portner,
G. Schwilch, B. Wolfgramm, and T. Breu. 2015. “Soils, Agriculture and
Food Security: The Interplay Between Ecosystem Functioning and Human

Well-Being.” Environmental Sustainability 15, pp. 35–34.
International Council for Science (ICSU). 2017. “A Guide to SDG Interactions:
From Science to Implementation.” In ed. D.J. Griggs and M. Noguer. Paris:
International Council for Science.
International Energy Agency (IEA). n.d. What is Energy Security? http://iea.org/
topics/energysecurity/subtopics/whatisenergysecurity/ (accessed September
6, 2016).
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2015. “Land Tenure
Security.” Scale Up Note. https://ifad.org/documents/10180/2606bb19-45dc
-45af-8a38-a6bcfbcaec87 (accessed September 24, 2016).
Keairns, D.L., R.C. Darton, and A. Irabien. 2016. “The Energy-Water-Food Nexus.”
Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 7, pp. 239–62.
King, C.W., and M. Carbajales-Dale. 2016. “Food-Energy-Water Metrics Across
Scales: Project to System Level.” Journal of Environmental Studies and
Sciences 6, pp. 39–49.
Koch, A., A. McBratney, M. Adams, D. Field, R. Hill, J. Crawford, B. Minasny, R.
Lal, L. Abbott, A. O’Donnell, and D. Angers. 2013. “Soil Security: Solving
the Global Soil Crisis.” Global Policy. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12096
Kouper, I., and B. Plale. 2017. “Trustworthiness and Sustainability: Data Science
for Food, Energy, and Water (FEW) Nexus in the Developing Regions.”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3664/0bed1348a3688706979b92375a1d527
3f1f5.pdf (accessed March 21, 2017).
Künkel, P., S. Gerlach, V. Frieg, C. Görg, M. Ferguson, J. Kohler, and J. Herde. 2011.
Stakeholder Dialogues. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenar-
beit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany.
Le Blanc, D. 2015. “Toward integration at last? The Sustainable Development
Goals as a Network of Targets.” Sustainable Development 23, pp. 176–87.
Leck, H., D. Conway, M. Bradshaw, and J.A. Rees. 2015. “Tracing the Water-
Energy-Food Nexus: Description, Theory and Practice.” Geography Compass
9/8, pp. 445–60.
Liu, Q. 2017. “Connecting the Dots Between Water, Energy, Food and Ecosystems
Issues for Integrated Water Management in a Changing Climate.” Climate
Change Program, California Department of Water Resources. http://water.
ca.gov/climatechange/docs/2017/QLf2017FinalWhitePaper_jta_edits_fk_
format_2.pdf (accessed March 21, 2017).
McCormick, R., and L.A. Kapustka. 2016. “The Answer is 42…What is the
Question?” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6, pp. 208–213.
Maslow, A.H. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50,
pp. 370–96.
Max-Neef, M. 1991. Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and
Further Reflection. Muscat, Oman: The Apex Press.
Meadows D., D.H. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits
to Growth: A Report to the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of
Mankind. New York, NY: Universe Books.
Introduction • 29
Milѐn, A. 2001. “What Do We Know About Capacity Building?” An Overview

