Abstract
Water, energy and food are important for human survival and sustainable development. With climate change, investigating climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food nexus has been a topic of growing interest in recent years. However, there is a lack of a systematic review of the current state and methodologies of Water-Energy-Food nexus studies under climate change. Here, we review research articles investigating climate change impacts on Water-Food, Water-Energy and Water-Energy-Food nexus over last seven years. The existing methods and tools, spatial scales, and future climate scenarios setting in these articles are summarised and analysed. We found that the analyses methods could be divided into four categories (physics-based modelling, statistical methods, supervised learning and operation optimisation), among them, physics-based modelling accounts for the largest proportion. The reviewed studies cover a range of scales from site scale to global, with most studies focusing on the regional scale. Models used for small to middle scale are mainly related to hydrology and water resource, while large-scale modelling is based on interdisciplinary models. Future climate scenarios setting include emission scenarios and global warming scenarios based on Global Climate Models (GCMs). A number of future research challenges have been identified. These include spatial scale and resolution, internal physical mechanism, application of novel artificial intelligence models, extreme climate events, potential competition in nexus systems as well as data and model uncertainty.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Water, energy and food are three essential resources that human beings depend upon for survival and development. These three resources are interconnected in complex ways (Liang et al. 2020), necessitating a holistic approach to their evaluation. The Water-Energy-Food nexus concept was formally introduced in the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference (Hoff 2011) as an integrated system that encapsulates the interdependencies between water, energy and food (Conway et al. 2015; Scanlon et al. 2017).
The global temperature is likely to increase to 4.8℃ by 2100 compared to 1995–2014 in the high-emission scenario (IPCC 2021). The increased temperature may lead to more frequent extreme and compound events such as heatwaves and long-term droughts, which could significantly affect constrain food production and energy generation. Climate change may pose great uncertainties and risks to water security, energy security and food security in the future. Therefore, understanding climate change impacts on water, energy and food is crucial for achieving the SDG6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG7 (affordable and clean energy) and SDG2 (zero hunger) (Liu et al. 2018; UN 2018).
Significant efforts have been made to explore and evaluate the Water-Energy-Food nexus via various approaches (de Amorim et al. 2018; D’Odorico et al. 2018; Endo et al. 2020). Mannan et al. (2018) identified the capabilities and hindrances of applying the Life Cycle assessment on Water-Energy-Food nexus. Zhang et al. (2018) discussed the pros and cost of eight quantitative methods. Albrecht et al. (2018) emphasised the importance of integrating quantitative and qualitative methods with social science in studies that incorporate multiple methods. Zhang et al. (2019a) categorised eleven existing nexus methods and tools into three types according to research purposes. Namany et al. (2019) introduced three dynamic decision-making tools and proposed application examples during three decision-making process stages.
However, none of those reviews has analysed the methods and tools used for investigating climate change impacts to water, energy, and food. Several questions remain unanswered: What are existing state-of-the-art analytical methods and tools for studying Water-Energy-Food under climate change? Which ones are more widely used? What are their features and limitations? What is the focus of related research on different spatial scales and topics? How should models be selected according to research topic and spatial scale? How does the related research consider climate change scenarios? What are future prospects?
To address these questions, we have reviewed and analysed research articles published over the past seven years that investigated climate change impacts on Water-Food, Water-Energy and Water-Energy-Food nexus. Promising methods frequently used in each type of study, topics and models for different spatial scales, and climate change scenarios setting methods are identified and discussed. The research challenges and limitations are identified, suggesting potential directions for future research in the domain of Water-Energy-Food interactions under climate change.
2 Methods
We searched peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject of climate change in the Web of Science database that were published after 2017 and related to Water-Food, Water-Energy and Water-Energy-Food. The article selection procedure followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, Page et al. 2021), and the flow chart of the selection process is shown in Fig. 1.
2.1 Review Process
In Web of Science, we used ‘climate change’, ‘water’, ‘food’ and’irrigation’ as the keywords to search the abstract, title and keywords of publications between 2017 and 2022, 1676 articles were found. By replacing the keywords with ‘climate change’, ‘soil moisture’ and ‘crop yield’, 1155 articles were selected; when searching keywords ‘climate change impacts on water and energy’, 5728 articles were found; and 2415 articles were listed through keywords ‘climate change’, ‘water’, ‘energy’ and ‘food’. Altogether, 10,974 articles were selected after the initial search.
2.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Articles that met all the following criteria were selected: (1) they contain Water-Food, Water-Energy or Water-Energy-Food, but do not consider water, energy or food separately; (2) the consider climate change impacts; and (3) they use quantitative analytical tools or models for assessment. Besides, eleven articles published in 2023 were added during the revision of the paper.
Based on these criteria, we obtained 45 articles related to Water-Food and climate change, identified 64 articles studying climate change impacts on Water-Energy, and selected 36 articles about climate change and Water-Energy-Food nexus. Thus, a total of 145 articles were identified as suitable.
2.3 Information Extraction
After full-text reading of the 145 relevant articles, we extracted the following information: (1) the purpose of the study (2) the scale of study area; (3) methods used in the study area, based on statistical methods, physics-based modelling, supervised learning or operation optimisation; (4) whether the article used models, combined multiple models or used a single model; (5) whether the article claimed a new method; (6) whether there was a simulation under future scenarios and how the scenarios were set up; and (7) characteristics, major challenges and limitations in the application of methods and models.
3 Diversity of Nexus Methods
Numerous and diverse methods have been used or proposed for evaluating climate change impacts on Water-Food, Water-Energy and Water-Energy-Food nexus. while some studies have combined multiple methods. In this review, we divided the approaches into four categories: Statistical methods, Physics-based modelling, Supervised learning and Operation optimisation.
Methods based on statistics such as formula calculations, regression and statistical tests were grouped into Statistical methods; methods using models based on the representation of physical mechanisms were grouped into Physics-based modelling; methods using machine learning to do simulation were classified into Supervised learning; and methods using optimisation algorithm to determine optimal solution under constraints were classified into Operation optimisation.
3.1 Water-Food Nexus Analysis Methods
In the Water-Food nexus research, 53% of studies (24 of 45) used statistical methods, 64% (29 of 45) used physics-based modelling methods and 9% (4 of 45) used operation optimisation methods. We tabulate and categorise Water-Food analytical methods and tools from the selected 45 articles based on method categorisation and discipline in Table 1.
Studies investigating the influence of climate change on Water-Food nexus mainly focused on how climate change may impact water availability for irrigation, soil moisture and crop yield. Most Water-Food studies utilised multiple methods or coupled models from different disciplines. The input data of the models were commonly multidisciplinary from the areas of meteorology (precipitation, temperature, wind speed, humidity, solar radiation, etc.), environment (CO2 concentration, etc.), geospatial (vegetation, landuse, etc.), economics (GDP, etc.) and society (population, etc.).
Generally, in model coupling studies, a hydrological model was used to simulate runoff or soil moisture, and an agricultural model or a statistical calculation method was used to calculate irrigation water requirements and parameters related to crop yields. For example, Akoko et al. (2020) used Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to estimate the current and future water resources availability and Cropwat to calculate irrigation water requirements. Meanwhile, many interdisciplinary models were developed to study the Water-Food nexus. Blanc et al. (2017) integrated water resources model and a crop yield reduction module into the Integrated Global System Modelling framework (IGSM) to assess the influence of climate and socioeconomic changes on irrigation water availability as well as subsequent impacts on crop yields by 2050. Malek et al. (2018) integrated a process-based irrigation module into VICCropSyst to assess the influence of climate change on irrigation losses.
