Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Approach to
Modeling the
Water-Energy-
Land-Food Nexus
A Systems
Approach to
Modeling the
Water-Energy-
Land-Food Nexus
System Dynamics Modeling and
Dynamic Scenario Planning
Volume II
Bernard Amadei
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Water, energy, land, and food (WELF) resources are critical components
in the overall discourse on sustainable human development. Over the next
50 years, rapid population, urbanization, and economic growth world-
wide will create unprecedented demands for such resources, as well as for
health, transportation, waste disposal, communication, and other services.
The discussion on how to meet human needs for water, energy, land,
and food and how to guarantee their respective securities has changed
over time. The traditional way has been to look at all four sectors in iso-
lation, regardless of whether one is interested in supply and demand,
infrastructure planning and design, resource management and allocation,
and/or governance. Since 2011, however, there has been a new empha-
sis on understanding the interdependency of the four sectors through the
so-called WELF nexus.
The approach presented in this book responds to the overall agree-
ment in the WELF nexus literature that the management and allocation of
water, energy, land, and food resources at the community level need to be
examined in a more systemic, multidisciplinary, participatory, and prac-
tical manner while seeking to increase synergies and reduce trade-offs.
Such an integrated approach is not yet mainstream among those involved
in the science and policy decision aspects of the nexus. This book was
written to explore the value proposition of that approach.
This two-volume book describes a flexible and adaptive system-based
methodology and associated guidelines for the management and alloca-
tion of community-based WELF resources. Volume 1 reviews the existing
literature about the nexus and focuses on defining the landscape in which
it operates. The proposed methodology is also outlined. Volume 2 explores
the quantitative and qualitative modeling of the nexus and landscape using
system modeling tools including system dynamics. It presents a road map
for the formulation, simulation, selection, and ranking of possible inter-
ventions, as well as the development of possible intervention plans.
vi • Abstract
KeyWords
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xiii
Preface xv
5 A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus 1
5.1 Introduction 1
5.2 Hard Systems Approaches to the Nexus 3
5.3 Systems Thinking 14
5.4 System Dynamics 18
5.5 System Dynamics Modeling 33
5.6 Combining Methods of Analysis 44
5.7 Participatory Model Building 49
5.8 Concluding Remarks 52
5.9 References 53
6 System Dynamics Models of the Nexus 67
6.1 Introduction 67
6.2 Model WELF-02 73
6.3 Model WELF-03 76
6.4 From Resources to Services: Model WELF-04 79
6.5 Model WELF-05 83
6.6 The WELF-G Model 85
6.7 Population and Capacity Module 87
6.8 Food Resources Module 95
6.9 Land Resources Module 95
6.10 Water Resources Module 108
6.11 Energy Resources Module 116
6.12 Sensitivity Analysis 118
6.13 References 120
viii • Contents
Bernard Amadei
Boulder, December 01, 2018
CHAPTER 5
A System Dynamics
Approach to the Nexus
This chapter reviews first different soft and hard system-based formula-
tions that have been proposed in the literature to model the interaction
between several components of the FEW/WELF nexus. It then presents a
value proposition for using qualitative and quantitative system dynamics
simulation models to capture the dynamics at play across the nexus, includ-
ing interactions across the nexus components and their interactions with
social, natural, infrastructure, and economic systems. The chapter presents
the characteristics of systems thinking and reviews basic system dynamics
tools, systems archetypes, and the different steps involved in the system
dynamics modeling methodology. As a hard systems approach, system
dynamics has unique characteristics that warrant its use when simulating
how the different sectors of the nexus unfold and interact when subjected
to different inputs and constraints. In turn, the simulations help decision
makers to make management decisions and select interventions across the
nexus and at the community level. The chapter concludes with a discussion
of the value added by using social network analysis and the importance of
engaging in participatory modeling to develop system dynamics models.
God grant me the serenity to deal with ill-defined and messy systems
over which I have little or no control, courage to improve systems
over which I have some control, and wisdom to know the difference.
—adapted from the Serenity Prayer, R. Niebuhr
5.1 Introduction
interactions between water, energy, and food and how these sectors
interact with other factors such as land, climate, the environment, or
waste (WBCSD 2009; Bazilian et al. 2011; Hoff 2011; FAO 2014; Wake-
ford et al. 2015; Sohofi et al. 2016; among others). Double entry matrixes
have also been proposed to show links between the different sectors of the
nexus and their indicators (Flammini et al. 2014; Ferroukhi et al. 2015;
Wakeford et al. 2015; among others). In Chapter 3, a soft approach was
used, for instance, to emphasize the types of impacts that exist across the
nexus components (Table 3.5). In Chapter 4, the emphasis was on map-
ping the impacts that exist among the four system groups at play in the
landscape (Table 4.2).
A soft systems approach is clearly a step toward considering all sec-
tors of the nexus in isolation. However, it stops short of being able to
quantitatively model the dynamics and structure of the nexus in depth and
how its sectors interact with the landscape and its systems. This could be
handled better using a hard systems approach with system dynamics mod-
eling tools, as discussed in Volume 2 of this book.