of Existing Knowledge and Good Practice. Geneva: Department of Health
Service Provision, World Health Organization.
Miralles-Wilhelm, F. 2016. “Development and Application of Integrative Mod-
eling Tools in Support of Food-Energy-Water Nexus Planning—A Research
Agenda.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6, no. 3, p. 10.
Mohtar, R.H., A.T. Assi, and B.T. Daher. 2015. “Bridging the Water and Food
gap: The Role of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus.” Working paper 5,
UNU-FLORES, Dresden, Germany.
Mohtar, R.H., and R. Lawford. 2016. “Present and Future of the Water-Energy-
Food Nexus and The Role of the Community of Practice.” Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences 6, pp. 192–99.
Mohtar, R.H., and B. Daher. 2016. “Water-Energy-Food Nexus Framework for
Facilitating Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue.” Water International. doi:10.1080/
02508060.2016.1149759
Mohtar, R.H., and B. Daher. 2017. “Beyond Zero Sum Game Allocations: Expand-
ing Resources Potentials Though Reduced Interdependencies and Increased
Resource Nexus Synergies.” Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 18,
pp. 84–89.
Müller, A., H. Janetschek, and J. Weigelt. 2015. “Towards a Governance Heuristic
for Sustainable Development.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustain-
ability 15, pp. 49–56.
Muscat, R.J. 2014. “Peace and Conflict: Engineering Responsibilities and Oppor-
tunities.” Proceedings of 2014 ASEE North Midwest Section Conference,
October 16–17, Iowa City, IA.
Nilsson, M., D. Griggs, and M. Visbeck. 2016. “Map the Interactions Between
Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature 534, pp. 320–22.
Nilsson, M., D. Griggs, M. Visbeck, C. Ringler, and D. McCollum. 2017. “A Frame-
work for Understanding Sustainable Development Goal Interaction.” In
A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation. International
Council for Science.
Norris, F.H., S.P. Stevens, B. Pfefferbaum, K.F. Wyche, and R.L. Pfefferbaum.
2008. “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and
Strategy for Disaster Readiness.” American Journal Community Psychology
41, pp. 27–150.
Perrone, D., J. Murphy, and G.M. Hornberger. 2011. “Gaining Perspective on the
Water-Energy Nexus at the Community Scale.” Environmental Science and
Technology 45, pp. 4228–34.
Perrone, D., and G.M. Hornberger. 2014. “Water, Food, and Energy Secu-
rity: Scrambling for Resources or Solutions?” WIREs Water 1, pp. 49–68.
doi:10.1002/wat2.1004
Rasul, G., and B. Sharma. 2016. “The Nexus Approach to Water–Energy–Food
Security: An Option for Adaptation to Climate Change.” Climate Policy 16,
no. 6, pp. 682–702.
Ringler, C., A. Bhaduri, and R. Lawford. 2013. “The Nexus Across Water, Energy,
Land and Food (WELF): Potential for Improved Resource Use Efficiency?”
Environmental Sustainability 5, pp. 617–24.
Rittel, H., and M. Webber 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.”
Policy Science 4, pp. 155–69.
Saundry, P.D. 2016. “Introduction.” Journal of Environmental Studies and
Sciences 6, pp. 1–2.
Scott, C.A., M. Kurian, and J.L. Westcoast, Jr. 2015. “The Water-Energy-Food
Nexus: Enhancing Adaptive Capacity for Complex Global Challenges.”
Chapter 2 in Governing the Nexus: Water, Soil and Waste Considering Global
Change, eds. M. Kurian and R. Ardakanian. New York, NY: Springer.
Siegel, S.M. 2015. Let there be Water: Israel’s Solution for a Water-Starved World.
New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books.
Simonovic, S.P., and H. Fahmy. 1999. “A New Modeling Approach for Water
Resources Policy Analysis.” Water Resources Research 35, no. 1, pp. 295–304.
Sohofi, S.A., A. Melkonyan, C.K. Karl, and K. Krumme. 2016. “System Arche-
types in the Conceptualization Phase of Water-Energy-Food-Nexus Model-
ing.” Proceedings of 34th International Conference of the System Dynamics
Society, Delft, The Netherlands. http://systemdynamics.org/conferences/2016/
proceed/papers/P1197.pdf (accessed September 12, 2016).
Sperling, J. May 31, 2017. Personal Communication.
Stephan, R.M., R.H. Mohtar, B. Daher, A. Embid Irujo, A. Hillers, J.C. Ganter,
L. Karlberg, L. Martin, S. Nairiz, D.J. Rodriguez, and W. Sarni. April 10,
2018. “Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A Platform for Implementing the Sustain-
able Development Goals.” Water International. https://doi.org/10.1080/0250
80060.2018.1446581
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). 2015. Indicators and
a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. http://
unsdsn.org/resources/publications/indicators/ (accessed February 19, 2016).
Tendall, D.M., J. Jörin, B. Kopainsky, P. Edwards, A. Shreck, Q.B. Le, P. Krutli,
M. Grant, and J. Six. 2015. “Food System Resilience: Defining the Concept.”
Global Food Security 6, pp. 17–23.
Tevar, A.D., H.M. Aelion, M.A. Stang, and J. Mendlovic. 2016. “The Need for
Universal Metrics in the Energy-Water-Food Nexus.” Journal of Environmen-
tal Studies and Sciences 6, pp. 225–30.
Umar, B. June 9, 2016. “Kashmir: A Water War in the Making.” The Diplomat (June 9).
https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-a-water-war-in-the-making/
(accessed February 21, 2018).
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).
1992. Agenda 21. http://un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/
Agenda21.pdf (accessed November 10, 2016).
UNDP Human Development Report (UNDP/HDR). 1990. Concepts and Measure-
ment of Human Development. New York, NY: United Nations Development
Progamme.
Introduction • 31
UNDP Human Development Report (UNDP/HDR). 1994. New Dimensions of