Some model-based studies only utilised a single discipline model or a series of equations. This kind of research mostly focused on soil moisture, irrigation and crop parameters rather than simulations of water availability. He et al. (2021) projected the amount of agricultural water for food production during peak population period (2029–2033) based on a series of equations including FAO’s Penman–Monteith equation. Jha et al. (2020) utilised DSSAT to project the changes in rice yield, water demand and phenological growth due to climate change.
A small number of studies did not use or depend on models but used statistical methods to analyse climate change impacts on Water-Food nexus. Zhang et al. (2020) distinguished the different effects of climate change, planted area crop mix on irrigation water demand based on the LMDI method. Kirby et al. (2017) analysed the historical trends of water use, crop production, food availability and population growth, and project them forward to 2050. Madadgar et al. (2017) developed a multivariate probabilistic model to estimate the probability distribution of crop yields under projected climate conditions.
Operation optimisation methods were less used in the climate change impacts on Water-Food studies, in which more studies using nonlinear optimisation framework (Mitchell et al. 2017; Gohar and Cashman 2018). These studies optimised water or food related strategies under climate change conditions.
3.2 Water-Energy Nexus Analysis Methods
In the Water-Energy nexus research, 33% of studies (21 of 64) used statistical methods, 92% (59 of 64) used physics-based modelling methods, 25% (16 of 64) used operation optimisation methods, and 9% (6 of 64) used supervised learning methods. Most studies utilised models and hydrological models accounted for a large part. The catalogue of Water-Energy analytical methods and tools from the selected 64 articles are tabulated and categorised based on method categorization and discipline in Table 2.
Studies analysing climate change impacts on Water-Energy mainly focused on hydropower. Hydropower is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to its direct dependence on the timing and magnitude of streamflow. Most studies projected future hydropower generation to evaluate how climate change will affect energy production, or optimised the reservoir operation schemes to minimise the impacts of climate change on streamflow. Generally, hydrological models or supervised learning were adopted to simulate and project future streamflow/inflow to hydropower reservoirs, then energy models or equations were employed to calculate potential hydropower generation, optimisation algorithms or water management models were employed to solve the optimal reservoir operation. For example, Rahmati et al. (2021) simulated future runoff with Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and optimised hydropower generation by Grasshopper Optimisation Algorithm (GOA). Guo et al. (2021) used Genetic Algorithm (GA) to solve the robust optimisation model with the inflows simulated by SWAT under climate and land use change scenarios in the future. Anghileri et al. (2018) contributed a modelling framework combining hydrological modelling, hydropower modelling and multi-objective optimisation technique to assess climate change and energy policies impacts on the operations of hydropower reservoir systems in the Alps.
Meanwhile, a small number of studies used interdisciplinary models to study Water-Energy nexus. Miara et al. (2017) simulated river discharge and temperature as well as electricity generation under climate change using the coupled Water Balance Model and Thermoelectric Power and Thermal Pollution Model (WBM TP2M). Graham et al. (2020) utilised Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) to investigate the relative contributions of climate and human systems on water scarcity regionally and globally.
3.3 Water-Energy-Food Nexus Analysis Methods
There are relatively fewer selected studies about evaluating climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food nexus. In the selected research, 36% of studies (13 of 36) used statistical methods, 78% (28 of 36) used physics-based modelling methods, 36% (13 of 36) used operation optimisation methods, and 6% (2 of 36) used supervised learning. Most studies evaluated climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food through physics-based modelling, among them most utilised interdisciplinary models with the proportion of 44%. Besides, many studies in Water-Energy-Food utilised operation optimisation method. The catalogue of Water-Energy-Food analytical methods and tools from the selected 36 articles are tabulated and categorised in Table 3.
Studies investigating climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food nexus can be divided into three categories: (1) simulations of future Water-Energy-Food nexus change under future climate change scenarios, (2) optimal management options for mitigating future climate change impacts, (3) historical attribution or trend analysis of climate change impacts.
For future simulation research, studies generally utilised interdisciplinary models or coupled different models from multiple disciplines. Sridhar et al. (2021) presented an integrated modelling framework combining Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) and System Dynamics (SD) model for analysing the impacts of future climate on irrigation, hydropower, and other supply and demand through a feedback loop. Yang et al. (2018) adopted a two-way coupled agent-based model (ABM-SWAT) to evaluate the water availability for irrigation, hydropower generation, and riverine ecosystem health under joint effect of climate change and water infrastructure development.
Operation optimisation research mainly focused on addressing complex contradictions of Water-Energy-Food nexus to find an optimal strategy and aid sustainable development. Optimisation programming was used in this kind of research, sometimes combining physics-based modelling, supervised learning or statistical methods. Yuan et al. (2018) integrated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and linear programming to assess the feasibility of bioenergy and consider future circumstances under climate change impacts. Giuliani et al. (2022) combined HBV hydrological model, ANN and evolutionary multi-objective direct policy search method to demonstrate how local dynamics across Water-Energy-Food systems are impacted by climate change mitigation policies.
Research focused on historical trend utilised statistical methods to analyse datasets. Barik et al. (2017) investigated the Water-Energy-Food nexus in India under drought and monsoon rainfall in the last few decades based on GLDAS and GRACE data.
4 Studies for Different Spatial Scales
According to spatial scale of study area, these selected studies were categorised into large scale studies and small to middle scale studies. The research objectives and typical models of each scale and topic of research are summarised in Table 4. The selected studies related to Water-Food and Water-Energy occupy a higher proportion, while research on water-energy-food is relatively less. This is because the research on this topic involves more interdisciplinary science, so related research is not easy to conduct. Besides there were fewer studies of water-energy-food at global and national scales than at regional scales, because the larger the study area, the more complex the water-energy-food nexus is, the access to the required data also becomes more difficult.
Water-Energy-Food studies at the global scale focused on the competition for water between energy and food. The interlinkages between water, energy and food sectors were explored more in small to middle scale studies. Meanwhile, there were many more optimisations and policy scenarios in research at the regional scale. The Water-Energy research at large scale mainly focused on the impacts of river flow on potential hydropower production, while the optimisation of hydropower system operation is also concerned at small-middle scale research. The focuses of Water-Food research at large and small-middle scale were similar, mainly investigating the water management and crop production strategies. Local water, energy and food management strategies may not be applicable to other regions, so the trade-off between water, energy and food under climate change and the strategies for sustainable development at a larger scale still require continuous efforts from the academic community.
The findings on the global scale may inform future research at different scales. For Water-Energy research, roughly 65% of the world’s current hydropower capacity will face vulnerabilities due to alterations in the 1-in-100-year river flow pattern (Paltán et al. 2021), the most prominent encompassing Europe, northern Africa, the Middle East, and North America (Turner et al. 2017; Paltán et al. 2021). Pursuing a 1.5 °C warming target would mitigate these risks when contrasted with a 2.0 °C scenario (Paltán et al. 2021). For Water-Food research, a projected food deficit might occur prior to 2050 in the scenario of the worst-case climate change, significant water shortages stemming from irrigation in major food-producing nations will hinder these countries from satisfying their domestic food needs (Grafton et al. 2017). An expansion of irrigated land by 100 Mha would be necessary to double food production to meet the projected global food demands by 2050, and an additional 10% to 20% of trade flow will be required, directing water-abundant regions toward water-scarce regions, to maintain environmental flow requirements (Pastor et al. 2019). Expanding irrigation will lead to increased maize production in Europe, but the same cannot be said for rice production in East Asia (Okada et al. 2018). In a scenario of 3 °C warming, a "soft-path" approach with small water storage and deficit irrigation can extend irrigated land by 70 Mha and feed additional 300 million people worldwide, a "hard-path" with substantial annual water storage has the potential to expand irrigation up to 350 Mha and feed 1.4 billion more people (Rosa et al. 2020). The regions that heavily rely on snowmelt as an agricultural water resource are high-mountain regions like the Tibetan Plateau, Central Asia, western Russia, the western United States, and the southern Andes (Qin et al. 2020b). For Water-Energy-Food research, water scarcity reductions driven by human is likely to result in 44% of land area in the world by the end of twenty-first century in certain socioeconomic scenarios (Graham et al. 2020). An additional 1.7 billion people could potentially experience severe water shortages for electricity, industrial use, and household needs if priority becomes for food production and maintaining environmental flow (de Vos et al. 2021).