Table 5.1. Characteristics of the energy, water, and land use models
in CLEWS
Energy Water Land Use
MESSAGE (IAEA,
IIASA)
WEAP(SEI) plus
Model GAEZ(IIASA)
LEAP (SEI)
several others
OSeMOSYS(KTH)
Small scale to
From small island Local water
Scale of country analysis
systems to large systems based on
operation (flexible grid
country analysis geographical data
cells sizes)
the nexus and the climate. It should be noted that the CLEWS approach
does not use system dynamics per se but rather a combination of mass
balance and linear programming. Another limitation of CLEWS is that,
although it allows the output of one of the three modules to become
the input of one or two of the other modules, no feedback mechanisms
8 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
between the modules are taken into consideration; only feedbacks within
the water, energy, and land modules are considered.
Another framework similar to CLEWS (and with the same limita-
tions) is the WEF Nexus Tool 2.0 proposed by Daher and Mohtar (2015).
Used at the country level, it starts with an assessment of country con-
ditions related to available food products, water sources (precipitation,
surface, groundwater, graywater, desalination), and use (domestic, agri-
cultural, and industrial); energy sources (nonrenewable and renewable)
and use (water, agriculture, transportation); and types of import. The user
selects a scenario with clear objectives where these different variables
interact. For instance, the scenarios could be used to explore different
levels of a country’s food/water/energy self-sufficiency and dependence
on import.
Finally, a more recent quantitative systems approach framework is
proposed by the Millennium Institute around the 17 Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals (SDSN 2015). The Integrated Sustainable Development Goals
(iSDG) planning model uses a system dynamics modeling methodology to
explore development scenarios linking strategies and policy as a country
progresses toward reaching the 17 SDGs with projections as far into the
future as 2030 and beyond. The iSDG model builds on the functionalities
of the Threshold 21 (T21) model (Barney 2002) and involves 30 different
sectors (10 social, 10 economic, and 10 environmental), each consisting
of interconnected stocks (variables) and flows with possible feedback pro-
cesses. Version 1.2 of the software is available on the Millennium Institute
website (www.isdgs.org; September 2018).
It should be noted that the global frameworks mentioned above can
all handle high levels of complexity and allow for high levels of decision
making around nexus issues. However, all of them have been mostly used
to model the complex dynamics of change and development at the global,
regional, or country scale. Furthermore, they all reveal how difficult it is to
obtain data to quantify the links considered in the frameworks. With some
modifications, however, they could be applied to model the dynamics at
play in the complex but smaller-scale landscape shown in Figure 4.1a and
account for the two-, three-, or four-way interactions across the nexus and
the complex interactions between the nexus and social, natural, infrastruc-
ture, and economic systems.
5.2.2 Sector-Specific Formulations
On the other end of the spectrum of frameworks from the global ones
described above are those that focus on the specific management of water,
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 9
energy, or food systems, but in a sectoral manner (with one or two inter-
reacting sectors). Like the global frameworks mentioned above, these
frameworks address issues at the country, regional, or global scales.
Sohofi et al. (2016) give an excellent review of many of these different
topical frameworks and models.
It should be noted that, despite being focused on the management of
specific resources, many of the sector-specific formulations also incor-
porate, in a broad manner, other factors interacting with the resources
being considered. For instance, most water resource management frame-
works include socioeconomic and environmental issues and factors such
as energy and agricultural demand, pollution, land use, climate change,
and so on. Likewise, food resource management frameworks account for
land and soil resources and water resources. Without going into the details
of these frameworks and models, the more notable ones that use system
dynamics are listed below.
Dawadi and Ahmad (2012); Winz and Brierley (2013); and Turner et al.
(2016), among others.
The WorldWater model is another example of a system-based
framework that explores strategies of water management at large scales
(Simonovic 2003); it is based on the World3 model mentioned above.
Examples of how this model is applied at the country scale (e.g.,
CanadaWater model) or within regions of a country are described by
Simonovic and Rajasekaram (2004) and Ahmad and Simonovic (2004).
5.2.2.5 Remarks
The challenge decision makers face when trying to manage and allocate
water, land, and food resources at the community level is to be able to
come up with “good enough” decisions that account for several factors
such as community dynamics, the multiple links across the nexus, the
nexus’s interactions with the various systems of the landscape, and the
intra- and inter-connectivity among these systems. Trying to account for
all these factors simultaneously belongs to a class of problems that can-
not be easily formulated and modeled, and which are sometimes referred
to as “wicked” problems (Rittel and Weber 1973); the terms “messy”
or “ill-defined” are sometimes used instead. Wicked problems can be
interpreted as “malignant,” “vicious,” “tricky,” or “aggressive.” Para-
phrasing Rittel and Weber, unlike “tamed” problems, wicked ones have
unique characteristics:
Once new habits have been developed, systems thinking offers clear
advantages to the thinker compared to deterministic and linear thinking.
