Effectively adapting to climate change involves overcoming social and ecological system barriers.The present study uses a three-phase adaptation framework to propose adaptation strategies aimed at overcoming socioecological barriers of the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus. Cradleto-farm-gate land, greenhouse gas (GHG), and water impacts-that derive from food consumption in the United States-are analyzed and differentiated by major demographic groups (Black, Latinx, and White). Results indicate that the White demographic yields the highest per capita GHG (680 kg of CO 2 eq⋅year −1 ) and water impacts (328,600 L⋅year −1 ) from food consumption, whereas the Black demographic yields the highest per capita land impacts (1,770 m 2 ⋅year −1 ) from food consumption. Our findings suggest that obtaining data with the intention of building consensus across sociodemographic lines overcomes barriers in the understanding phase, leading to increased social receptivity for many planning and managing phase processes. Specifically, we find that identifying and developing leaders who possess the cognitive and interpersonal capacity to manage many variables and stakeholders is key to assessing and selecting adaptation options in the planning phase. We also propose using government programming to encourage environmentally friendly food purchasing behavior. Then, we discuss how our proposals could be used in adaptation feasibility and evaluation activities in the managing phase. In all, these findings facilitate the development of improved climate change adaptation and policy by satisfying the understanding phase of the climate change adaptation framework, establishing a cross-disciplinary methodological approach to addressing socioecological problems, and providing useful FEW impact data for FEW nexus and climate change researchers.

The food-energy-water (FEW) nexus is a focal point in research due to its impacts on ecosystem services that sustain human life. Despite this, FEW studies have not produced enough policy-relevant insights, particularly addressing differences across demographic groups with sufficient data and analysis. We addressed this research gap by integrating socioeconomic status (SES) with pertinent life cycle assessment findings to explore foodconsumption impacts across three of the largest demographic groups (Black, Latinx, White) in the United States. Looking at five food groups-vegetables, fruits, protein, dairy, and grains-food-consumption impacts per dollar spent (FCI$) were calculated. Results show that Latinx and Black household food purchasing and consumption behavior has greater impact on cradle-to-farm-gate environmental resources (land, greenhouse gas [GHG], water) for every dollar spent compared with White households. Higher FCI$ rates for Latinx and Black households are attributable to relatively low average household incomes (i.e., lower SES), which is associated with the purchase of more cheaper, energy-dense foods. Addressing food access issues for demographic groups of lower SES could facilitate the purchase of less environmentally-intense foods, thereby conserving environmental resources and mitigating GHG emissions. Specifically, different messaging relevant to particular demographic groups may be necessary to encourage healthier and lower-impact dietary choices. This study's results provide practitioners, policy makers, and researchers policy-relevant data for issues involving the environment, with interesting discussion on implications for racial equity and human health.

In 2019, The EAT-Lancet Commission developed criteria to assist policymakers and health care systems worldwide in sustaining natural resources to feed a forecasted 10 billion people through the year 2050. Although American dietary habits and underlying food production practices have a disproportionately negative impact on land, greenhouse gas (GHG), and water resources, there is limited information on how this population can meet the EAT-Lancet criteria. To address this, we measured adherence to an adapted version of the EAT-Lancet diet score criteria in United States (U.S.) populations overall and across racial/ ethnic subgroups (i.e., black, Latinx, and white). In addition, we assessed the benefits of adherence in terms of saved environmental resources (i.e., land, GHG, and water). By performing these objectives, we provide vital information for the development of effective intervention strategies in the U.S. with enough refinement to address the human health and environmental implications of marginalized populations. Our results demonstrate that, on average, Americans do not meet EAT-Lancet criteria overall or across racial/ ethnic subgroups. Shifting dietary intakes to meet the criteria could reduce environmental degradation between 28% and 38%. Furthermore, these methods can be adapted to other nations for the development of meaningful strategies that address the food, energy, and water challenges of our time.

Social equity has been a concept of interest for many years, gaining increased focus from energy and environmental communities. The equitable development, collection, and reporting of sociodemographic data (e.g., data related to socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity) are needed to help meet several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (i.e., Affordable and Clean Energy; Reduce Inequalities; Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; and Partnerships for the Goals). Yet, there has not been a consolidation of relevant concepts and application framing in energy and environmental life cycle assessment and decision-making practices. Our study aims to help fill this gap by consolidating existing knowledge on relevant equity applications, providing examples of sociodemographic data needs, and presenting a path toward a more holistic equity administration. In this critique, we present a framework for integrating equity in energy and environmental research and practitioner settings, which we call systemic equity. Systemic equity requires the simultaneous and effective administration of resources (i.e., distributive equity), policies (i.e., procedural equity), and addressing the cultural needs of the systematically marginalized (i.e., recognitional equity). To help provide common language and shared understanding for when equity is ineffectively administered, we present ostensible equity (i.e., when resource and policy needs are met, but cultural needs are inadequately met), aspirational equity (i.e., when policy and cultural needs are met, but resources are inadequate), and exploitational equity (i.e., when resource and cultural needs are met, but policies are inadequate). We close by establishing an adaptive 10-step process for developing standard sociodemographic data practices. The systemic equity framework and 10-step process are translatable to other practitioner and research communities. Nonetheless, energy and environmental scientists, in collaboration with transdisciplinary stakeholders, should administer this framework and process urgently.