4.1 Models for Medium to Small Spatial Scale
Watershed hydrological models can be categorised into three types: (1) conceptual models, (2) physics-based models, and (3) data driven models. Conceptual hydrological models are based on physical basis but are in highly simplified forms, they also have the characteristics of statistical regression models (e.g., HBV and Xinanjiang model). The biggest limitation is that they treat the watershed as a whole, ignoring the heterogeneity of spatially distributed watershed characteristic parameters (Devia et al. 2015). Physics-based models adopt spatially varied parameters to reflect the physical mechanism of hydrological process influenced by multiple factors (e.g., SWAT and HEC-HMS). The data-driven models establish statistical relationships between input and output. They work well at the data range, but the simulation performance degrades when applied to epitaxial projection because of the lack of physical basis. Over the past decade, a cutting-edge machine learning methodology, named deep learning, has evolved from the traditional neural network and has outperformed traditional models with considerable improvement in performance (Yuan et al. 2020). However, deep learning cannot completely replace the physics-based models, and the combination of physics-based models and deep learning may open a promising door (Yuan et al. 2020).
Water management models aim to optimise water allocation to fulfil the demands from multiple sectors. Many selected studies established optimisation frameworks for planning and management of water resources. There were some studies employing existing water management models directly, among which WEAP and HEC-ResSim were most used. Crop models are used to simulate crop growth, DSSAT and CropSyst are typical and most common used crop models in selected studies. TIMES and LEAP were relatively frequently employed in investigating climate change impacts on water and energy. Interdisciplinary models like ABM, SD model and WEF Nexus Tool 2.0 were utilised in the Water-Energy-Food nexus studies.
4.2 Models for Large Spatial Scale
Global hydrological models consider more land surface processes like recycling of evapotranspiration. The approach integrates knowledge from multiple disciplines encompassing atmospheric sciences, geography, ecology, oceanography, soil science, global change science, etc. All global hydrological models run in a grid format (Sood and Smakhtin 2015). Typical global-scale hydrological models used in selected studies include WBM, VIC, WaterGAP and LPJmL. Different models have different emphases and characteristics. For example, WaterGAP model is more detailed in water demand simulation including water use for domestic, industry, thermal power production, livestock and irrigation (Döll et al. 2003). LPJmL model puts more emphasis on vegetation and crop simulations (Bondeau et al. 2007). High degree of uncertainty and rough resolution are main limitations of global hydrological models (Sood and Smakhtin 2015).
In selected global-scale studies investigating climate change impacts on Water-Food, GCWM and GFWS were utilised. GCWM mainly focuses on blue and green consumptive water use as well as virtual water of 23 specific crops (Siebert and Döll 2010). GFWS puts more attention on global food and irrigated water availability risks through simulation of food generation and demand, water supply and agricultural water requirement (Grafton et al. 2015).
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are important tools to evaluate human feedback and impacts on climate change and mitigation of greenhouse gases (Schwanitz 2013). The IGSM framework consists primarily of two interacting components (Sokolov et al. 2018): the Economic Projection and Policy Analysis model and the Earth System model. GCAM links water, energy, landuse, earth systems and economics to analyse consequences of policy strategies and interdependencies. IMAGE simulates interactions between biosphere, society and the climate system to assess environmental and sustainable development issues. Delimitation of the system, explanatory power of models, as well as linkage of model evaluation and usefulness are the main challenges for IAMs (Schwanitz 2013).
5 Future Climate Scenarios Setting Methods
Most selected research assessed and projected future water, energy and food systems based on future climate change models. The emission scenarios, climate models, downscaling methods and global warming scenarios in selected articles are summarised and introduced below.
5.1 Emissions Scenarios
For climate change impacts assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published Assessment Reports (AR) on climate change based on greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Future climate projections in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, IPCC 2007) were based on Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, IPCC 2000) and simulations of the third phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3, Meehl et al. 2005). SRES was superseded by Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) in the IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5, IPCC 2014) based on the CMIP5 (Taylor et al. 2012).
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, IPCC 2021) assessed the future climate outcomes based on the combination of socio-economic (SSP1-SSP5) and future radiative forcing scenarios (1.9 to 8.5 W/m2), which called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). The latest SSPs can quantitatively describe the relationship between socioeconomic development and global climate change to reflect the climate change challenges that society will face in the future (Eyring et al. 2016). Basically, some older studies (generally in 2017 and 2018) used SRES of CIMIP3 models. Most selected studies utilised RCPs of CMIP5 models. Some post-2020 studies were starting to use SSPs from CMIP6.
5.2 Climate Models and Downscaling Methods
Global climate model (GCM) is capable and useful for projecting future climate (Overland et al. 2011). Many research institutions have developed GCMs based on their own experiment assumptions and mathematical representations of physical climate system.
Studies at global scale in this review inputted GCMs directly into global models to project climate change impacts (Turner et al. 2017; Pastor et al. 2019). However, GCMs are generally insufficient to provide useful climate predictions on the local to regional scales because of relatively coarse resolution and significant uncertainties in the modelling process (Allen and Ingram 2002; Dibike and Coulibaly 2005). When the climate change impacts studies are carried out at local and regional scales, downscaling methods have been developed to overcome the mismatch of spatial resolution between GCMs and models (Hwang and Graham 2013).
Downscaling techniques are categorised by two approaches (Hwang and Graham 2013):
-
1.
Statistical downscaling using the empirical relationship between GCMs simulated features at the grid scale and surface observations at the sub-grid scale. For example, Bias-Correction Spatial Disaggregation (BCSD, e.g., Zhao et al. 2022) and the Statistical Downscaling Model (SDSM, e.g., Goodarzi et al. 2020) were employed to downscale GCMs in the selected studies.
-
2.
Dynamic downscaling using regional climate models (RCMs) based on physical relations between the climate parameters at large and smaller scale.
Most selected articles using dynamic downscaling method generally applied results from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX). CORDEX was to create an enhanced modelling framework for generating climate projections at regional scales, enabling impact assessments and adaptation studies globally within the IPCC AR5 (Giorgi et al. 2022).
5.3 Global Warming Scenarios
The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015) aims to keep global mean surface air temperature increasing below 2℃ relatives to pre-industrial levels and targets to limit it to 1.5℃. Some articles simulated future Water-Food or Water-Energy under global warming 1.5℃, 2℃, 3℃ or 4℃ (Donk et al. 2018; Sylla et al. 2018; Meng et al. 2020; Qin et al. 2020b; Rosa et al. 2020; Zhao et al. 2021b). These studies utilised two approaches (James et al. 2017) to assess the regional implications of different degrees of warming: (1) time sampling; (2) pattern scaling.
In time sampling approach, the global warming scenarios are derived by extracting a period of time (usually 30 years) when the driving climate model projects an increase of specified degrees (e.g., 1.5℃ and 2℃) of warming compared to the pre-industrial level (Sylla et al. 2018).
Pattern scaling assumes the relationship between global mean temperature and local change is linear (Huntingford and Cox 2000; Mitchell 2003; James et al. 2017). These patterns can scale changes in global mean annual temperature to local and seasonal changes for climate variables by linear regressions (Qin et al. 2020b).
6 Directions of Future Research and Prospects
Future challenges in climate change and nexus research are identified from five aspects: (1) scale and resolution of study area; (2) internal physical mechanism; (3) extreme climate events; (4) potential competition between sectors; (5) data and model uncertainty.
6.1 Scale and Resolution of Study Area
Most selected studies related to climate change impacts on Water-Food generally focused on watershed, regional and national scale, the analyses not only focused on temporal differences but also spatial difference according to different geographical resolution. In contrast, studies investigating climate change impacts on Water-Energy mainly analysed hydropower, therefore, results were generally shown within hydropower plants, dams and reservoirs without spatial difference. Evaluation studies of climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food nexus mainly focused on basin and regional scale, the analysis put water, energy, and food into a whole system, but the spatial resolution was often ignored.
It is of great significance for local sustainability management and decision-making to study climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food on basin and regional scale, but the results may be limited by the boundaries of the study area. For example, the simulated streamflow at the outlet of the study basin is not necessarily the amount of water available in the basin because the water demands in the downstream regions should be considered. The absence of water, energy and food scheduling with other regions may have effects on inaccurate supply and demand simulations, further resulting in inaccurate management strategies. The water transport routes of water resources are sometimes cross-watershed. For example, reservoirs or weirs provide for agriculture, industry, or domestic use through their own pipeline systems. With the impact of climate change, economic globalization and other strong human activities, local Water-Energy-Food nexus is bound to be influenced by global hydrological cycle and non-local human activities. It requires scholars to understand local nexus relationships from a large-scale perspective.
Meanwhile, considering climate change has obvious spatial differences, and the response speed of different regions to climate change is also different, the climate change impacts study on Water-Energy-Food nexus with geographical resolution can show spatial difference of water, energy, food change due to climate change and provide a better reference for sustainability management.
6.2 Internal Physical Mechanisms in Modelling
Most of the studies about evaluating climate change impacts on Water-Food and Water-Energy considered hydrological processes based on physical mechanisms. Research on Water-Energy-Food and climate change impacts consisted of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary analysis, while the complexity of the system leads to the simplification of many physical mechanisms. Many mathematical or data-driven models were used for investigating climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food, but the lack of internal physical mechanisms cannot well explain the interactive process between water, energy and food to climate change.
Future research needs to understand the interlinkages and internal physical mechanisms of the nexus sectors and climate change. Meanwhile, science and policy should be integrated to reveal the dynamics of natural processes along with social processes.
6.3 Novel Artificial Intelligence Models
Many selected studies employed Artificial Intelligence (AI) in simulation and operation optimisation. Feedforward and feedback neural networks were used for simulation. Most selected studies used programming and meta-heuristic algorithms, and a small number used reinforcement learning for operation optimisation. In recent years, with the rapid development of AI, many novel AI models have been proposed repeatedly. These AI models will provide a feasible direction for these complex interdisciplinary sciences. For example, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) was developed by combining traditional reinforcement learning with deep learning, and it is capable of handling high-dimensional states and actions (Mnih et al. 2015). DRL has been applied for optimal hydropower reservoir operation (Xu et al. 2020), irrigation optimisation (Alibabaei et al. 2022) and water-energy-food nexus security assessment (Raya-Tapia et al. 2023). The application of DRL on complex water-energy-food system under climate change is still to be investigated.
6.4 Extreme Climate Events
Most projections of future nexus were generally based on temporal continuous climate change scenarios, only few reviewed studies have considered extreme weather events. Climate change will increase the intensity, frequency and spatial extent of extreme climate events (Hasegawa et al. 2021) and compound hazards (Zscheischler et al. 2018). More frequent and extreme events will cause disruptions in the management of water, energy, and food (Núñez-López et al. 2022). For example, relative to moderate-level climate change, an additional 20–36% population may face hunger under a 1-in-100 yr extreme climate event under RCP8.5 (Hasegawa et al. 2021). Compound hazards will cause devastating impacts at a scale far beyond any single disaster in isolation (Zscheischler et al. 2018). For example, increasing compound drought–heatwave risks may affect 90% of the global population and gross domestic product in the future (Yin et al. 2023). Considering the water, energy and food relationship under extreme climate events in any future studies has an important role in developing strategies to ensure water, energy and food security.
6.5 Potential Competition Between Sectors
Previous studies related to climate change impacts on Water-Food and Water-Energy did not consider competition between subsystems because there was no/limited competition between two sectors in early days. When considering three sectors together, competition arises. Competition for water between food and energy sectors is an important part of the Water-Energy-Food nexus (Qin 2021). The competitive relationship is not conducive to the sustainable development. For example, the average total production water footprint in 31 provinces of the Chinese Mainland in the Industry Competition Unsustainability scenario reached 4.08 m3/kg in 2016 (Hua et al. 2022). Considering the economic and social situation, energy production is more profitable than food, so water flows easily into the energy sector. Especially in the context of climate change, water availability is greatly affected. How to ensure food and energy security within limited water resources context should be considered in any future studies.
6.6 Data and Model Uncertainty
In the evaluation of climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food, numerous data from multiple disciplines including meteorology, agriculture, environment, hydrology, economics, society are needed. The use of different data sets, mismatch of data resolution, the varying quality and availability of data (Perrone et al. 2011), and assumptions and simplifications introduced to deal with data scarcity could lead to very different results. High uncertainty may be caused to exert negative impacts on the nexus analysis and even misrepresent the interactions among nexus sectors (Zhang et al. 2018). What is more, models and analysis tools also introduce uncertainty. Downscaling of future meteorological data, numerous parameters in modelling, limited understanding of nexus processes, the intrinsic indeterminism of complex dynamic systems, and myriad future scenarios will bring uncertainty into final results, making it difficult to identify an optimal policy choice (Gallopín et al. 2001; Antón et al. 2013; Yung et al. 2019).
Endeavours should be made in future studies to identify, analyse and reduce uncertainty in data use and modelling for nexus research to increase the reliability of projection results and build capacity for decision-making in the context of uncertainty.
7 Conclusions
This paper provides a systematic review on the analytical approaches in the evaluation of climate change impacts on Water-Food, Water-Energy and Water-Energy-Food. The key findings are summarised as below:
-
1.
Analytical methodologies used in selected research can be classified into four categories: Statistical methods, Physics-based modelling, Supervised learning and Operation optimisation. Catalogues of methods used in the evaluation of climate change impacts on Water-Food, Water-Energy and Water-Energy-Food are listed respectively based on the classification (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). Such catalogues are helpful to clearly show popular and promising methods in selected studies.
-
2.
The focus of research on different topics at different scales are discussed. Large scale and medium-small scale models are introduced in terms of their characteristics, limitations, providing references for selection of models and issues to consider when using the models. Some models are applicable for different scales but there is no single model suitable for all scales. The classification and discussion of topics and models is helpful to provide guidance on appropriate model selection by considering research scales, objectives and themes (Water-Food, Water-Energy and Water-Energy-Food).
-
3.
Future climate scenarios setting including emission scenarios, climate models, downscaling methods and global warming scenarios are summarised. Climate scenarios are important for simulating interactions between water, energy and food under various future climate change conditions, as well as exploring the effectiveness of mitigation measures or policies. The study has provided references for the setting of climate scenarios and processing of future meteorological data in future research.
-
4.
Despite significant efforts were made in investigating climate change impacts on Water-Energy-Food, limitations of current research still exist, and the challenges for future study are discussed. Current studies do not adequately address the uncertainties generated by data and models. Research about extreme climate events and potential competition in nexus systems is not sufficient. Efforts can be made in the internal physical mechanisms analysis, application of novel artificial intelligence models and spatial differences analysis of nexus issues.
Data Availability
The data sources are listed in the ‘Selected articles’ in References, some articles are not cited in the manuscript but are selected for review (Carvajal et al. 2017; Solaun and Cerda 2017; Yin et al. 2017; Bieber et al. 2018; Gaudard et al. 2018; Hasan and Wyseure 2018; Gohar et al. 2019; Ortiz-Bobea 2019; Rigden et al. 2020; Beltran-Peña and D’Odorico 2022; Kumar et al. 2023).