According to various authors (e.g., Richmond 1994, 2004; Kim 2000;
Sweeney 2001; Sterman 2006; Stroh 2015), systems thinking helps the
thinker to:
• look at events not as separate from each other but instead as parts of
patterns of behavior, which themselves are created by some internal
structure resulting from patterns and modes of thought;
• understand the dynamic, adaptable, unpredictable, and changing
nature of life including the effect of time and delays (information
and materials);
• understand how one small event can influence another (positively
or negatively) and the associated consequences of such i nteractions;
• identify leverage points in a system, i.e., critical components and/or
links where certain actions yield the most return;
• understand that what is happening depends on where one is in the
system and one’s attitude toward and perception of that system;
• challenge assumptions through mental models;
• become aware of and accept one’s bounded rationality—that is,
a need to make decisions without knowing all the facts due to
complexity; and
• realize that complexity is not an obstacle but an opportunity to step
out of the boxes that one has created when describing the world.
Acquiring the habits and developing the skills described above are
essential before any attempt can be made to formulate in a systemic way
the various dynamic hypotheses and associated mental models outlined
at the end of the participatory appraisal discussed in Chapter 4. They are
also needed when developing qualitative and quantitative system dynam-
ics models to explain these hypotheses.
5.4.1 Characteristics
so on. The books Urban Dynamics (Forrester 1969) and World Dynamics
(Forrester 1971) helped develop what came to be known as the system
dynamics approach to complex problems. The approach was subsequently
used by a variety of researchers including Dr. Donella H. Meadows and
coworkers in several studies showing the impact of population growth,
industrial growth, pollution, and degradation of the environment on world
systems; a review of these studies can be found in Meadows (2008).
A simple way to portray system dynamics is to state that it studies
“how systems change over time” (Ford 2010). The System Dynamics
Society (2016) defines system dynamics as
5.4.2 Basic Components
Without going into the details of system dynamics (which can be found
in the various references mentioned at the beginning of this section), it is
important to summarize the basic components that make system dynamics
useful for modeling complex systems.
One of the characteristics of system dynamics modeling mentioned
above is that it captures the feedback mechanisms inherent to complex
systems using two types of cause-and-effect circular causations: reinforc-
ing and balancing feedback loops (Richardson 1999). Reinforcing (R)
feedback loops are used to model self-reinforcing feedback processes.
Reinforcing loops are prevented from growing or declining forever with
balancing (B) loops, which create self-correcting processes that lead to
stability and equilibrium and reaching a goal or objective. In addition to
these two basic components, a delay may be added to model the effect of
time in linking causes and effects or any adjustment processes. In the man-
agement of FEW/WELF resources, delays can be associated with the time
it takes different groups of stakeholders to make decisions (information
22 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
Capacity to deal
with critical issues
+
Capacity to invest
R4 in education
+ + +
Effectiveness of Degree of civic
community participation R5
organization + Average real
+ + income
Average level of +
B1 education + +
+
R2 Sense of +
Political community
leverage − Spare time R6 Community
+
productivity
+ Community
+ R3 employment R7 +
Successful
community projects +
Community Health
+
+ infrastructure
Figure 5.1. Causal loop diagram showing several cause-and-effect loops at play
in a disadvantaged neighborhood in Costa Rica.
Source: Developed by students in the 2014 Global Sustainability Fellows
program conducted by the Sustainability Laboratory at Earth University in
Costa Rica.
Causal loop diagrams such as Figure 5.1 are useful for mapping,
inferring, and visualizing what contributes to growth, decline, delay, or
stability, and are mostly used at the strategy level. They show, in a con-
densed form, relationships, trends, and connections, as well as causal
feedback mechanisms in a system. Causal loop diagrams are not used to
conduct numerical simulations of systems. They help in laying out the
24 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
5.4.4 Stock-and-Flow Diagrams
Reservoir Conveyor
Inflow Outflow
Flow 3 Stock 5
Stock 3
Connector
Converter Converter
(Function)
Figure 5.2. Basic building blocks of stock-and-flow diagrams: Stocks (reservoir
or conveyor), flow (inflow and outflow) with clouds, converters, and connectors.
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 25
supplying consuming
WELF WELF initial WELF
resources resources initial resources
population per person
WELF
Resources
WELF
resources initial
WELF Population WELF WELF
gap
resources resources resources
supply consumption rate
rate per person
desired WELF desired
resources WELF
per person resources
5.4.4 Archetypes
Figure 5.4. Causal loop diagram illustrating the limits to success dynamic across the water, energy,
and agriculture sectors of the nexus.
Source: Sohofi et al. (2016), reproduced with permission from Springer. Redrawn using the Vensim
32 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
software.
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 33
+
Amount of Viability of
electricity R electrictiy
generated generation industry
+ + +
Amount of
water used + B
by electricity
generation industry Total Water Water
water available reserves
used – per user + limit
Amount of
water used +
by food, feed, B
and fibre industries
+ + +
Amount of Viability of
food, feed, R food, feed,
and fibre and fibre industries
produced
+
Figure 5.5. Tragedy of the commons causal loop diagram showing competition
for water resources between the electricity and food sectors.