Human Security. New York, NY: United Nations Development Progamme.
UNDP Human Development Report (UNDP/HDR). 2011. Sustainability and Equity,
A Better Future for All. New York, NY: United Nations Development Progamme.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2013. “A Proposed
Approach to Assessing the Water-food-energy-ecosystems Nexus Under the
UNECE Water Convention.” http://unece.org/env/water/publications/pub/
second_assessment.html (accessed July 18, 2017).
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2015. “Reconciling
Resource Uses in Transboundary Basins: Assessment of the Water-Food-Energy-
Ecosystems Nexus.” http://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/
WAT_Nexus/ece_mp.wat_46_eng.pdf (accessed January 17, 2018).
United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO).
2012. Gaza in 2020: A Liveable Place? Jerusalem, Israel.
United Nations University (UNU). 1990. “Food and Energy: Strategies for Sus-
tainable Development.” http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80757e/
80757E00.htm#Contents (accessed September 7, 2016).
United Nations University (UNU-INWEH). 2013. Water Security and the Global
Water Agenda. New York, NY: A UN-Water Analytical Brief.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). 2014. “Nexus 2014: Water,
Food, Climate and Energy Conference.” http://nexusconference.web.unc.edu/
files/2014/02/schedule.pdf (accessed October 19, 2016).
von Grebmer, K., C. Ringler, M.W. Rosegrant, T. Olofinbiyi, D. Wiesmann,
H. Fritschel, O. Badiane, M. Torero, Y. Yohannes, J. Thompson, C. von Oppelin,
and J. Rahall. 2012. Global Hunger Index, the Challenge of Hunger: Ensuring
Sustainable Food Security Under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses. Bonn/
Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Voulvoulis, N. 2012. “Water and Sanitation Provision in a Low Carbon Society:
The Need for a Systems Approach.” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable
Energy 4, no. 4, p. 041403-1.
Wakeford, J., C. Kelly, and S. Mentz Lagrange. 2015. Mitigating Risks and
Vulnerabilities in the Energy-Food-Water Nexus in Developing Countries.
Stellenbosch, South Africa: Sustainability Institute.
Waughray, D., ed. 2011. Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy-Climate Nexus.
Washington, DC: The World Economic Forum Water Initiative.
Weigelt, J., H. Janetschek, A. Müller, and K. Töpfer, 2015a. “Editorial Overview:
Environmental Change Issues: Soils in the Nexus.” Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 15, pp. v–viii.
Weigelt, J., A. Müller, H. Janetschek, and K. Töpfer. 2015b. “Land and Soil Gover-
nance Towards a Transformational Post-2015 Development Agenda: An Over-
view.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 15, pp. 57–65.
Weitz, N., M. Nilsson, and M. Davis. 2014. “A Nexus Approach to the Post-
2015 Agenda: Formulating Integrated Water, Energy, and Food SDGs.” SAIS
Review of International Affairs 34, no. 2, pp. 37–50.
World Bank. 2013. “World Development Indicators.” http://data.worldbank.org/

