Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model Use in WEF Nexus Analysis: a Review of Issues

  • Nexus of Food, Water, Energy (R Mohtar, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review was to discuss challenges regarding model use in water energy food nexus analysis.

Recent Findings

Water, energy, and food (WEF) nexus analysis endeavors are relatively new. Modeling systems are just evolving and there are challenges that arise in performing high-quality analysis. We discuss many of these.

Summary

Nexus modeling must represent and describe complex interrelationships among WEF systems. Modeling is a necessity as the nexus approach is about widening perspectives to unexplored levels. Nexus analysis systems must consider situations that vary from place to place and over time while integrating a family of models that address various components. Challenges arise in representing an appropriate geographic region while encompassing the relevant WEF using/producing activities along with heterogeneous, situation-specific, component interrelationships in a manner that supports decisions. Accounting for uncertainty and the evolution of population along with changes in biophysical, socioeconomic, economic, and climatic elements over time further compounds the challenge. In addition, challenges arise when one needs to describe previously unimplemented strategies both now and into an uncertain future represented by climate change, population growth, and other interacting forces. Comprehensive studies are needed to address these challenges and show the value of WEF nexus analysis. This paper addresses modeling-related challenges that arise when considering how to perform informative and accurate WEF nexus analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We limit the nexus definitional discussion as many papers review, define, discuss dimensions of and interconnectedness within the WEF nexus (see [1••, 2, 3, 4•, 5]).

  2. Data issues are also very relevant and are covered in a companion paper in this journal issue.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Bazilian M, Rogner H, Howells M, Hermann S, Arent D, Gielen D, et al. Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy. 2011;39:7896–906. Describes some of the linkages at a high level of aggregation and via case studies to arrive some promising directions for addressing the nexus.

  2. Bizikova L, Roy D, Swanson D, Venema HD, McCandless M. The water-energy-food security nexus: towards a practical planning and decision-support framework for landscape investment and risk management. Winnipeg: The International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2013.

  3. Kraucunas I, Clarke L, Dirks J, Hathaway J, Hejazi M, Hibbard K, et al. Investigating the nexus of climate, energy, water, and land at decision-relevant scales: the platform for regional integrated modeling and analysis (PRIMA). Clim Chang. 2015;129:573–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. • Miralles-Wilhelm F. Development and application of integrative modeling tools in support of food-energy-water nexus planning—a research agenda. J Environ Stud Sci. 2016;6:3–10. Discusses broad Nexus issues and modeling thereof.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ringler C, Bhaduri A, Lawford R. The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2013;5:617–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang X, Williams JR, Gassman PW, Baffaut C, Izaurralde RC, Jeong J, et al. EPIC and APEX: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE. 2012;55:1447–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoogenboom G, Jones J, Wilkens P, Porter C, Boote K, Hunt L, et al. Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) 2015, Version 4.6. 1. DSSAT Found.

  8. Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, et al. SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE. 2012;55:1491–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gillig D, McCarl BA, Boadu F. An economic, hydrologic, and environmental assessment of water management alternative plans for the south central Texas region. J Agric Appl Econ. 2001;33:59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ohrel SB, Beach RH, Adams D, Alig R, Baker J, Latta GS, et al. Model documentation for the forest and agricultural sector optimization model with greenhouse gases (FASOMGHG). RTI Int. [Internet]. 2010; Available from: http://agecon2.tamu.edu/people/faculty/mccarl-bruce/FASOM.html.

  11. Loulou R, Goldstein G, Noble K, others. Documentation for the MARKAL Family of Models. Energy Technol. Syst. Anal. Programme. 2004; Available from: http://www.etsap.org/MrklDoc-I_StdMARKAL.pdf.

  12. Pfenninger S, Hawkes A, Keirstead J. Energy systems modeling for twenty-first century energy challenges. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014;33:74–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. IMPLAN v3 Software Manual [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://support.implan.com/index.php?view=download&alias=32-piaia-sample&category_slug=demo-1&option=com_docman&Itemid=1764.

  14. Diao X, Thurlow J, Benin S, Fan S. Strategies and priorities for African agriculture: economywide perspectives from country studies [Internet]. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 2012 [cited 2017 May 15]. Available from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YiRC5v9XzEYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=strategies+and+priorities+for+african+agriculture&ots=uXgprMaRGO&sig=MO9VG1VHXwaR5xsvtufo1408yNE.

  15. McDonald S, Thierfelder K, Robinson S. Globe: a SAM based global CGE model using GTAP data. U.S. Nav. Acad. [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2017 May 15]; Available from: http://www.usna.edu/EconDept/RePEc/usn/wp/usnawp14.pdf.

  16. Rosegrant MW, Msangi S, Ringler C, Sulser TB, Zhu T, Cline SA. International model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade (IMPACT): model description. Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. IFPRI Wash. DC [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2017 May 16]; Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.451.6588&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  17. Ringler C, Willenbockel D, Perez N, Rosegrant M, Zhu T, Matthews N. Global linkages among energy, food and water: an economic assessment. J Environ Stud Sci. 2016;6:161–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Langevin C, Hughes JD, Panday SM, Banta ER, Niswonger RG. A new object-oriented MODFLOW framework for coupling multiple hydrologic models. AGU Fall Meet. Abstr. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 May 15]. p. 0745. Available from: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AGUFM.H51K0745L.

