Search

Adapting agriculture to climate change without deteriorating natural resources (e.g., water and energy) is critical to sustainable development. In this paper, we first comprehensively evaluate six agricultural adaptations in response to climate change (2021–2050) through the lens of the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus in Saskatchewan, Canada, using a previously developed nexus model—WEF-Sask. The adaptations involve agronomic measures (early planting date, reducing soil evaporation, irrigation expansion), genetic improvement (cultivars with larger growing degree days (GDD) requirement), and combinations of individual adaptations. The results show that the selected adaptations compensate for crop yield losses (wheat, canola, pea), caused by climate change, to various extents. However, from a nexus perspective, there are mixed effects on water productivity (WP), total agricultural water (green and blue) use, energy consumption for irrigation, and hydropower generation. Individual adaptations such as early planting date and increased GDD requirement compensate for yield losses in both rainfed (0–60 %) and irrigated (18–100 %) conditions with extra use of green water (5–7 %), blue water (2–14 %), and energy for irrigation (2–14 %). Reducing soil water evaporation benefits the overall WEF nexus by compensating for rainfed yield losses (25–82 %) with less use of blue water and energy consumption for irrigation. The combination of the above three adaptations has the potential to sustain agricultural production in water-scarce regions. If irrigation expansion is also included, the combined adaptation almost fully offsets agricultural production losses from climate change but significantly increases blue water use (143–174 %) and energy consumption for irrigation while reducing hydropower production (3 %). This study provides an approach to comprehensively evaluating agricultural adaptation strategies, in response to climate change, and insights to inform decision-makers. • Agricultural adaptations negatively/positively affect the water and energy sectors. • Reducing soil evaporation raises food and hydropower production while saving water. • Changing cultivars/sowing dates besides less soil water loss enhances food security. • Irrigation expansion is not the most effective adaptation to boost crop production. • Irrigation expansion uses plenty of blue water and reduces hydropower production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Finding sustainable pathways to efficiently allocate limited available water resources among increasingly competing water uses has become crucial due to climate-change-induced water shortages and increasing water demand. This has led to an urgent need for the inclusion of economic principles, models, and methods in water resources management. Although several studies have developed macro-economic models to evaluate the economic impacts of alternative water allocation strategies, many if not most ignore the hydrological boundaries of transboundary river basins. Furthermore, of those using input-output (IO) models, only a handful have applied supply-side IO models. In this paper, we present one of the first attempts to develop an inter-regional, supply-side IO modelling framework for a multi-jurisdictional, transboundary river basin to assess the direct and indirect economic impacts of water supply restrictions due to climate and policy change. Applying this framework to the Saskatchewan River Basin in Canada encompassing three provinces, we investigate the economic impacts of two different water supply restriction scenarios on the entire river basin and its sub-basins individually. We find that in the face of climate-change-induced water shortage, economic losses can be reduced by almost 50% by adopting appropriate management practices, including prioritization of water allocation, using alternative water sources, and water re-use technologies. • Sectoral water use is incorporated into a supply-side input-output model. • The model is spatially disaggregated into 6 sub-basins across 3 Canadian provinces. • The model evaluates the economic impacts of alternative water allocation policies. • The model results assist policymakers prepare efficient water management plans. • Adopting proper policies, potential economic drought losses can be reduced by 50%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]