Interdependent systems providing water and energy services are necessary for agriculture. Climate change and increased resource demands are expected to cause frequent and severe strains on these systems. Arizona is especially vulnerable to such strains due to its hot and arid climate. However, its climate enables year-round agricultural production, allowing Arizona to supply most of the country's winter lettuce and vegetables. In addition to Phoenix and Tucson, cities including El Paso, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and San Diego rely on Arizona for several types of agricultural products such as animal feed and livestock, meaning that disruptions to Arizona's agriculture also disrupt food supply chains to at least six major cities.

Arizona's predominately irrigated agriculture relies on water imported through an energy intensive process from water-stressed regions. Most irrigation in Arizona is electricity powered, so failures in energy or water systems can cascade to the food system, creating a food-energy-water (FEW) nexus of vulnerability. We construct a dynamic simulation model of the FEW nexus in Arizona to assess the potential impacts of increasing temperatures and disruptions to energy and water supplies on crop irrigation requirements, on-farm energy use, and yield.

We use this model to identify critical points of intersection between energy, water, and agricultural systems and quantify expected increases in resource use and yield loss. Our model is based on threshold temperatures of crops, USDA and US Geological Survey data, Arizona crop budgets, and region-specific literature. We predict that temperature increase above the baseline could decrease yields by up to 12.2% per 1 °C for major Arizona crops and require increased irrigation of about 2.6% per 1 °C. Response to drought varies widely based on crop and phenophase, so we estimate irrigation interruption effects through scenario analysis. We provide an overview of potential adaptation measures farmers can take, and barriers to implementation.

While sustainability is increasingly recognized as an important ethical principle, teaching ethical reasoning skills appropriate for sustainability is problematic. Using non-cooperative game theory, we simulate problems of collective action where tension exists between individual interests and group benefit using grade points. Each of our ethics games brings students completely around the Kolb Learning cycle, which includes four stages:
       1. Abstract conceptualization.
       2. Active experimentation.
       3. Concrete experience.
       4. Reflective observation.
Our pedagogy is organized into game modules that start with a review of theory and relevant concepts in the form of assigned readings and lectures.

Meaningful sustainable consumption patterns require informed consumers who understand the actual impact of their actions on a quantitative and tangible basis. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool well suited to achieving this goal, but has only been superficially applied to the analysis of plant-based diets. This analysis looks at a common component of plant-based meat alternatives: a wheat-based protein known as seitan, which is a common substitute for beef. A comparative consequential analysis shows the overall change in environmental impact when 1000 servings of seitan displace 1000 servings of beef. The functional unit for comparison is one serving of seitan or one serving of beef and the system boundaries include production but not distribution, consumption or disposal. Life cycles are created for seitan and beef in the LCA modeling software SimaPro and an analysis is run using the Eco-indicator 99 methodology. The beef life cycle is created using complete existing LCA data, while the seitan life cycle is created using LCA data for constituent materials and processes.

Findings indicate that beef is much more environmentally impactful than seitan, but the largest difference is found in land use change. Significant data quality and uncertainty issues exist due to the data being incomplete or not representative for US processes and the use of proxy processes to estimate industrial processing. This analysis is still useful as a screening tool to show rough differences in impact. It is noted that despite seitan having a lower environmental impact than beef, increasing seitan production will probably have the effect of increasing overall environmental impacts, as beef production is not likely to decrease as a result. Massive changes in consumer purchase patterns are required before reductions in impact can be expected. Recommendations for future work include expanding system boundaries and obtaining industry specific data for seitan production.