  19. • McCarl BA, Musumba M, Smith JB, Kirshen P, Jones R, El-Ganzori A, et al. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation strategies in Egypt’s agricultural sector. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2015;20:1097–109. Good study to highlight the implications of climate change effects on crop yields, livestock performance, non-agricultural water use, water supply, irrigation water use, sea level rise and a growing population.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. •• McCarl BA. An economist’s perspective on needs to improve performance of analyses on the W-E-F Nexus. Workshop on the water-energy—food nexus entitled “Research gaps in the integrated observations and improved governance for the W-E-F Nexus” Washington, DC; 2015. Good discussion related to the economic issues and boarder issues involved with Nexus action appraisal.

  21. • Pfeiffer L, Lin C-YC. Does efficient irrigation technology lead to reduced groundwater extraction? Empirical evidence. J Environ Econ Manag. 2014;67:189–208. Shows rebound effect where subsidizing water conservation increases water use.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman III AM, Herriges JA, Kling CL. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods [Internet]. Routledge; 2014 [cited 2017 May 15]. Available from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sbDAAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+measurement+of+environmental+and+resource+values:+theory+and+methods&ots=bB3HkBwrVM&sig=ryb-rCKExG96ghvgiXsATeTAmyg.

  23. • Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ. 2000;32:137–52. Shows technical criteria for valid value transfer and provide guidelines for proper use and application.

  24. Keplinger KO, McCarl BA, Chowdhury ME, Lacewell RD. Economic and hydrologie implications of suspending irrigation in dry years. J Agric Resour Econ. 1998:191–205.

  25. McCarl BA, Yang Y, Srinivasan R, Pistikopoulos EN, Mohtar RH. Data for WEF system analysis: a review of issues. Curr Sustain Energy Rep. 2017 (Unpublished).

  26. Chen C-C, Gillig D, McCarl BA. Effects of climatic change on a water dependent regional economy: a study of the Texas Edwards aquifer. Clim Chang. 2001;49:397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reilly J, Tubiello F, McCarl B, Abler D, Darwin R, Fuglie K, et al. US agriculture and climate change: new results. Clim Chang. 2003;57:43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McCarl BA, Dillon CR, Keplinger KO, Williams RL. Limiting pumping from the Edwards aquifer: an economic investigation of proposals, water markets, and spring flow guarantees. Water Resour Res. 1999;35:1257–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shiva L. Economic analysis of voluntary carbon offset market and bioenergy policies [Internet]. Texas A&M University; 2014 [cited 2017 May 15]. Available from: http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/153830.

  30. • Murray BC, Sohngen B, Sommer AJ, Depro BM, Jones KM, McCarl BA, et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in US forestry and agriculture. Washington, DC: Environ. Prot. Agency EPA; 2005. Good report describes the FASOM-GHG model, and evaluate the potential for U.S. forestry and agricultural to mitigate GHGs over the next several years.

  31. Beach RH, McCarl BA. US Agricultural and forestry impacts of the energy independence and security act: FASOM results and model description. Res. Triangle Park NC RTI Int. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2017 May 15]; Available from: http://yosemite.epa.gov/SAB/SABPRODUCT.nsf/962FFB6750050099852577820072DFDE/$File/FASOM+Report_EISA_FR.pdf.

  32. Al-Riffai P, Breisinger C, Mondal AH, Ringler C, Wiebelt M, Zhu T. Linking the economics of water, energy, and food: a nexus modeling approach. [cited 2017 May 15]; Available from: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/131154.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the Texas A&M WEF Nexus initiative plus an NSF FEW Nexus grant entitled “A Modeling Framework to Couple Food, Energy, and Water in the Teleconnected Corn and Cotton Belts.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, AGLS Suite 309, 2424 TAMU, 600 John Kimbrough, College Station, TX, 77840, USA

    Bruce A. McCarl & Yingqian Yang

  2. Environmental Economics and Policy, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA

    Kurt Schwabe

  3. Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Bernard A. Engel

  4. Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20006, USA

    Alam Hossain Mondal & Claudia Ringler

  5. Texas A&M Energy Institute, College Station, TX, USA

    Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos

  6. Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos

Authors
  1. Bruce A. McCarl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingqian Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kurt Schwabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernard A. Engel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alam Hossain Mondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Claudia Ringler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce A. McCarl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Bruce A. McCarl, Yingqian Yang, Kurt Schwabe, Bernard A. Engel, Alam Hossain Mondal, Claudia Ringler, and Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos declare that they have 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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nexus of Food, Water, Energy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCarl, B.A., Yang, Y., Schwabe, K. et al. Model Use in WEF Nexus Analysis: a Review of Issues. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep 4, 144–152 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0078-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0078-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation