Part of the AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series book series (AESS)


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.


Metrics Taxonomy Stakeholder Life cycle assessment Intensive metrics Extensive metrics Relative metrics Absolute metrics 


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daly, D. (2013). A further critique of growth economics. Ecological Economics, 88, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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),
  6. Heijungs, R., & Suh, S. (2002). The computational structure of life cycle assessment, eco-efficiency in industry and science (Vol. 11). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ISO. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization. Retrieved from
  10. King, C. W. (Ed.). (2014). Thermal power plant cooling: Context and engineering. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
  11. King, C. W. (2015). The rising cost of resources and global indicators of change. American Scientist, 103(6), 410. Retrieved from Scholar
  12. 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 pwr.pdf.
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lower Colorado River Authority. (2014). Exhibit A: Technical papers. In Proposed revised water management plan, with appendices. Technical report. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  16. Lower Colorado River Authority. (n.d.). Water management plan. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  17. Malewitz, J. (2015). Water ruling cuts state’s power in droughts. Texas Tribune. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  18. Malewitz, J. (2016). Major water case, win for ranchers is loss for cities. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  19. 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 Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Meadows, D. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. Report to the Balton Group, The Sustainability Institute, Hartland Four Corners, Vermont.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Nuclear Energy Institute. (2008). NEI fact sheet: Water consumption at nuclear power plants. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  24. Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (2013). The shoe fits, but the footprint is larger than earth. PLoS Biology, 11(11), e1001701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rockström, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slesser, M. (1974). Energy Analysis Workshop on Methodology and Conventions: 25th–30th August, 1974, Guldsmedshyttan, Sweden. Stockholm: IFIAS.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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 Scholar
  29. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2013). Suspensions of permitted state surface water diversions in the Brazos River Basin. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  30. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2018a). Texas river basins maps. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  31. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2018b). Water availability models. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  32. Texas Water Development Board. (n.d.). A Texans guide to water and water rights marketing. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  33. United Nations. (1993). Integrated environmental and economic accounting: Interim version (Studies in methods) (Vol. 61). New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  34. United Nations. (n.d.). The human right to water and sanitation. Media Brief. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from
  35. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. King, C. W., & Webber, M. E. (2008). Water intensity of transportation. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(21), 7866. Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Engineering & Earth SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  2. 2.Energy InstituteThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations