Abstract
To mitigate the consequences of FEW interdependences and to guide policy action, decision-makers and stakeholders can benefit from using clearly developed indicators and performance metrics. This chapter presents a high-level framework to categorize FEW metrics; demonstrate how different metrics might be favored over others, and explain how metrics and models are used to inform and direct actions. Decision-making and planning are not only about numbers but also honest, clear language to communicate the science and data correctly. Metrics are useful to measure what we value and facilitate effective stakeholder communication, engagement, and decision-making around FEW activities, regulations, and targets. Metrics attempt to capture what society values and society is itself molded by the ongoing effort to bestowing the measured quantities with greater value. Well-defined metrics are crucial for the ability of stakeholders and decision-makers to sift through competing arguments for and against different FEW nexus policies. However, different stakeholders might emphasize one set of metrics over another to focus attention on what they deem most important.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See EPA 40 CFR Parts 122 and 125 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-15/pdf/2014-12164.pdf): “First, the intake flow of the cooling water intake structure is restricted, at a minimum, to a level commensurate with that which could be attained by use of a closed cycle, recirculating cooling system. Second, the design through-screen intake velocity is restricted to 0.5 fps (foot per second). Third, the total quantity of intake is restricted to a proportion of the mean annual flow of a freshwater river or stream, or to a level necessary to maintain the natural thermal stratification or turnover patterns (where present) of a lake or reservoir except in cases where the disruption is beneficial, or to a percentage of the tidal excursions of a tidal river or estuary.”
- 2.
Water withdrawal refers to water that is removed from the local environment for human purposes without consideration of whether that water is returned to the local environment in liquid form.
- 3.
Water consumption refers to the difference between water withdrawal from the local environment and the quantity of water that is returned to the local environment in liquid form. Generally, water consumption is due to evaporation and evapotranspiration or its embodiment in some product (e.g., food).
- 4.
A full description is beyond the scope of this paper. The summary here is from the latest WMP, and the differences from WMP active during the drought of 2011 are not material for this discussion.
References
Averyt, K., Fisher, J., Huber-Lee, A., Lewis, A., Macknick, J., Madden, N., Rogers, J., & Tellinghuisen, S. (2011). Freshwater use by U.S. power plants: Electricity’s thirst for a precious resource. A report of the energy and water in a warming world initiative. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
BEA. (2018). Table 2.3.5. Personal consumption expenditures by major type of product. National Income and Product Accounts, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved from https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey.
Boulay, A., Bare, J., De Camillis, C., Döll, P., Gassert, F., Gerten, D., Humbert, S., Inaba, A., Itsubo, N., Lemoine, Y., Margni, M., Motoshita, M., Núñez, M., Pastor, A., Ridoutt, B., Schencker, U., Shirakawa, N., Vionnet, S., Worbe, S., Yoshikawa, S., & Pfister, S. (2015). Consensus building on the development of a stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: Outcome of the expert workshops. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(5), 577–583.
Daly, D. (2013). A further critique of growth economics. Ecological Economics, 88, 20–24.
Diehl, T. H., & Harris, M. A. (2014). Withdrawal and consumption of water by thermoelectric power plants in the United States, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5184 (p. 28), https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20145184.
Heijungs, R., & Suh, S. (2002). The computational structure of life cycle assessment, eco-efficiency in industry and science (Vol. 11). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., & Guinée, J. B. (2014). Maximizing affluence within the planetary boundaries. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(6), 1331–1335.
Heun, M. K., Carbajales-Dale, M. K., & Haney, B. R. (2015). Beyond GDP: National accounting in the age of resource depletion (Lecture notes in energy) (Vol. 26). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
ISO. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html.
King, C. W. (Ed.). (2014). Thermal power plant cooling: Context and engineering. New York: ASME.
King, C. W. (2015). The rising cost of resources and global indicators of change. American Scientist, 103(6), 410. Retrieved from https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-rising-cost-of-resources-and-global-indicators-of-change.