References
Albrecht TR, Crootof A, Scott CA (2018) The water-energy-food nexus: A systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environ Res Lett 13(4):043002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6
Alibabaei K et al (2022) Irrigation optimization with a deep reinforcement learning model: Case study on a site in Portugal. Agric Water Manag 263:107480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107480
Allen MR, Ingram WJ (2002) Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature 419(6903):228–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01092
Antón J et al (2013) Agricultural risk management policies under climate uncertainty. Global Environ Change 23(6):1726–1736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.007
Bondeau A et al (2007) Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob Change Biol 13(3):679–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x
Conway D et al (2015) Climate and southern Africa’s water–energy–food nexus. Nat Clim Change 5(9):837–846. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2735
de Amorim WS et al (2018) The nexus between water, energy, and food in the context of the global risks: An analysis of the interactions between food, water, and energy security. Environ Impact Assess Rev 72:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.002
Dibike YB, Coulibaly P (2005) Hydrologic impact of climate change in the Saguenay watershed: comparison of downscaling methods and hydrologic models. J Hydrol 307(1):145–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.10.012
D’Odorico P et al (2018) The global food-energy-water nexus. Rev Geophys 56(3):456–531. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000591
Döll P, Kaspar F, Lehner B (2003) A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation. J Hydrol 270(1):105–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00283-4
Endo A et al (2020) Dynamics of water–energy–food nexus methodology, methods, and tools. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 13:46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.10.004
Eyring V et al (2016) Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev 9(5):1937–1958. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016
Gallopín GC et al (2001) Science for the twenty-first century: From social contract to the scientific core. Int Soc Sci J 53(168):219–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00311
Giorgi F et al (2022) The CORDEX-CORE EXP-I initiative: Description and highlight results from the initial analysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 103(2):E293–E310. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0119.1
Grafton RQ, Williams J, Jiang Q (2015) Food and water gaps to 2050: Preliminary results from the global food and water system (GFWS) platform. Food Secur 7(2):209–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0439-8
Hasegawa T et al (2021) Extreme climate events increase risk of global food insecurity and adaptation needs. Nat Food 2(8):587–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00335-4
Hoff H (2011) Understanding the Nexus. Available at: https://www.sei.org/publications/understanding-the-nexus/ (Accessed: 22 Jun 2022)
Hua E et al (2022) Synergy and competition of water in Food-Energy-Water Nexus: Insights for sustainability. Energy Convers Manag 266:115848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115848
Huntingford C, Cox PM (2000) An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations. Clim Dyn 16(8):575–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820000067
Hwang S, Graham WD (2013) Development and comparative evaluation of a stochastic analog method to downscale daily GCM precipitation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17(11):4481–4502. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4481-2013
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press
IPCC (2014) Fifth assessment report. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/ (Accessed: 22 Jun 2022)
IPCC (2021) Climate Change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by V. Masson-Delmotte et al. Cambridge University Press
James R et al (2017) Characterizing half-a-degree difference: a review of methods for identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets. WIREs Clim Change 8(2):e457. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.457
Liang Y et al (2020) Quantifying direct and indirect spatial food–energy–water (FEW) nexus in China. Environ Sci Technol 54(16):9791–9803. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06548
Liu J et al (2018) Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat Sustain 1(9):466–476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8
Mannan M et al (2018) Quantifying the energy, water and food nexus: A review of the latest developments based on life-cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 193:300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.050
Meehl GA et al (2005) Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 86(1):89–93. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26221235 (Accessed: 22 Jun 2022)
Mitchell TD (2003) Pattern scaling: An examination of the accuracy of the technique for describing future climates. Clim Change 60(3):217–242. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026035305597
Mnih V et al (2015) Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518(7540):529–533. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14236
Namany S, Al-Ansari T, Govindan R (2019) Sustainable energy, water and food nexus systems: A focused review of decision-making tools for efficient resource management and governance. J Clean Prod 225:610–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.304
Overland JE et al (2011) Considerations in the selection of global climate models for regional climate projections: The arctic as a case study. J Clim 24(6):1583–1597. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3462.1
Page MJ et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Perrone D, Murphy J, Hornberger GM (2011) Gaining perspective on the water−energy nexus at the community scale. Environ Sci Technol 45(10):4228–4234. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103230n
Qin Y (2021) Global competing water uses for food and energy. Environ Res Lett 16(6):064091. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac06fa
Raya-Tapia AY, López-Flores FJ, Ponce-Ortega JM (2023) Incorporating deep learning predictions to assess the water-energy-food nexus security. Environ Sci Policy 144:99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.03.010
Scanlon BR et al (2017) The food-energy-water nexus: Transforming science for society. Water Resour Re 53(5):3550–3556. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020889
Schwanitz VJ (2013) Evaluating integrated assessment models of global climate change. Environ Model Softw 50:120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.09.005
Siebert S, Döll P (2010) Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. J Hydrol 384(3):198–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.031
Sokolov A et al (2018) Description and evaluation of the MIT earth system model (MESM). J Adv Model Earth Syst 10(8):1759–1789. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001277
Sood A, Smakhtin V (2015) Global hydrological models: a review. Hydrol Sci J 60(4):549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.950580
Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(4):485–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1
UN (2018) The 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals: An opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean. p. 94
UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Paris
Xu W et al (2020) Deep reinforcement learning for cascaded hydropower reservoirs considering inflow forecasts. Water Resour Manag 34(9):3003–3018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02600-w
Yin J et al (2023) Future socio-ecosystem productivity threatened by compound drought–heatwave events. Nat Sustain 6(3):259–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01024-1
Yuan Q et al (2020) Deep learning in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges. Remote Sens Environ 241:111716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111716
Yung L et al (2019) How methods for navigating uncertainty connect science and policy at the water-energy-food nexus. Front Environ Sci 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00037
Zhang C et al (2018) Water-energy-food nexus: Concepts, questions and methodologies. J Clean Prod 195:625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.194
Zhang P et al (2019a) Food-energy-water (FEW) nexus for urban sustainability: A comprehensive review. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.11.018
Zscheischler J et al (2018) Future climate risk from compound events. Nat Clim Change 8(6):469–477. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0156-3
Selected articles
Abdoulaye AO et al (2021) Future irrigation water requirements of the main crops cultivated in the Niger River Basin. Atmosphere 12(4):439. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12040439
Abera FF et al (2018) Optimal operation of hydropower reservoirs under climate change: The case of Tekeze Reservoir, Eastern Nile. Water 10(3):273. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030273
Acharjee TK et al (2017) Future changes in water requirements of Boro rice in the face of climate change in North-West Bangladesh. Agric Water Manag 194:172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.09.008
Adera AG, Alfredsen KT (2020) Climate change and hydrological analysis of Tekeze river basin Ethiopia: implication for potential hydropower production. J Water Clim Change 11(3):744–759. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2019.203
Adynkiewicz-Piragas M, Miszuk B (2020) Risk analysis related to impact of climate change on water resources and hydropower production in the Lusatian Neisse River Basin. Sustainability 12(12):5060. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125060
Akoko G, Kato T, Tu LH (2020) Evaluation of irrigation water resources availability and climate change impacts-a case study of Mwea irrigation scheme, Kenya. Water 12(9):2330. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092330
Almeida RM et al (2021) Climate change may impair electricity generation and economic viability of future Amazon hydropower. Glob Environ Change-Hum Policy Dimens 71:102383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102383
Anghileri D et al (2018) A comparative assessment of the impact of climate change and energy policies on alpine hydropower. Water Resour Res 54(11):9144–9161. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022289
Ashofteh P-S, Bozorg-Haddad O, Loaiciga HA (2017) Development of adaptive strategies for irrigation water demand management under climate change. J Irrig Drain Eng 143(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001123
Bahati HK, Ogenrwoth A, Sempewo JI (2021) Quantifying the potential impacts of land-use and climate change on hydropower reliability of Muzizi hydropower plant. Uganda. J Water Clim Change 12(6):2526–2554. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.273
Bakhshianlamouki E et al (2020) A system dynamics model to quantify the impacts of restoration measures on the water-energy-food nexus in the Urmia lake Basin, Iran. Sci Total Environ 708:134874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134874
Barik B et al (2017) Water–food–energy nexus with changing agricultural scenarios in India during recent decades. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(6):3041–3060. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3041-2017
Beheshti M, Heidari A, Saghafian B (2019) Susceptibility of hydropower generation to climate change: Karun III dam case study. Water 11(5):1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051025
Beltran-Peña A, D’Odorico P (2022) Future food security in Africa under climate change. Earth’s Future 10(9):e2022EF002651. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002651
Berardy A, Chester MV (2017) Climate change vulnerability in the food, energy, and water nexus: concerns for agricultural production in Arizona and its urban export supply. Environ Res Lett 12(3):035004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5e6d
Bhave AG et al (2022) Stress-testing development pathways under a changing climate: water-energy-food security in the lake Malawi-Shire river system. Philos Trans Royal Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 380(2221):20210134. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0134
Bieber N et al (2018) Sustainable planning of the energy-water-food nexus using decision making tools. Energy Policy 113:584–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.037
Blanc E et al (2017) Is current irrigation sustainable in the United States? An integrated assessment of climate change impact on water resources and irrigated crop yields. Earths Future 5(8):877–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000473
Bombelli GM et al (2021) Impact of prospective climate change scenarios upon hydropower potential of Ethiopia in GERD and GIBE dams. Water 13(5):716. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13050716
Bonato M et al (2019) Water-energy nexus for an Italian storage hydropower plant under multiple drivers. Water 11(9):1838. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091838
Carlino A et al (2021) Hydroclimatic change challenges the EU planned transition to a carbon neutral electricity system. Environ Res Lett 16(10):104011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac243f
Carvajal PE et al (2017) Assessing uncertainty of climate change impacts on long-term hydropower generation using the CMIP5 ensemble-the case of Ecuador. Clim Change 144(4):611–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2055-4
Chilkoti V, Bolisetti T, Balachandar R (2017) Climate change impact assessment on hydropower generation using multi-model climate ensemble. Renew Energy 109:510–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.041
Cooper CM et al (2022) Climate change-induced variations in blue and green water usage in US urban agriculture. J Clean Prod 348:131326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131326
da Silva MVM et al (2021) Projection of climate change and consumptive demands projections impacts on hydropower generation in the Sao Francisco River Basin, Brazil. Water 13(3):332. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030332
de Oliveira VA et al (2017) Assessment of climate change impacts on streamflow and hydropower potential in the headwater region of the Grande river basin. Southeastern Brazil. Int J Climatol 37(15):5005–5023. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5138
de Vos L et al (2021) Trade-offs between water needs for food, utilities, and the environment—a nexus quantification at different scales. Environ Res Lett 16(11):115003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2b5e
Devia GK, Ganasri BP, Dwarakish GS (2015) A review on hydrological models. Aquat Procedia 4:1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.126
Ding Y et al (2017) Modeling spatial and temporal variability of the impact of climate change on rice irrigation water requirements in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, China. Agric Water Manag 193:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.08.008
Ding Y et al (2020) Adaptation of paddy rice in China to climate change: The effects of shifting sowing date on yield and irrigation water requirement. Agric Water Manag 228:105890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105890
Donk P et al (2018) Assessment of the potential implications of a 1.5 degrees C versus higher global temperature rise for the Afobaka hydropower scheme in Suriname. Reg Environ Change 18(8):2283–2295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1339-1
Duan W et al (2019) Managing the water-climate- food nexus for sustainable development in Turkmenistan. J Clean Prod 220:212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.040
Enayati M et al (2021) A robust multiple-objective decision-making paradigm based on the water-energy-food security nexus under changing climate uncertainties. Sci Rep 11(1):20927. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99637-7
Feng Y et al (2018) Long-term hydropower generation of cascade reservoirs under future climate changes in Jinsha River in Southwest China. Water 10(2):235. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020235
Feng Y et al (2021) Reservoir scheduling using a multi-objective cuckoo search algorithm under climate change in Jinsha River. China. Water 13(13):1803. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131803
Forrest K et al (2018) Assessing climate change impacts on California hydropower generation and ancillary services provision. Clim Change 151(3):395–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2329-5
Francois B et al (2018) Impact of climate change on combined solar and run-of-river power in northern Italy. Energies 11(2):290. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11020290
Gaudard L, Avanzi F, De Michele C (2018) Seasonal aspects of the energy-water nexus: The case of a run-of-the river hydropower plant. Appl Energy 210:604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.003
Ghimire U et al (2022) Assessment of climate change impacts on the water, food, and energy sectors in Sittaung River Basin, Myanmar. Water 14(21):3434. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213434
Giuliani M et al (2022) Unintended consequences of climate change mitigation for African river basins. Nat Clim Change 12(2):187–+. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01262-9
Gohar AA, Cashman A (2018) The Economic value of groundwater irrigation for food security under climate change: Implication of representative concentration pathway climate scenarios. Water Resour Manag 32(12):3903–3918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2026-1
Gohar AA, Cashman A, Ward FA (2019) Managing food and water security in Small Island States: New evidence from economic modelling of climate stressed groundwater resources. J Hydrol 569:239–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.008
Golfam P, Ashofteh P-S (2022) Performance indexes analysis of the reservoir-hydropower plant system affected by climate change. Water Resour Manag 36(13):5127–5162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03295-x
Goodarzi M, Abedi-Koupai J, Heidarpour M (2019) Investigating impacts of climate change on irrigation water demands and its resulting consequences on groundwater using CMIP5 models. Groundwater 57(2):259–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12771
Goodarzi MR, Vagheei H, Mohtar RH (2020) The impact of climate change on water and energy security. Water Supply 20(7):2530–2546. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.150
Grafton RQ, Williams J, Jiang Q (2017) Possible pathways and tensions in the food and water nexus. Earths Future 5(5):449–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000506
Graham NT et al (2020) Humans drive future water scarcity changes across all Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ Res Lett 15(1):014007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab639b
Guo Y et al (2021) Responses of hydropower generation and sustainability to changes in reservoir policy, climate and land use under uncertainty: A case study of Xinanjiang Reservoir in China. J Clean Prod 281:124609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124609
Haro-Monteagudo D et al (2023) Optimal implementation of climate change adaptation measures to ensure long-term sustainability on large irrigation systems. Water Resour Manag 37(8):2909–2924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03225-x
Hasan MM, Wyseure G (2018) Impact of climate change on hydropower generation in Rio Jubones Basin, Ecuador. Water Sci Eng 11(2):157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2018.07.002
He G et al (2021) Food habit and climate change impacts on agricultural water security during the peak population period in China. Agric Water Manag 258:107211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107211
Huangpeng Q, Huang W, Gholinia F (2021) Forecast of the hydropower generation under influence of climate change based on RCPs and developed crow search optimization algorithm. Energy Rep 7:385–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.006
Hussien WA, Memon FA, Savic DA (2018) A risk-based assessment of the household water-energy-food nexus under the impact of seasonal variability. J CleanProd 171:1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.094
IPCC (2000) Emissions scenarios: summary for policymakers: a special report of IPCC Working Group III Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC special report)