Source: Adapted from Newell et al. (2011), with permission from the authors.
The delay and “water reserves limit” were added to the original figure.
5.5.1 Modeling Steps
Step 1
Get acquainted
Steps 7 & 8 (problem familiarization)
Sensitivity analysis &
policy analysis
Step 2
Be specific about the
Step 6 dynamic problem
Simulation to (problem definition)
explain the problem
Steps 3 & 4
Step 5 Stock-and-flow diagram
Estimate and causal loop diagram
the
parameters (model formulation)
5.5.2 Setting Expectations
Structure assessment Assessment of how well the structure of the system Inconsistencies create confusion. Violation of
has been formulated in terms of possible incon- conservation of mass and energy will lead to
sistencies, conservation laws, unit consistencies, erroneous answers. More details in the model
appropriate level of aggregation to capture the may or may not be necessary to understand
dynamic of the problem of interest the problem of interest
Dimensional consistency Consistency of units between flow and stock Garbage in, garbage out
Parameter assessment Making sure that model parameters are relevant Reality check, identify what is qualitative and
and represent something real in the problem being quantitative
addressed. Objective or subjective assessment of
parameters and their variation is necessary
Extreme conditions Test the robustness of the model and see if it Identify limitations of the model. How far can
provides logical responses when parameters are we push the model?
given extreme values
(Continued )
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 37
Table 5.4. (Continued )
Tests Purpose Rationale
Behavior reproduction Compare model prediction (qualitative and quan- If the prediction is not adequate, the model
titative) to reference behavior of the problem of needs to be changed and parameters reevalu-
interest. Forrester and Senge (1980) introduce ated. It makes no sense to use the model for
four additional sub-tests. Helps build confidence predicting future behavior
in using model for predicting future behavior
Behavior analysis and Identify unexpected forms of behavior and The model may show expected or unexpected
surprise behavior anomalies by changing model structure and forms of behavior, some more realistic
assumptions than others
Sensitivity analysis Test the model to see how the system responds to The world is not deterministic and all parame-
the variation of one or several critical parameters. ters entering into a system are not fixed
The variation can be described statistically
Policy analysis Help identify new policies that will help the Old policies are responsible for the current
system perform better in the future. Forrester and behavior. New policies must be introduced for
Senge (1980) introduce the policy and extreme change to take place
policy tests
38 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 39
Table 5.5. Questions that may arise when creating a dynamic hypothesis
and formulating a system dynamics model
Why Why is a dynamic model constructed?
What What problem and behavior (reference mode) is being modeled
and over what time frame and spatial scale?
What methods other than (or complimentary to) dynamic
modeling can be used to model the problem?
What would happen if the problem were or were not
addressed?
What solutions have been attempted in the past to address the
problem and what were their outcomes?
What are the components of the problem being addressed and
their connections?
What range of responses can be expected from the model?
How How will the model complement the traditional steps of project
management?
How have the components of the model interacted in the past?
How will community members be involved in building,
reviewing, and updating the model?
How will the model recommendations be presented to the
community members?
Who Who is participating in developing the model (insiders and
outsiders)?
When When should the model be integrated into project management?
When should the model be started, evaluated, modified, and
updated?
Where Where should model development and community interaction
take place (office, community)?
c omplex data and information can then be included once further confi-
dence has been built around the model. Once confidence is built, multiple
scenario simulations are considered. The system’s overall behavior is
studied under various assumptions (i.e., “what if ” or “what happens if ”
simulations), possible leverage points are identified, and possible forms of
unintended consequences are explored. In Table 5.4, this is referred to as
the behavior analysis and surprise behavior test (Sterman 2000).
Ultimately, a new and better way of understanding the landscape sys-
tem (or parts of it) and its components (i.e., building a new mental model)
emerges, and a decision can be made about whether the model is “robust”
enough to generate meaningful patterns (Ford 2010). The robustness of a
model can be assessed using the extreme conditions test, as suggested by
Sterman (2000), where the model’s behavior is tested under conditions far
from equilibrium. This helps define the application range of the model, its
limitations, and any surprise behavior it may engender. In the landscape,
the quantitative modeling of water, energy, food, and land issues and other
critical issues at the community level can be tested under the extreme con-
ditions that the community may have faced in the past. The response of the
community to such challenges can help predict how the community may
respond to more extreme conditions in the future, such as those associated
with natural hazards. This, in turn, can help in identifying ahead of time the
vulnerability of the communities to such events and planning accordingly.
Once in place, a robust model of the landscape and its components
becomes a very useful tool to explore scenarios that are created by
changing the values of one or several parameters. As noted by Houghton
et al. (2014), the model can be tested for variables that follow certain
probabilistic distributions (e.g., Monte Carlo analysis). Sensitivity analy-
sis tests (Sterman 2000) can be carried out to analyze how a system such
as the landscape responds to variations of one or several critical param-
eters. Such analyses may, in turn, contribute to developing new WELF-
related policies (Step 8 in Figure 5.6), i.e., “chosen course[s] of action
significantly affecting a large number of people” (Simonovic and Fahmy
1999). As suggested by Forrester and Senge (1980), extreme conditions
and sensitivity analysis tests can help to identify new future policies that
emphasize synergies and reduce trade-offs among sectors of the nexus.
