Trade-offs and Decision Support Tools for FEW Nexus-Oriented Management
- 315 Downloads
Existing assessment and decision support tools have limited application to real-world food-energy-water (FEW) Nexus challenges. Integrated assessment approaches are often discipline-specific or highly theoretical, lacking grounding in real-world FEW issues.
FEW systems require application of integrated techniques that address multiple attributes of trade-off analyses, dynamic and disparate datasets, and difficult decision contexts. Research must enable: appropriate tool sets matched with FEW Nexus hotspots; customizing existing tools to fit local specifics; compatibility between collected data and integrative nexus assessment tool needs; evaluation of these assessments through incorporation of stakeholder input and guidance forward for solution implementation.
The core challenge is identification and design of a set of strategies that are robust under various future conditions (scenarios). Successful strategies must address natural, technological, and human system settings. Approaches that clarify the range of beneficial and potentially adverse trade-offs will support the identification of decisions and intervention options.
KeywordsDecision support Participatory modeling Trade-offs Integrative assessments Resource allocation and planning Sustainability evaluation Dialog
This research was partially supported by the Texas A&M WEF Nexus initiative.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Bassel Daher, Walid Saad, Suzanne A. Pierce, Stephan Hülsmann, and Rabi H. Mohtar declare no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 1.• Mohtar RH, Daher B. Water-energy-food nexus framework for facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogue. Water Int. 2016; doi: 10.1080/02508060.2016.1149759. This work introduced a Water-Energy-Food Nexus Framework for integrated science–stakeholders dialogue..
- 2.Daher, B. (2017). Sustainability in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Bridging Science and Policy Making. Policy Briefing Water International 2017 6. Retrieved from: http://www.iwra.org/doc/PB-N6final_web.pdf.
- 3.SEI. Water evaluation and planning. 2014. Tool found on: http://www.weap21.org/index.asp?action=200.
- 4.SEI. Long range energy alternatives planning system. 2013. Tool found on: http://sei-us.org/software/leap.
- 5.FAO (2013). An innovative accounting framework for the food-energy-water nexus Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3468e/i3468e.pdf.
- 6.KTH. CLEWs – climate, land, energy and water strategies to navigate the nexus 2013. Last accessed on July 2, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.kth.se/en/itm/inst/energiteknik/forskning/desa/researchareas/clews-climate-land-energy-and-water-strategies-to-navigate-the-nexus-1.432255.
- 7.• FAO. Walking the nexus talk: Assessing the water–energy–food nexus in the context of the sustainable energy for all initiative. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3959e.pdf (2014). This work highlights a wide list of water-energy-food nexus tools in the literature, outlines their data needs, output indicators, and target users.
- 8.• IRENA. Renewable energy and the water, energy and food nexus 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/irena_water_energy-food_nexus_2015.pdf. This work highlights a list of water-energy-food nexus tools in the literature with the respective questions they address, their data needs, inputs and outputs.
- 9.Hamilton SH, ElSawah S, Guillaume JHA, Jakeman AJ, Pierce SA. Integrated assessment and modelling: overview and synthesis of salient dimensions. Environ Model Softw. 2015;64:215–29.Google Scholar
- 10.Guzinski R, Kass S, Huber S, Bauer-Gottwein P, Jensen IH, Naeimi V, et al. Enabling the use of earth observation data for integrated water resource management in Africa with the water observation and information system. Remote Sens. 2014;6(8):7819–39. doi: 10.3390/rs6087819.
- 11.Mannschatz T, Buchroithner MF, Hülsmann S. Visualization of water services in Africa: data applications for Nexus governance. In: Kurian M, Ardakanian R, editors. Governing the Nexus. Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 189–217. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05747-7_9.
- 12.Kurian M, Ardakanian R, Veiga LG, Meyer K. Resources, services and risks: how can data observatories bridge the science-policy divide in environmental governance? Springer briefs in environmental science. Switzerland: Springer; 2016. https://books.google.com.lb/books?id=svJeCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=KurianM,+Ardakanian+R,+Veiga+LG,+Meyer+K.+Resources,+services&source=bl&ots=ldb06821AI&sig=oc35B0WwV9mwtC53rmXGw4U_Flg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjul6uoyvTUAhXML8AKHarjAqsQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=KurianM%2C%20Ardakanian%20R%2C%20Veiga%20LG%2C%20Meyer%20K.%20Resources%2C%20services&f=false.
- 15.Wenkel KO, Wieland R, Mirschel W, Berg M, Koestner B. LandCaRe-DSS—a model- and GIS-based interactive information and decision support system for the development of economic effective application strategies of agriculture to climate change. EFITA/WCCA. 2011;11:67–75.Google Scholar
- 16.Koestner B, Wenkel K-O, Berg M, Ch B, Goemann H, Weigel H-J. Integrating regional climatology, ecology, and agronomy for impact analysis and climate change adaptation of German agriculture: ai Introduction to the LandCaRe2020 project. Eur J Agron. 2014;52:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2013.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Poortinga A, Delobel F, Rojas O. MOSAICC: an inter-disciplinary system of models to evaluate the impact of climate change on agriculture. Agro Environ. 2012. https://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/AE2012/article/viewFile/12415/12606.
- 17.MOSAICC. Modelling System for Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change. 2015 Accessed June 22. http://www.fao.org/climatechange/mosaicc/en/.
- 19.Voinova A, Kolagani N, McCall M, Glynn P, Kragt M, Ostermann F, et al. Modelling with stakeholders—next generation. Environ Model Softw. 2016;77:196–220.Google Scholar
- 20.Bennett ND, Croke BFW, Guariso G, Guillaume JHA, Hamilton SH, Jakeman AJ, et al. Characterising performance of environmental models. Environ Model Softw. 2013;40:1–20.Google Scholar
- 25.Halbe J, Reusser DE, Holtz G, Haasnoot M, Stosius A, Avenhaus W, et al. Lessons for model use in transition research: a survey and comparison with other research areas. Environ Innov Soc Trans. 2015;15(June):194–210. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2014.10.001.
- 26.Yuksel M., Quint T., Guvenc I., Saad W., Kapucu N. Fostering Wireless Spectrum Sharing via Subsidization. In: Proc. of the 51st Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, Monticello, IL, USA, 2013.Google Scholar