data-catalog/world-development-indicators (accessed October 1, 2013).
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2009. Water,
Energy and Climate Change: A Contribution from the Business Community.
Washington DC.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our
Common Future. WCED, Oxford University Press.
World Economic Forum (WEF). 2011. Global Risks 2011, 6th ed. http://www3.
weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalRisks_Report_2011.pdf (accessed September
7, 2016).
Zelinka, D., and B. Amadei. 2017. “A Methodology to Model the Integrated
Nature of the Sustainable Development Goals: Importance for Engineering
Education.” Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference, Paper # 18668.
Zhang, Q., C. Prouty, J.B. Zimmerman, and J.R. Mihelcic. 2016. “More than Target
6.3: A Systems Approach to Rethinking Sustainable Development Goals in a
Resource-Scarce World.” Engineering 2, no. 4, pp. 481–89.
Index
A D
Anderson, T., 88 De Blij, H., 52
Appraisal to dynamic hypotheses Demand-side drivers, 18
formulating WELF-related
issues, 180–184 E
graphical representations, Economic and financial capacity,
184–185 172
ranking WELF-related issues, Economic and financial
185–188 information, 157
Economic systems, 179–180
B Energy accessibility, 87
Biological organism, 144 Energy availability, 87–88
Black water, 63 Energy capacity, 172
Blue water, 62 Energy security
Bonn conferences, 6 definitions, 84–86
Booth-Sweeney, Linda, 42 energy resources and, 92
Brandt Commission, 4 energy supply chain, 88–90
food and, 91–92
C indicators of, 86–87
Capacity factor, 173 indicators to measure, 120–121
Climate, definition of, 53 land/soil and, 91
Community capacity assessment, in literature, 17
173 Pardee RAND energy security
Community development story, sub-index, 87–88
36–37 water and, 90–91
Complexity-aware appraisal, 154 Engineered systems
Core data and information, critical infrastructure systems,
156–158 178–179
Critical infrastructure systems, influence and dependence,
178–179 170–171
Cross-impact analysis, 102–109, matching service and capacity,
113–116, 158, 161 171–173, 177–178
200 • Index
non-exhaustive list of structural IFAD. See International Fund for

variables, 170 Agricultural Development
technology management level, Infrastructure information, 157
173, 177 Infrastructure survey tool, 179
Environmental capacity, 172 Institutional capacity, 172
Institutional information, 157
F International Energy Agency
Feedback mechanisms, 40 (IEA), 86
Food accessibility, 98 International Fund for Agricultural
Food availability, 98 Development (IFAD), 93
Food security
agriculture and, 102 K
definitions, 96 Köppen classification system on
energy and, 101 climate, 54–57
food supply chains, 98–99
indicators and indexes of, 97 L
indicators to measure, 121–122 Land and soil security
land/soil and, 102 definitions of, 92–93
in literature, 16–17 energy and, 95
Pardee RAND food security food and, 95
sub-index, 97–98 indicators of, 94
water and, 99–100 indicators to measure, 122–123
Formulating WELF-related issues, vegetation and, 95–96
180–184 water and, 94
Landscape analysis
G boundaries of, 59–61
Geologic hazards, 161–163 characteristics of, 50–51
Global level indicators, 123 context of, 51–57
Global Risks 2011 (WEF), 4 core data and information,
Gray water, 62 156–158
Green water, 62 cross-impact analysis, 158, 161
definition of, 50
H non-exhaustive list of databases,
Health care information, 157 159–160
Human geographic information, overview of, 49–50
157 remarks of, 61
Human resources capacity, 172 scale of, 57–59
Human systems Landscape as system, 138–146
influence and dependence, biological organism, 144
163–164, 167 complex systems, 141–142
non-exhaustive list of structural definition of, 138
variables, 165–166 feedback mechanisms, 143
horizontal intra-connectivity, 140
I reasons for, 138–142
IEA. See International Energy recommendations, 145–146
Agency reverse analysis, 144
Index • 201
vertical intra-connectivity, 140 what of appraisal, 150–152

