IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5200-d269715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Preferences for Food–Energy–Water Tradeoffs in the Western U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Brent S. Steel

    (School of Public Policy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA)

  • Erika Allen Wolters

    (School of Public Policy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA)

  • Rebecca L. Warner

    (School of Public Policy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA)

Abstract

The food–energy–water (FEW) nexus is, by definition, a “wicked problem” in that potential solutions in one sector may inadvertently create perverse effects in another. For example, rapid population growth in conjunction with increasing urbanization will add additional stress to current pressures on the world’s FEW resources. Water scarcity will increase challenges in providing plentiful foods, as well as clean, potable water. Water is also critical to energy production—and conversely—energy is needed to deliver clean, safe water. Extant and projected demand for FEW creates an intertwined problem of supply and demand and new policy considerations for managing the nexus. This study examines the FEW policy tradeoff preferences of the public in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington states, using survey data collected in 2018. More specifically, this study examines the impact of demographic control variables, FEW knowledge, and environmental values and beliefs on hypothetical tradeoffs between FEW policy preferences. Findings suggest that those respondents that believe in human-caused climate change and with higher new ecological paradigm (NEP) scores were more supportive of water quality issues versus hydroelectric energy production, rural solar energy development versus limiting rural solar development for food production, and water quality over food production for a growing population.

Suggested Citation

  • Brent S. Steel & Erika Allen Wolters & Rebecca L. Warner, 2019. "Public Preferences for Food–Energy–Water Tradeoffs in the Western U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5200-:d:269715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5200/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5200/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fred C. Pampel, 2014. "The Varied Influence of SES on Environmental Concern," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 57-75, March.
    2. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    3. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    4. Taciano L. Milfont, 2012. "The Interplay Between Knowledge, Perceived Efficacy, and Concern About Global Warming and Climate Change: A One‐Year Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 1003-1020, June.
    5. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Cristóbal De la Maza & Juan Carlos Oyanedel, 2015. "Understanding Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors in a Chilean Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Stamatios Ntanos & Grigorios Kyriakopoulos & Michalis Skordoulis & Miltiadis Chalikias & Garyfallos Arabatzis, 2019. "An Application of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale in a Greek Context," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Jue Wang & Keyi Ju & Xiaozhuo Wei, 2022. "Where Will ‘Water-Energy-Food’ Research Go Next?—Visualisation Review and Prospect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-19, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Veysel Yilmaz & Pınar Guleç & Erkan Ari, 2023. "Impact of climate change information of university students in Turkey on responsibility and environmental behavior through awareness and perceived risk," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7281-7297, July.
    3. Jay, Stephen, 2011. "Mobilising for marine wind energy in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4125-4133, July.
    4. Seol-A Kwon & Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee, 2019. "Analyzing the Determinants of Individual Action on Climate Change by Specifying the Roles of Six Values in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Veysel Yilmaz & Yasemin Can, 2020. "Impact of knowledge, concern and awareness about global warming and global climatic change on environmental behavior," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6245-6260, October.
    6. Paul Lehmann & Felix Creutzig & Melf-Hinrich Ehlers & Nele Friedrichsen & Clemens Heuson & Lion Hirth & Robert Pietzcker, 2012. "Carbon Lock-Out: Advancing Renewable Energy Policy in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-32, February.
    7. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    8. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Xinsheng Liu & Arnold Vedlitz, 2016. "Predictors of the perceived risk of climate change and preferred resource levels for climate change management programs," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 798-809, June.
    9. Abdullah Tarinc & Gozde Seval Ergun & Arif Aytekin & Ali Keles & Ozlem Ozbek & Huseyin Keles & Ozgur Yayla, 2023. "Effect of Climate Change Belief and the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) on Eco-Tourism Attitudes of Tourists: Moderator Role of Green Self-Identity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-27, March.
    10. Hussey, Lucia Kafui & Arku, Godwin, 2019. "Conceptualizations of climate-related health risks among health experts and the public in Ghana," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 40-50.
    11. Vanja WESTERBERG & Jette BREDAHL JACOBSEN & Robert LIFRAN, 2012. "The Multi-faceted Nature of Preferences for Offshore Wind Farm Siting," Working Papers 12-22, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jul 2012.
    12. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    13. Waldo, Åsa, 2012. "Offshore wind power in Sweden—A qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 692-702.
    14. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & Ynke Feenstra, 2015. "How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    15. Tai-Yi Yu & Tai-Kuei Yu, 2017. "The Moderating Effects of Students’ Personality Traits on Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions in Response to Climate Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, November.
    16. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    17. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    18. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    19. Ho, Lip-Wah & Lie, Tek-Tjing & Leong, Paul TM & Clear, Tony, 2018. "Developing offshore wind farm siting criteria by using an international Delphi method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 53-67.
    20. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5200-:d:269715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.