King, C. W., Duncan, I. J., & Webber, M. E. (2008). Water demand projections for power generation in Texas. Report prepared for the Texas Water Development Board contract no. 0704830756. Retrieved from http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/data/socio/est/Final pwr.pdf.
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, I., Jackson, T., & Aylmer, C. (2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecological Economics, 93(C), 57–68.
Lawn, P. A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 105–118.
Lower Colorado River Authority. (2014). Exhibit A: Technical papers. In Proposed revised water management plan, with appendices. Technical report. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/water-management-plan-for-lower-colorado-river-basin/Documents/2014-wmp-application-files/AppendixA_TechPapers_2014Oct_FINAL.pdf.
Lower Colorado River Authority. (n.d.). Water management plan. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/water-management-plan-for-lower-colorado-river-basin/Pages/default.aspx.
Malewitz, J. (2015). Water ruling cuts state’s power in droughts. Texas Tribune. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/02/huge-water-ruling-court-sides-ranchers/.
Malewitz, J. (2016). Major water case, win for ranchers is loss for cities. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/19/major-water-case-win-farmers-loss-cities/.
Matthews, E., Amann, C., Bringezu, S., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Hüttler, W., Kleijn, R., Moriguchi, Y., Ottke, C., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D., et al. (2000). The weight of Nations: Material outflows from industrial economies. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://pdf.wri.org/weight_of_nations.pdf.
Maupin, M. A., Kenny, J. F., Hutson, S. S., Lovelace, J. K., Barber, N. L., & Linsey, K. S. (2014). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1405. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/.
Meadows, D. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. Report to the Balton Group, The Sustainability Institute, Hartland Four Corners, Vermont.
Nielsen-Gammon, J. W. (2011). The 2011 Texas drought, a briefing packet for the Texas legislature, October 31, 2011. A report of the Office of the State Climatologist.
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2008). NEI fact sheet: Water consumption at nuclear power plants. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/03/nei-fact-sheet-on-water-consumption-at.html.
Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (2013). The shoe fits, but the footprint is larger than earth. PLoS Biology, 11(11), e1001701.
Rockström, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472.
Slesser, M. (1974). Energy Analysis Workshop on Methodology and Conventions: 25th–30th August, 1974, Guldsmedshyttan, Sweden. Stockholm: IFIAS.
Solley, W. B., Pierce, R. R., & Perlman, H. A. (2009). Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1200.
Stillwell, A. S., King, C. W., Webber, M. E., Duncan, I. J., & Hardberger, A. (2010). The energy-water nexus in Texas. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 2. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art2/.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2013). Suspensions of permitted state surface water diversions in the Brazos River Basin. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/response/drought/water-right-letters/07-02-13Brazos-domestic.pdf.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2018a). Texas river basins maps. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/data/maps.html.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2018b). Water availability models. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/water_rights/wr_technical-resources/wam.html.
Texas Water Development Board. (n.d.). A Texans guide to water and water rights marketing. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/infosheets/doc/WaterRightsMarketingBrochure.pdf.
United Nations. (1993). Integrated environmental and economic accounting: Interim version (Studies in methods) (Vol. 61). New York: United Nations.
United Nations. (n.d.). The human right to water and sanitation. Media Brief. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Further Reading
Daly, H. (1999). Uneconomic growth and the built environment: In theory and in fact. Reshaping the built environment: Ecology, ethics and economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), 570–574.
Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2007). Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 35–48.
Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., & Mekonnen, M. M. (2011). The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard. Enschede, The Netherlands: Water Footprint Network.
King, C. W., & Webber, M. E. (2008). Water intensity of transportation. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(21), 7866. https://doi.org/10.1021/es800367m.
Kounina, A., et al. (2013). Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(3), 707–721.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carbajales-Dale, M., King, C.W. (2020). Metrics. In: Saundry, P., Ruddell, B. (eds) The Food-Energy-Water Nexus. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29914-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29914-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29913-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29914-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)