Jaaskelainen J et al (2018) Energy security impacts of a severe drought on the future Finnish energy system. J Environ Manag 217:542–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.017
Jakimavicius D et al (2020) Climate change impact on hydropower resources in gauged and ungauged lithuanian river catchments. Water 12(11):3265. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113265
Jander V et al (2023) Adaptation to climate change in basins within the context of the water-energy-food nexus. J Water Resour Plan Manag 149(11):04023060. https://doi.org/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-5566
Jha RK et al (2020) Predicting the water requirement for rice production as affected by projected climate change in Bihar. India. Water 12(12):3312. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123312
Jung J et al (2021) Machine learning-based small hydropower potential prediction under climate change. Energies 14(12):3643. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14123643
Khalkhali M, Westphal K, Mo W (2018) The water-energy nexus at water supply and its implications on the integrated water and energy management. Sci Total Environ 636:1257–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.408
Kim D-H et al (2021) Paddy rice adaptation strategies to climate change: Transplanting date shift and BMP applications. Agric Water Manag 252:106926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106926
Kirby M et al (2017) Agricultural production, water use and food availability in Pakistan: Historical trends, and projections to 2050. Agric Water Manag 179:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.06.001
Kumar H, Zhu T, Sankarasubramanian A (2023) Understanding the food-energy-water nexus in mixed irrigation regimes using a regional hydroeconomic optimization modeling framework. Water Resour Res 59(6):e2022WR033691. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033691
Langerwisch F et al (2018) Combined effects of climate and land-use change on the provision of ecosystem services in rice agro-ecosystems. Environ Res Lett 13(1):015003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa954d
Lee S-H et al (2020) Food-centric interlinkages in agricultural food-energy-water nexus under climate change and irrigation management. Resour Conserv Recycl 163:105099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105099
Li J et al (2020) Evident response of future hydropower generation to climate change. J Hydrol 590:125385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125385
Li M et al (2021) Approach for optimizing the water-land-food-energy nexus in agroforestry systems under climate change. Agric Syst 192:103201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103201
Liu B et al (2020) Climate Change Impacts on Hydropower in Yunnan, China. Water 12(1):197. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010197
Lu S et al (2019) Impacts of climate change on water resources and grain production. Technol Forecast Soc Change 143:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.015
Lutz AF et al (2022) South Asian agriculture increasingly dependent on meltwater and groundwater. Nature Clim Change 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01355-z
Madadgar S et al (2017) Probabilistic estimates of drought impacts on agricultural production. Geophys Res Lett 44(15):7799–7807. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073606
Malek K et al (2018) Climate change reduces water availability for agriculture by decreasing non-evaporative irrigation losses. J Hydrol 561:444–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.11.046
Núñez-López JM et al (2022) Involving resilience in assessment of the water–energy–food nexus for arid and semiarid regions. Clean Technol Environ Policy 24(6):1681–1693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02273-6
Meema T et al (2021) Uncertainty assessment of water resources and long-term hydropower generation using a large ensemble of future climate projections for the Nam Ngum River in the Mekong Basin. J Hydrol-Reg Stud 36:100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100856
Memarzadeh M, Moura S, Horvath A (2019) Optimizing dynamics of integrated food-energy-water systems under the risk of climate change. Environ Res Lett 14(7):074010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2104
Meng Y et al (2020) Hydropower production benefits more from 1.5 °C than 2 °C climate scenario. Water Resour Res 56(5):e2019WR025519. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025519
Miara A et al (2017) Climate and water resource change impacts and adaptation potential for US power supply. Nat Clim Change 7(11):793–+. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3417
Mitchell D et al (2017) A Monte Carlo analysis on the impact of climate change on future crop choice and water use in Uzbekistan. Food Secur 9(4):697–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0690-2
Momblanch A et al (2019) Untangling the water-food-energy-environment nexus for global change adaptation in a complex Himalayan water resource system. Sci Total Environ 655:35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.045
Mostafa SM et al (2021) Impact of climate change on water resources and crop yield in the Middle Egypt region. Aqua-Water Infrastruct Ecosyst Soc 70(7):1066–1084. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2021.019
Mousavi RS, Ahmadizadeh M, Marofi S (2018) A multi-GCM assessment of the climate change impact on the hydrology and hydropower potential of a semi-arid basin (a case study of the Dez Dam Basin, Iran). Water 10(10):1458. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101458
Mutsindikwa TC et al (2021) Modeling climate change impact on the hydropower potential of the Bamboi catchment. Model Earth Syst Environ 7(4):2709–2717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-01052-w
Nasrollahi H et al (2021) Unraveling the water-energy-food-environment nexus for climate change adaptation in Iran: Urmia Lake Basin Case-Study. Water 13(9):1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091282
Obahoundje S et al (2021) Sensitivity of hydropower generation to changes in climate and land use in the Mono Basin (West Africa) using CORDEX dataset and WEAP model. Environ Process 8(3):1073–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-021-00516-0
Obringer R, Kumar R, Nateghi R (2020) Managing the water-electricity demand nexus in a warming climate. Clim Change 159(2):233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02669-7
Okada M et al (2018) Varying benefits of irrigation expansion for crop production under a changing climate and competitive water use among crops. Earths Future 6(9):1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EF000763
Ortiz-Bobea A et al (2019) Unpacking the climatic drivers of US agricultural yields. Environ Res Lett 14(6):064003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1e75
Paltán HA et al (2021) Increased water risks to global hydropower in 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C Warmer Worlds. J Hydrol 599:126503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126503
Pastor A et al (2019) The global nexus of food-trade-water sustaining environmental flows by 2050. Nat Sustain 2(6):499–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0287-1
Paul M et al (2020) Modeling the impacts of climate change on crop yield and irrigation in the Monocacy River Watershed, USA. Climate 8(12):139. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8120139
Peichl M et al (2019) Climate impacts on long-term silage maize yield in Germany. Sci Rep 9:7674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44126-1
Phetheet J et al (2021) Consequences of climate change on food-energy-water systems in arid regions without agricultural adaptation, analyzed using FEWCalc and DSSAT. Resour Conserv Recycl 168:105309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105309
Piniewski M et al (2020) Model-based reconstruction and projections of soil moisture anomalies and crop losses in Poland. Theor Appl Climatol 140(1–2):691–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-020-03106-6
Qin P et al (2020a) Climate change impacts on Three Gorges Reservoir impoundment and hydropower generation. J Hydrol 580:123922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.123922
Qin P et al (2022) Projected impacts of climate change on major dams in the Upper Yangtze River Basin. Clim Change 170(1–2):8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03303-w
Qin Y et al (2020b) Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat Clim Change 10(5):459–+. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0746-8
Rahmati K, Ashofteh P-S, Loaiciga HA (2021) Application of the grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA) to the optimal operation of hydropower reservoir systems under climate change. Water Resour Manag 35(13):4325–4348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02950-z
Rajagopalan K et al (2018) Impacts of near-term climate change on irrigation demands and crop yields in the Columbia River Basin. Water Resour Res 54(3):2152–2182. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020954
Ramião JP et al (2023) Hydropower contribution to the renewable energy transition under climate change. Water Resour Manag 37(1):175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03361-4
Rigden AJ et al (2020) Combined influence of soil moisture and atmospheric evaporative demand is important for accurately predicting US maize yields. Nat Food 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0028-7
Rosa L et al (2020) Potential for sustainable irrigation expansion in a 3 degrees C warmer climate. Proc Natil Acad Sci USA 117(47):29526–29534. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017796117
Schull VZ et al (2020) Analyzing FEW nexus modeling tools for water resources decision-making and management applications. Food Bioprod Process 119:108–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2019.10.011
Sedighkia M, Abdoli A (2022) Balancing environmental impacts and economic benefits of agriculture under the climate change through an integrated optimization system. Int J Energy Environ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-022-00482-9
Shirsat TS et al (2021) Towards climate-adaptive development of small hydropower projects in Himalaya: A multi-model assessment in upper Beas basin. J Hydrol-Reg Stud 34:100797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100797