Examples may include deciding on using water for a specific purpose
such as industry instead of farming; addressing the competition for water
resources between the energy (electricity production) and food sectors;
prioritizing big water projects over small ones; and so on.
Finally, a robust systemic model of the landscape can help to select
modes of intervention among alternatives, analyze how the landscape and
44 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
5.6.1 Cross-Impact Analysis
5.6.2 Network Analysis
SNA maps can also be analyzed using mathematical tools. They can
be used to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and patterns of interaction
among system components, identify potential system attractors, make pre-
dictions, assess the network’s resilience, map assets and v ulnerabilities,
conduct simulations, and plan interventions that leverage or strengthen
existing network connections. Borgatti et al. (2009) review some of
the measures and properties than can be inferred from SNA maps at
the network level (cohesion, shape), the node level (different forms of
centrality, betweenness), and the link level (cohesion and equivalence).
In turn, these measures and properties can help to identify the “underly-
ing processes that account for observed relationships among variables,”
which, according to Borgatti et al. (2009) can be processes of transmis-
sion, adaptation, binding, or exclusion.
SNA is a powerful method that can help to make decisions in the par-
ticipatory community-based management of resources across the FEW/
WELF nexus where there may be issues about (i) how information flows
between populations, households, and institutions at the community level
and (ii) how decisions about water, energy, land, and food resource allo-
cation are made in the community. SNA maps can help to show clearly
whether information flow, who controls what, who are the critical actors
and clusters of decision makers, where road blocks occur, and who is mar-
ginalized. As an example, Bodin et al. (2006) show how these properties
and measures of SNA maps can help users to better understand the role
that different components of social networks play in the adaptive man-
agement of natural resources around critical social features such as social
memory, heterogeneity, redundancy, learning, adaptive capacity, and trust.
Network analysis is not only used in mapping social systems (Newman
2010); nodes and links in network graphs may also represent connectivity
between nonsocial agents. Examples include mapping the different com-
ponents of the infrastructure systems discussed in Section 4.7 that contrib-
ute to providing a certain type of service under a certain context and at a
certain scale. In this case, the network maps may help to identify where
to intervene in the infrastructure to make a specific service more effi-
cient or accessible to a wider range of customers. A water distribution, an
electricity grid (or microgrid), and transportation networks come to mind.
Network analysis can also be used to assess the critical infrastructure nec-
essary for a community to face adverse events and natural hazards, thus
increasing its overall resilience (Toole and McCown 2008; NRC 2009).
Finally, network analysis can be used to map the multiple economic pro-
cesses of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
at different scales.
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 47
0 1 3 3
3 0 2 3
Eij = .
2 1 0 2
1 0 1 0
0 0 −1 − 2
−1 0 −1 −1
Cij = .
−1 0 0 −1
−1 0 0 0
The outdegree centrality values are –3, –3, –2, and –1 and describe
the degree of constraining (risk) influence of the water, energy, and land
sectors on the others. The indegree centrality values are –3, 0, –2, and –4
for the four sectors, respectively. They indicate the constraining depen-
dence of each sector on the others.
Finally, both matrixes Eij and Cij can be added to determine the net
outdegree and indegree centrality for each sector of the nexus.
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 49
ouwette and Vennix (2015), the empowerment takes place at three levels:
R
(i) changing mindsets and behaviors at the individual level; (ii) creating
consensus and communication at the group level; and (iii) doing things
differently at the organizational level.
It should be noted that this multilevel empowerment process is not
random. For instance, group model building follows specific standards,
scripts, group facilitation sessions, and iterative decision-making processes
that have been recommended by several authors based on real case
studies. Guiding principles for group model building have been proposed,
for instance, by Luna-Reyes et al. (2006); Stave (2010); Richardson and
Andersen (2010); and Rouwette and Vennix (2015), among many others.
Many questions may be raised prior, during, and after sessions of partici-
patory system dynamics modeling (Andersen et al. 1997b). In addition to
those listed in Table 5.5, such questions may include:
5.9 References
Davies, E.G.R., and S.P. Simonovic. 2011. “Global Water Resources Modeling
with an Integrated Model of the Social-Economic-Environmental System.”
Advances in Water Resources 34, pp. 684–700.
Dawadi, S., and S. Ahmad. 2012. “Changing Climatic Conditions in the Colorado
River Basin: Implications for Water Resources Management.” Journal of
Hydrology 430, pp. 197–215.
De Savigny, D., and A. Taghreed., eds. 2009. Systems Thinking for Health System
Strengthening. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland: Alliance for Health Policy and
Systems Research.
Dent, E. B. 2001. “System Science Traditions: Differing Philosophical Assumptions.”
Systems: J. Transdisciplinary Systems Science 6, nos. 1–2, pp. 13–30.
Dhawan, R., M. O’Connor, and M. Borman. 2011. “The Effect of Qualitative and
Quantitative System Dynamics Training: An Experimental Investigation.”
System Dynamics Review 27, no. 3, pp. 313–27.
Downes, R.J., and S.R. Bishop. 2016. “Aid Allocation: A Complex Perspective.”
Chapter 16 in Global Dynamics: Approaches from Complexity Science, ed.
A. Wilson. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Doyle, J.K., D.N. Ford, M.J. Radzicki, and W.S. Trees. 2002. “Mental Models
of Dynamic Systems.” In System Dynamics and Integrated Modeling, ed.
Y. Barlas from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), developed
under the auspices of the UNESCO, EOLSS Publishers, Oxford, UK.
http://eolss.net.
Feng, Y.Y., S.Q. Chen, and L.X. Zhang. 2013. System Dynamics Modeling for
Urban Consumption and CO2 Emissions: A case study of Beijing. China.
Ferroukhi, R., D. Nagpal, A. Lopez-Peña, T. Hodges, R.H. Mohtar, B. Daher,
S. Mohtar, and M. Keulertz. 2015. “Renewable Energy in the Water, Energy,
and Food Nexus.” United Arab Emirates: International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) Policy Unit. Retrieved from www.irena.org/Publications
(accessed August 31, 2016).
Fisher, D.M. 2011. Modeling Dynamic Systems: Lessons for a First Course, 3rd ed.
ISEE Systems, Inc.
Flammini, A., M. Puri, L. Pluschke, and O. Dubois. 2014. “Walking the Nexus Talk:
Assessing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in the Context of the Sustainable
Energy for All Initiative.” Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper
No. 58, FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014. The
Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A New Approach in Support of Food Security and
Sustainable Agriculture. Rome: FAO.
Ford, A. 1996. “System Dynamics and the Electric Power Industry.” System
Dynamics Review 13, no. 1, pp. 57–85.
Ford, A. 2010. Modeling the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Forrester, J.W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Pegasus Communications, Waltham,
MA. A More Recent Reprint of this Book is Available through Martino
Publishing, Mansfield Center, CT (2013).
Forrester, J.W. 1969. Urban Dynamics. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 57
Forrester, J.W. 1971. World Dynamics. (second edition in 1973). Portland, OR:
Productivity Press.
Forrester, J., and P.M. Senge. 1980. “Tests for Building Confidence in System
Dynamics Models.” In System Dynamics. TIMS Studies in the Management
Sciences, eds. A.A. Legasto, J.W. Forrester and J.M. Lyneis, 14, 209–28.
Fowler, B., and E. Dunn. 2014. “Evaluating Systems and Systemic Change for
Inclusive Market Development: Literature Review and Synthesis.” Report
No. 3, Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.
Freeman, L.C. 2000. “Visualizing Social Networks.” Journal of Social Structure 1,
no. 1, p. 4.
Future Health Systems. 2014. “Workshop on Complex Adaptive Systems.”
Baltimore, June. http://futurehealthsystems.org/news/2014/7/30/fhs-and-
steps-co-host-workshop-on-complex-adaptive-systems (accessed September
26, 2014).
Ghosh, A. 2017. Dynamic Systems for Everyone: Understanding How Our World
Works, 2nd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Giraldo, D.P., M.J. Betancur, and S. Arango. 2008. “Food Security in Developing
Countries: A Systemic Perspective.” http://academia.edu/14539594/Food_
Security_in_Development_Countries_A_systemic_perspective (accessed
August 10, 2018).
Gober, P., E.A. Wentz, T. Lant, M.K. Tschudi, and C.W. Kirkwood. 2011. “WaterSim:
A Simulation Model for Urban Water Planning in Phoenix, Arizona, USA.”
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38, no. 2, pp. 197–215.
Godet, M. 2001. Creating Futures: Scenario Planning and a Strategic Management
Tool. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Goodman, M., and A. Kleiner. 1994. “The Archetype Family Tree.” In The
fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning
Organization by Senge et al. 1994. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Guo, H.C., L. Liu, G.H. Huang, G.A. Fuller, R. Zou, and Y.Y. Yin. 2001. “A System
Dynamics Approach for Regional Environmental Planning and Management:
A Study for the Lake Erhai Basin.” Journal of Environmental Management
61, no. 1, pp. 93–11.
Hamilton, H.R. 1969. Systems Simulation for Regional Analysis: An Application
to River Basin Planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hannon, B., and M. Ruth. 2001a. Modeling Dynamic Biological Systems.
New York, NY: Springer.
Hannon, B., and M. Ruth. 2001b. Dynamic Modeling. New York, NY: Springer.
Hardin, G. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 152, pp. 1243–48.
Hardin, G. 1994. “The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.” Trends in Ecology
and Evolution 9, no. 5, p. 199.
Hargrove, J.L. 1998. Dynamic Modeling in the Health Science. New York, NY:
Springer.