Land security, 18 where and when of appraisal,
Land tenure security, 93 153
Let there be Water (Siegel), 9 who of appraisal, 152–153
The Limits to Growth (Meadows), why of appraisal, 149–150
4 Physical geographic information,
156–157
M Powering Health (USAID), 88
Maslow, A.H., 2 The Power of Place (De Blij), 52
Meadows, D., 4 Proposed methodology
Modeling development story, 10 stages of, 37–40
42–43 additional characteristics of,
Modeling to decision making, 44–46
43–44 characteristics of, 33–36
community development story,
N 36–37
Natural hazards, 161–163 feedback mechanisms, 40
Natural systems stakeholder dynamics, 35
non-exhaustive list of structural Protective measure index (PMI),
variables, 169 179
overview of, 168
Nexus R
analyzing, 15–21 Ranking WELF-related issues,
challenging and practical 185–188
questions, 19–21 Regional level indicators, 118, 123
dynamic nature of, 18 Resilience, 18
representation of, 12–15 Resource security, 5
Reverse analysis, 144
O Rural Energy Services (Anderson),
Our Common Future (Brandt 88
Commission), 4
S
P Security across Nexus
Pardee RAND energy security cross-impact analysis, 102–109,
sub-index, 87–88 113–116
Pardee RAND food security influence and dependence across,
sub-index, 97–98 109–113
Pardee RAND Nexus security Pardee RAND Nexus security
index, 116–117 index, 116–117
Pardee RAND water security Service capacity, 172
sub-index, 68–69 Siegel, S.M., 9
Participatory landscape appraisal Simple-complex dimension, 142
beyond appraisal, 155–156 SNA. See Social network analysis
how of appraisal, 154–155 Social and cultural capacity, 172
participatory action research, Social and cultural information,
147–149 157
202 • Index
Social network analysis (SNA), security across, 102–117

167 tetrahedral representation of, 15
Soil security, 18 three-legged stool representation
Static-dynamic dimension, 142 of, 14
Supply-side drivers, 18 water security, 61–84
Sustainability, 18 Water footprint, 65, 90
Sustainability assessment tool, Water intensity, 90
73–74 Water security
Sustainable development goals definitions, 61–66
(SDGs) indicators, 66–68 energy and, 81–82
System-aware appraisal, 154 food and, 82–84
System modeling tools, 43–44 indexes and indicators, 66
indicators to measure, 119–120
T land/soil and, 82
Technical resources capacity, 172 in literature, 17
Theory of Human Motivation Pardee RAND water security
(Maslow), 2 sub-index, 68–69
Time scale, 58 sustainability of, 70–72
sustainable development goals
V (SDGs) indicators, 66–68
Vegetation, 95–96 WaterAid approach, 69
water, energy, food, and land/soil
W security, 79–81
Water accessibility, 68 water resources and, 84
Water adaptive capacity, 69 water supply chain, 72–79
WaterAid approach, 69 Water Security: The Water-Food-
Water availability, 69 Energy-Climate Nexus, 4
Water, Energy, Land and Food Water supply chain, 72–79
(WELF) nexus WEF. See World Economic Forum
energy security, 84–92 When a Butterfly Sneezes (Booth-
food security, 96–102 Sweeney), 42
indicators and performance Why Geography Matters (De Blij),
metrics, 117–124 52
land and soil security, 92–96 World Economic Forum (WEF),
landscape analysis, 49–61 4–5

