Abstract
Food, water, and energy (FWE) policies often entail contentious tradeoffs. For example, increasing food production may involve irrigation from riparian sources that may adversely impact fisheries habitats, the siting of solar energy on agricultural lands can impact food production, and increasing food production capacity may require pesticides in certain locations, resulting in environmental pollution. Because public preferences are an important component of support for and opposition to FWE policy design and implementation, it is important to understand the correlates of support and opposition to FWE policy tradeoffs. Using survey data from random household surveys conducted in western U.S. states during 2018, this study examined how environmental efficacy, values, and knowledge affected FWE public tradeoff preferences. The findings suggest that these characteristics do affect public FWE tradeoff preferences, with knowledge being a strong driver of support for food production over biofuels, water friendly crops over meat production and conservation over water intensive agriculture. Additionally, environmental efficacy and pro-ecological attitudes drive support for access to safe drinking water and sanitation over food security for a growing population.
Highlights
Recent studies have highlighted the competing needs for land and water resources in the production of food and bioenergy [1,2]
In Idaho, the preference for maintaining feed crops for meat production was somewhat higher than its alternative, though the overall pattern in responses was comparable to California
This study examined tradeoff preferences across key elements of the food–water–energy nexus using data from four western U.S states, namely, California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington
Summary
Recent studies have highlighted the competing needs for land and water resources in the production of food and bioenergy [1,2]. There is concern over the impact of agriculture on the quality and quantity of water available for societal needs [4] Such tradeoffs have become salient due to global trends in climate change and population growth. Climate change adaptation strategies highlight the need for an integrative framework to balance potential tradeoffs across the three resource sectors [8,9]. Interlinkages across these sectors create competition in resource use such that demand pressures on one sector can change the availability of another resource in another sector. The interconnections between water and energy have received significant attention and there are concerns that the limited availability of fresh water may restrict the type and scale of
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