Hermann, S. 2012. “Finding CLEWS. Exploring Sustainable Energy Develop-
ments: Looking at Climate-Land-Energy-water Interactions Methodology and
Components.” Presentation at joint ICTP-IAEA Workshop on Sustainable
58 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
Senge, P. 1994. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P.M., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R.B. Ross, and B.J. Smith. 1997. The
Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning
Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Simonovic, S.P., and H. Fahmy. 1999. “A New Modelling Approach for
Water Resources Policy Analysis.” Water Resources Research 35, no. 1,
pp. 295–304.
Simonovic, S.P. 2003. “Assessment of Water Resources through System Dynamics
Simulation: From global Issues to Regional Solutions.” Proc. 36th Hawaii
International Conference on Systems Science. Washington, DC: Computer
Society Press.
Simonovic, S.P., and V. Rajasekaram. 2004. “Integrated Analyses of Canada’s
Water Resources: A System Dynamics Approach.” Canadian Water Resources
J. 29, no. 4, pp. 223–50.
Simonovic, S.P. 2008. “Managing Water Resources: Methods and Tools for a
Systems Approach.” vodoprivreda 0350-0519, no. 40, pp. 157–65. Paris:
UNESCO Publishing.
Sohofi, S.A., A. Melkonyan, C.K. Karl, and K. Krumme. 2016. “System
Archetypes in the Conceptualization Phase of Water-Energy-Food-Nexus
Modeling.” Proceedings of 34th International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society, Delft, The Netherlands. http://systemdynamics.org/
conferences/2016/proceed/papers/P1197.pdf (accessed September 12, 2016).
Stahl, C., and A. Cimorelli. 2006. “A Demonstration of the Necessity and
Feasibility of Using a Clumsy Decision Analytic Approach on Wicked
Environmental Problems.” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Man-
agement 9, no. 1, pp. 17–30.
Stave, K. 2010. “Participatory System Dynamics Modeling for Sustainable
Environmental Management: Observations from Four Cases.” Sustainability
2, pp. 2762–84.
Sterman, J. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World. New York, NY: Irwin, McGraw Hill.
Sterman, J. 2006. “Learning from Evidence in a Complex World.” Am. J. Public
Health 96, no. 3, pp. 505–14.
Stockholm Energy International (SEI). 2013. “LEAP: Long Range Alternative Plan-
ning Systems.” https://sei-international.org/leap (accessed December 24, 2017).
Stroh, D.P. 2015. Systems Thinking for Social Change. White River Junction, VT:
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). 2015. Indicators and
a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. http://
unsdsn.org/resources/publications/indicators/ (accessed February 19, 2016).
Sweeney, L.B. 2001. When a Butterfly Sneezes: A Guide for Helping Kids Explore
Interconnections in Our World Through Favorite Stories. Waltham, MA:
Pegasus Communications.
System Dynamics Society. 2016. “The Field of System Dynamics.” http://
systemdynamics.org/what-is-s/ (accessed December 8, 2016).
64 • A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MODELING THE WELF NEXUS
Takahashi, S. 2012. “Water Cycle Analysis System Dynamics Model for D esigning
Optimal Water Reclamation Scheduling.” Proc. System Dynamics Society
Conference, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Toole, C.L., and A.W. McCown. 2008. “Interdependent Energy Infrastructure
Simulation System.” In Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland
Security, ed. J.G. Voeller. John Wiley and Sons.
Turner, B.L., H.M. Menendez, R. Gates, L.O. Tedeschi, and A.S. Atzori. 2016.
“System Dynamics Modeling for Agricultural and Natural Resource
Management Issues: Review of Some Past Case and Forecasting Future
Roles.” Resources 5, no. 4, p. 40.
Ullah, M.A. 2012. Enhancing the Understanding of Corruption through
System Dynamics Modelling: A Case Study analysis of Pakistan [Doctoral
Dissertation]. New Zealand: University of Auckland.
Umpleby, S.A., and E.B. Dent. 1999. “The Origins and Purposes of Several
Traditions in Systems Theory and Cybernetics.” Cybernetics and Systems 30,
pp. 79–103.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 2011a. Systems Thinking
in conflict Assessment: Concepts and Application. Washington, DC: USAID.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 2011b. USAID Complexity
Event. Washington, DC: USAID.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 2014. Local Systems: A
Framework for Supporting Sustained Development. Washington, DC: USAID.
Vaughan, M. 2013. The Thinking Effect. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Vennix, J.A.M. 1996. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning using
System Dynamics. New York, NY: Wiley.
Vennix, J.A.M. 1999. “Group Model-Building: Tacking Messy Problems.” System
Dynamics Review 15, no. 4, pp. 379–401.
Wakeford, J., C. Kelly. and S.M. Lagrange. 2015. Mitigating Risks and
Vulnerabilities in the Energy-Food-Water Nexus in Developing Countries.
Sustainability Institute, South Africa: Stellenbosch.
Walters, J.P., B. Greiner, E. O’Morrow, and B. Amadei. 2017. “Fostering Systems
Thinking within Engineers Without Borders Student Teams using Group
Model Building.” Int. J. of Engineering Education 33, no. 1, pp. 1–14.
Waters Foundation. 2016. http://watersfoundation.org/systems-thinking/overview/
(accessed December 9, 2016)
Watzlawick, P., J.H. Weakland, and R. Fisch. 1974. Change: Principles of
Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York, NY: W.W. Norton,
Republished in 2011 by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Welsch, M., S. Hermann, M. Howells, H.H. Rogner, C. Young, I. Ramma, M.
Bazilian, G. Fischer, T. Alfstad, D. Gielen, and D. Le Blanc. 2014. “Adding
Value with CLEWS: Modeling the Energy System and Its Interdependencies
for Mauritius.” Applied Energy 113, pp. 1434–45.
Williams, R. December 2, 2008. “Bucking the System.” The Broker. http://the-
brokeronline.eu/Articles/Bucking-the-system (accessed December 11, 2016).
A System Dynamics Approach to the Nexus • 65
Williams, R., and H. Britt. 2014. “Systems Thinking for Monitoring: Attending to
Interrelationships, Perspectives, and Boundaries.” Discussion note, version
1.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.
Winz, I., and G. Brierley. 2007. “The Use of System Dynamics Simulation
in Integrated Water Resources Management.” Proceedings of the 25th
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston. http://
systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/ (accessed December 16, 2016).
Winz, I., G. Brierley, and S. Trowsdale. 2009. “The Use of System Dynamics
Simulation in Water Resources Management.” Water Resources Management
23, no. 7, pp. 1301–23.
Wolfe, M.L., K.C.Ting, N. Scott, A. Sharpley, J.W. Jones, and L. Verma. 2016.
“Engineering Solutions for Food-Energy-Water Systems: It Is More than
Engineering.” J. Environ. Stud. Sci., 6, pp. 17282.
Wolstenholme, E.F. 1990. System Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Wolstenholme, E.F. 1999. “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Modeling: The Evolving
Balance.” J. of the Operational Research Society 50, no. 4, pp. 422–28.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2009. Water,
Energy and Climate Change: A Contribution from the Business Community.
Washington DC.
Wu, B. 2016. “International Development Aid: A Complex System.” Chapter 14
in Global Dynamics: Approaches from Complexity Science, ed. A. Wilson.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Xu, Z.X., K. Takeuchi, H. Ishidaira, and X.W. Zhang. 2002. “Sustainability
Analysis for Yellow River Resources using the System Dynamics Approach.”
Water Resources Management 16, pp. 239–61.
Yates, D., J. Sieber, D. Purkey, and A. Huber-Lee. 2005. “WEAP21- A Demand-,
Priority-, and Preference-Driven Water Planning Model.” Water International
30, no. 4, pp. 487–500.
Zhang, Q., C. Prouty, J.B. Zimmerman, and J.R. Mihelcic. 2016. “More Than
Target 6.3: A Systems Approach to Rethinking Sustainable Development
Goals in a Resource-Scarce World.” Engineering 2, pp. 481–89.
Zhou J. 2014. “From Disease to Epidemic: A Look at the Spanish Flu, Ebola, and
HIV.” http://systemsandus.com/2014/08/02/epidemics/ (accessed December 4,
2014).
Zimmerman, R., Q. Zhu, and C. Dimitri. 2016. “Promoting Resilience for Food,
Energy, and Water Interdependencies.” J. Environ. Stud. Sci 6, no. 1, pp. 50–61.
Zhuang, Y. 2014. A System Dynamics Approach to Integrated Water and Energy
Resources Management. [Graduate Theses and Dissertations]. http://
scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5164 (accessed November 20, 2017).
Index
A D
Agricultural land submodule, 104, Decision making
105–107 external environment, 164–165
Agro-food and land resources human dimension of, 158–159
management, 11 internal environment, 162–164
Archetypes, 27–33 intervention decision invariance,
165
B methods of, 159–162
Backward scenario planning, trade-offs, benefits, and
130–136 synergies, 166–168
Dynamic scenario analysis, 180
C Dynamic scenario planning,
Causal loop diagrams, 22–24, 128–130
32–33
Climate-land-energy-water E
strategy (CLEWS) framework, Energy balance submodule, 117
149 Energy demand submodule, 116,
Combining methods of analysis 118
cross-impact analysis, 44–45 Energy resources management,
from cross-impact to network 10–11
analysis, 48 Energy resources module
network analysis, 45–47 energy balance submodule, 117
Commercial land submodule, 104, energy demand submodule, 116,
108, 109 118
Community capacity assessment variables, parameters, and
submodule, 91–95, 199–200 multipliers, 208
Complexity vs. usefulness model, External environment, decision
72 making, 164–165
Constrained optimization,
151–153 F
Cross-impact analysis, 44–45 FEW/WELF nexus
Cross-impact balance (CIB) agro-food and land resources
analysis, 138–140 management, 11
212 • Index