Shrestha A et al (2021) Adapting hydropower production to climate change: A case study of Kulekhani Hydropower Project in Nepal. J Clean Prod 279:123483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123483
Siderius C et al (2021) Climate variability affects water-energy-food infrastructure performance in East Africa. One Earth 4(3):397–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.02.009
Skoulikaris C (2021) Run-of-river small hydropower plants as hydro-resilience assets against climate change. Sustainability 13(24):14001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132414001
Solaun K, Cerda E (2017) The impact of climate change on the generation of hydroelectric power-a case study in Southern Spain. Energies 10(9):1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10091343
Spalding-Fecher R, Joyce B, Winkler H (2017) Climate change and hydropower in the Southern African Power Pool and Zambezi River Basin: System-wide impacts and policy implications. Energy Policy 103:84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.009
Sridhar V, Ali SA, Sample DJ (2021) Systems analysis of coupled natural and human processes in the Mekong River Basin. Hydrology 8(3):140. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8030140
Sridharan V et al (2019) The impact of climate change on crop production in Uganda-an integrated systems assessment with water and energy implications. Water 11(9):1805. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091805
Sun L et al (2018) Energy-water nexus analysis in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region: Case of electricity sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 93:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.111
Suo C et al (2021) Towards sustainability for China’s energy system through developing an energy-climate-water nexus model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 135:110394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110394
Sušnik J et al (2018) Multi-stakeholder development of a serious game to explore the water-energy-food-land-climate nexus: The SIM4NEXUS approach. Water 10(2):139. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020139
Sylla MB et al (2018) Climate change to severely impact West African basin scale irrigation in 2 degrees C and 1.5 degrees C global warming scenarios. Sci Rep 8:14395. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32736-0
Tan L et al (2023) Assessment of the sustainability of groundwater utilization and crop production under optimized irrigation strategies in the North China Plain under future climate change. Sci Total Environ 899:165619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165619
Tariku TB et al (2021) Global warming impact to River Basin of Blue Nile and the optimum operation of its multi-reservoir system for hydropower production and irrigation. Sci Total Environ 767:144863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144863
Teotonio C et al (2017) Assessing the impacts of climate change on hydropower generation and the power sector in Portugal: A partial equilibrium approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:788–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.002
Teutschbein C et al (2023) Future drought propagation through the water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus – A Nordic perspective. J Hydrol 617:128963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128963
Tortorella MM et al (2020) A methodological integrated approach to analyse climate change effects in agri-food sector: The TIMES water-energy-food module. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(21):7703. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217703
Turner SWD et al (2019) Compound climate events transform electrical power shortfall risk in the Pacific Northwest. Nat Commun 10:8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07894-4
Turner SWD, Ng JY, Galelli S (2017) Examining global electricity supply vulnerability to climate change using a high-fidelity hydropower dam model. Sci Total Environ 590–591:663–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.022
Wade CM et al (2022) Opportunities and spatial hotspots for irrigation expansion in Guatemala to support development goals in the food-energy-water nexus. Agric Water Manag 267:107608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107608
Wagner T et al (2017) Impacts of climate change on stream flow and hydro power generation in the Alpine region. Environ Earth Sci 76(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6318-6
Wang H, Wu X, Gholinia F (2021a) Forecasting hydropower generation by GFDL-CM3 climate model and hybrid hydrological-Elman neural network model based on Improved Sparrow Search Algorithm (ISSA). Concurr Comput-Pract Exp 33(24):e6476. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.6476
Wang K et al (2021b) Understanding the impacts of climate change and socio-economic development through food-energy-water nexus: A case study of mekong river delta. Resour Conserv Recycl 167:105390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105390
Wang W et al (2017) Bayesian multi-model projection of irrigation requirement and water use efficiency in three typical rice plantation region of China based on CMIP5. Agric For Meteorol 232:89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.08.008
Wu L, Elshorbagy A, Alam MS (2022) Dynamics of water-energy-food nexus interactions with climate change and policy options. Environ Res Commun 4(1):015009. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac4bab
Xu H et al (2019) Future increases in irrigation water requirement challenge the water-food nexus in the northeast farming region of China. Agric Water Manag 213:594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.045
Yang J et al (2018) Quantifying the sustainability of water availability for the water-food-energy-ecosystem nexus in the Niger River Basin. Earths Future 6(9):1292–1310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000923
Yimere A, Assefa E (2021) Assessment of the water-energy nexus under future climate change in the Nile River Basin. Climate 9(5):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9050084
Yin Y et al (2017) Water scarcity under various socio-economic pathways and its potential effects on food production in the Yellow River basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-791-2017
Yokohata T et al (2020) MIROC-INTEG-LAND version 1: a global biogeochemical land surface model with human water management, crop growth, and land-use change. Geosci Model Dev 13(10):4713–4747. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4713-2020
Yuan K-Y et al (2018) Spatial optimization of the food, energy, and water nexus: A life cycle assessment-based approach. Energy Policy 119:502–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.009
Yue Q et al (2021) Fuzzy multi-objective modelling for managing water-food-energy-climate change-land nexus towards sustainability. J Hydrol 596:125704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125704
Yun X et al (2021) Reducing climate change induced flood at the cost of hydropower in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin. Geophys Res Lett 48(20):e2021GL094243. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094243
Zhang L, Chen F, Lei Y (2020) Climate change and shifts in cropping systems together exacerbate China’s water scarcity. Environ Res Lett 15(10):104060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb1f2
Zhang Y, Wang Y, Niu H (2019b) Effects of temperature, precipitation and carbon dioxide concentrations on the requirements for crop irrigation water in China under future climate scenarios. Sci Total Environ 656:373–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.362
Zhao G, Gao H, Kao S-C (2021a) The implications of future climate change on the blue water footprint of hydropower in the contiguous US*. Environ Res Lett 16(3):034003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd78d
Zhao Y et al (2021b) Future precipitation, hydrology and hydropower generation in the Yalong River Basin: Projections and analysis. J Hydrol 602:126738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126738
Zhao Y et al (2022) Projection of climate change impacts on hydropower in the source region of the Yangtze River based on CMIP6. J Hydrol 606:127453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127453
Zhong R et al (2019) Hydropower change of the water tower of Asia in 21st century: A case of the Lancang River hydropower base, upper Mekong. Energy 179:685–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.059
Zhong R, Zhao T, Chen X (2021) Evaluating the tradeoff between hydropower benefit and ecological interest under climate change: How will the water-energy-ecosystem nexus evolve in the upper Mekong basin? Energy 237:121518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121518
Zhong W et al (2020) Future hydropower generation prediction of large-scale reservoirs in the upper Yangtze River basin under climate change. J Hydrol 588:125013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125013
Zhou T et al (2017) Impact of future climate change on regional crop water requirement a case study of Hetao Irrigation District. China. Water 9(6):429. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060429
Zhou Y et al (2019) Managing water resources from the energy - water nexus perspective under a changing climate: A case study of Jiangsu province, China. Energy Policy 126:380–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.035
Zolghadr-Asti B, Bozorg-Haddad O, Chu X (2019) Effects of the uncertainties of climate change on the performance of hydropower systems. J Water Clim Change 10(3):591–609. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2018.120
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the China Scholarship Council scholarship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Danyang Gao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft & revise. Albert S. Chen: Supervision – review & editing. Fayyaz Ali Memon: Supervision – review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent to Publish
The authors have approved manuscript submission.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, D., Chen, A.S. & Memon, F.A. A Systematic Review of Methods for Investigating Climate Change Impacts on Water-Energy-Food Nexus. Water Resour Manage 38, 1–43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-023-03659-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-023-03659-x