30
• The academic literature provides several alternative “macroscopes” or frameworks. Applied resilience, sustainability, development, and security problems
are the usual motivation for different FEW nexus framings.
Discussion Points and Exercises
1. Discuss the strengths and weakness of the five criteria for selecting food,
energy, and water systems for analysis.
2. Describe a situation where an alternative framing of a nexus using one or more
of the core processes influencing the nexus described in Sect. 1.3.2. What are
the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?
3. Discuss why the FEW Nexus has become an important topic for science and
policy in the early twenty-first century—and why it did not emerge before.
4. Develop a list of five “grand challenges” for the Twenty-first Century with
implications for food, energy, and water for one of the following countries: (a)
Chile, (b) Fiji, (c) Japan, (d) Nigeria, (e) Poland, and (f) Saudi Arabia.
5. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by Lant
and colleagues.
6. Describe an example where the Lant framing is very effective and an example
where it is not effective.
7. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
D’Odirico and colleagues.
8. Describe an example where the D’Odirico framing is very effective and an
example where it is not effective.
9. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
Scalon and colleagues.
10. Describe an example where the Scalon framing is very effective and an example where it is not effective.
11. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
Bazilian and colleagues.
12. Describe an example where the Bazilian framing is very effective and an example where it is not effective.
13. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
Ringler and colleagues.
14. Describe an example where the Ringler framing is very effective and an example where it is not effective.
15. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by the
California Department of Water Resources.
16. Describe an example where the California DWR framing is very effective and
an example where it is not effective.
17. Compare how factors important to FEW nexus considerations differ between a
highly urbanized region and a rural region in the same country.
18. Compare how factors important to FEW nexus considerations differ between a
highly industrialized country and one where large parts of the population have
limited access to basic levels of food, energy, or water.
19. Discuss how changes in the FEW nexus might serve as a threat multiplier for
underlying societal dynamics. Can you identify a country where such a situation exists?
P. Saundry and B. L. Ruddell
• The academic literature provides several alternative “macroscopes” or frameworks. Applied resilience, sustainability, development, and security problems
are the usual motivation for different FEW nexus framings.
Discussion Points and Exercises
1. Discuss the strengths and weakness of the five criteria for selecting food,
energy, and water systems for analysis.
2. Describe a situation where an alternative framing of a nexus using one or more
of the core processes influencing the nexus described in Sect. 1.3.2. What are
the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?
3. Discuss why the FEW Nexus has become an important topic for science and
policy in the early twenty-first century—and why it did not emerge before.
4. Develop a list of five “grand challenges” for the Twenty-first Century with
implications for food, energy, and water for one of the following countries: (a)
Chile, (b) Fiji, (c) Japan, (d) Nigeria, (e) Poland, and (f) Saudi Arabia.
5. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by Lant
and colleagues.
6. Describe an example where the Lant framing is very effective and an example
where it is not effective.
7. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
D’Odirico and colleagues.
8. Describe an example where the D’Odirico framing is very effective and an
example where it is not effective.
9. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
Scalon and colleagues.
10. Describe an example where the Scalon framing is very effective and an example where it is not effective.
11. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
Bazilian and colleagues.
12. Describe an example where the Bazilian framing is very effective and an example where it is not effective.
13. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by
Ringler and colleagues.
14. Describe an example where the Ringler framing is very effective and an example where it is not effective.
15. Discuss the strength and weakness of the FEW nexus framing proposed by the
California Department of Water Resources.
16. Describe an example where the California DWR framing is very effective and
an example where it is not effective.
17. Compare how factors important to FEW nexus considerations differ between a
highly urbanized region and a rural region in the same country.
18. Compare how factors important to FEW nexus considerations differ between a
highly industrialized country and one where large parts of the population have
limited access to basic levels of food, energy, or water.
19. Discuss how changes in the FEW nexus might serve as a threat multiplier for
underlying societal dynamics. Can you identify a country where such a situation exists?
P. Saundry and B. L. Ruddell