Chapter 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Chapter 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

A Systems

MOMENTUM PRESS, LLC, NEW YORK

Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2019.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

First published by Momentum Press®, LLC

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-352-3 (print)

Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection

Collection ISSN: 2376-5119 (print)

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Printed in the United States of America

The proposed methodology is designed to serve as a guide for

adaptive; behavior; community; context; complexity; development

4.4 Mapping Interactions Across the Landscape 158

Figure 1.1. A three-legged stool representation of the WELF nexus. 14

Table 1.1. Double-entry table showing different forms of d­ ouble

Table 3.9. Cross-impact analysis for the seven nexus indicators

This two-volume book is a follow-up to my book titled A Systems

remains an ­intellectual exercise with no meaningful results. This book

every problem. The management and allocation of WELF resources in the

The decision-making landscape for the water-energy [land and

There is an overall agreement that rapid population, urbanization,

literature to read about the food-energy-water, the energy-water-food,

food are explicitly included in the discussion. Another important com-

A rapidly rising global population and growing prosperity are

food and energy is expected to rise by 30–50 percent in the next

The 2011 World Economic Forum was followed by the Bonn

resources (Hoff 2011, p. 11). It is also about guaranteeing populations an

• The nexus is essential to human development everywhere on the

d­ istribution, and access to these resources. A good example of how

states, regions, or river basins (UNECE 2013, 2015). Transboundary

i­nteract to affect the security of resources [as a whole],” which

the ­management and allocation of FEW/WELF resources can facil-

All insights mentioned earlier lead to the consensus in the FEW/WELF

to the FEW/WELF nexus must involve: innovative and efficient technol-

1.2 Representing and Analyzing the Nexus

1.2.1 Representing the Nexus

Table 1.1. Double-entry table showing different forms of double causality

Water Energy Land/Soil Food

Energy Energy to Energy Energy for

Food Agricultural Food, Agricultural

Figure 1.1. A three-legged stool representation of the WELF nexus.

Figure 1.2. A tetrahedral representation of the WELF-X nexus.

1.2.2 Analyzing the Nexus

Mirales-Wilhelm (2016), the characteristics of water, energy, and food can

• “The maintenance and improvement of the world’s soil resources

A second way to look at land security is to use a legal and human

• “People’s ability to control and manage land, use it, dispose

In general, water, energy, food, and land security are interconnected.

• How should context and scale be accounted for in modeling the

Answering these questions will, in general, contribute to u­ nderstanding

one-way interaction (technical assistance), two-way interaction (tech-

1.3 Book Content

This book presents an overall system-based methodology consisting of

Finally, Chapter 8 draws key conclusions on major themes addressed

Dresden Nexus Conference. 2015. State of the Nexus Approach 2015—­Management

Food ­Security: The Interplay Between Ecosystem Functioning and Human

Milѐn, A. 2001. “What Do We Know About Capacity Building?” An Overview

UNDP Human Development Report (UNDP/HDR). 1994. New Dimensions of

World Bank. 2013. “World Development Indicators.” http://data.worldbank.org/

non-exhaustive list of structural IFAD. See International Fund for

vertical intra-connectivity, 140 what of appraisal, 150–152

Social network analysis (SNA), security across, 102–117

Вам также может понравиться

4.4 Mapping Interactions Across the Landscape 158

Figure 1.1. A three-legged stool representation of the WELF nexus. 14

Table 1.1. Double-entry table showing different forms of d ouble

Table 3.9. Cross-impact analysis for the seven nexus indicators

remains an intellectual exercise with no meaningful results. This book

d istribution, and access to these resources. A good example of how

interact to affect the security of resources [as a whole],” which

the management and allocation of FEW/WELF resources can facil-

Answering these questions will, in general, contribute to u nderstanding

Dresden Nexus Conference. 2015. State of the Nexus Approach 2015—Management

Food Security: The Interplay Between Ecosystem Functioning and Human