Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:20:45.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2024

Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi*
Affiliation:
Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P. Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa United Nations University: Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Tendai Polite Chibarabada
Affiliation:
Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P. Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa Zimbabwe Sugar Association Experiment Station, P. Bag 7006, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe
Cuthbert Taguta
Affiliation:
Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P. Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa School of Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P. Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
Tinashe Lindel Dirwai
Affiliation:
Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P. Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa International Water Management Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe
Annah Ndeketeya
Affiliation:
Global Water Partnership Southern Africa, 333 Grosvenor Street, Hatfield Gardens, Block A, Pretoria, South Africa
*
Corresponding author: Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study reviewed the applications of the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus for knowledge generation and decision-making in the Global South. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol identified 336 studies from the Web of Science and Scopus datasets. One hundred eighty-five articles applied WEF nexus tools to improve the understanding of WEF nexus interactions and to show the potential of nexus applications. The other articles (151) focused on nexus applications to guide planning and decision support for resource allocation and policy formulation. Environment, climate, ecosystems, land, and socio-economics were other popular nexus dimensions, while waste and economy were considered to a lesser extent. Limitations associated with nexus applications included unavailability of data, uncertainties from data sources, scale mismatch and bias. The inability of nexus tools to capture the complex realities of WEF interactions is hindering adoption, especially for policy formulations and investment planning. Data limitations could be solved using a sound scientific basis to correct uncertainties and substitute unavailable data. Data gaps can be bridged by engaging stakeholders, who can provide local and indigenous knowledge. Despite the limitations, applying nexus tools could be useful in guiding resource management. Limitations associated with nexus applications included – investment planning. Plausible pathways for operationalising the WEF nexus are discussed.

Topics structure

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

As the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus approach grows and expands, there is a need to apply the nexus to implement technical solutions, resource management, and policy development. Previous studies have comprehensively discussed WEF nexus tools (frameworks, discourses and models) without linking them to applications. This review focused on WEF nexus applications to identify how WEF nexus tools have been applied to facilitate knowledge generation and decision-making in the Global South and some opportunities and challenges arising from these efforts. The review synthesised valuable information on how the nexus tools can generate more knowledge on resource utilisation, especially in constrained environments. Optimistic opportunities for applying nexus approaches to solve real problems and inform policy decisions are provided. The review also reveals that WEF nexus approaches are wider than water, energy and food. There are possibilities of extending to address other global challenges such as climate change, environmental (and ecosystem) degradation, land scarcity, human health, and livelihoods. While there are concerns about data scarcity and scale mismatch when applying nexus methodologies in solving problems, we identify studies that have overcome these hurdles with acceptable results. The review will be of value to scientists and practitioners as it outlines recommendations towards operationalising the WEF nexus approach.

Introduction

It has been over a decade since the accentuation of the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus at the 2011 Bonn Nexus Conference on the Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus – Solutions for the Green Economy (Hoff, Reference Hoff2011). Driving the WEF nexus is a holistic vision of sustainability that seeks to strike a balance among key strategic resources (water, energy, and food), the different goals, interests, and needs of people and the environment in a world faced with population growth, urbanisation, industrialisation, resource depletion, climate change and degrading ecosystem services (Hoff, Reference Hoff2011). Traditional and sector-based research approaches fall short of addressing the linkages among water, energy, and food resources systems, given that decisions taken in one sector can spill over and affect the other sectors (Bazilian et al., Reference Bazilian, Rogner, Howells, Hermann, Arent, Gielen, Steduto, Mueller, Komor, Tol and Yumkella2011; Lawford, Reference Lawford2019). Nexus approaches facilitate the evaluation of synergies and trade-offs holistically to avoid conflicts, optimise resource allocation, minimise risk on investment and maximise economic returns (Fan, Reference Fan2016; Mohtar and Lawford, Reference Mohtar and Lawford2016; Mohtar and Daher, Reference Mohtar and Daher2017; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Wallington, Shafiee-Jood and Marston2018). Since its inception, the WEF nexus approach sparked interest among the academic and development communities, resulting in policy dialogues and the development of a wide range of frameworks and tools for analysing the WEF nexus to guide decision-making for improved governance across sectors (Klümper and Theesfeld, Reference Klümper and Theesfeld2017; Ramaswami et al., Reference Ramaswami, Boyer, Nagpure, Fang, Bogra, Bakshi, Cohen and Rao-Ghorpade2017; McGrane et al., Reference McGrane, Acuto, Artioli, Chen, Comber, Cottee, Farr‐Wharton, Green, Helfgott and Larcom2019; Simpson and Jewitt, Reference Simpson and Jewitt2019).

Significant progress has been made in developing WEF nexus tools for different spatial and temporal scales, contexts and users. The abilities, strengths, and shortcomings of current techniques in capturing the nexus approach and its different components have been the subject of several reviews (Kaddoura and el Khatib, Reference Kaddoura and el Khatib2017; Dai et al., Reference Dai, Wu, Han, Weinberg, Xie, Wu, Song, Jia, Xue and Yang2018; Shannak et al., Reference Shannak, Mabrey and Vittorio2018; McGrane et al., Reference McGrane, Acuto, Artioli, Chen, Comber, Cottee, Farr‐Wharton, Green, Helfgott and Larcom2019; Endo et al., Reference Endo, Yamada, Miyashita, Sugimoto, Ishii, Nishijima, Fujii, Kato, Hamamoto, Kimura, Kumazawa and Qi2020; Purwanto et al., Reference Purwanto, Sušnik, Suryadi and de Fraiture2021). Some of the weaknesses identified with the WEF nexus was the omission of other important sectors that influence resource security, such as land, ecosystems and climate change (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Campana, Yao, Zhang, Lundblad, Melton and Yan2018; Dalla Fontana and Boas, Reference Dalla Fontana and Boas2019; Bian and Liu, Reference Bian and Liu2021). Taguta et al. (Reference Taguta, Senzanje, Kiala, Malota and Mabhaudhi2022) reported the lack of basic and requisite characteristics in documented WEF nexus tools, including ready availability, geospatial analytic capabilities, and applicability across different scales and locations. The lack of data that supports efforts to understand system boundaries and spatial dimensions was also cited as a barrier to the application of the WEF nexus approach (McCarl et al., Reference McCarl, Yang, Schwabe, Engel, Mondal, Ringler and Pistikopoulos2017a; Reference McCarl, Yang, Srinivasan, Pistikopoulos and Mohtar2017b; Gomo et al., Reference Gomo, Macleod, Rowan, Yeluripati and Topp2018; Lawford, Reference Lawford2019). Additionally, WEF nexus methodologies often fail to reflect the study region’s uniqueness and to incorporate appropriate activities among different contexts (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Campana, Yao, Zhang, Lundblad, Melton and Yan2018; Dalla Fontana and Boas, Reference Dalla Fontana and Boas2019; Bian and Liu, Reference Bian and Liu2021). For example, the Global South and Global North have differing development trajectories, thus unique priorities and activities pursuing water, energy and food resource security (Reidpath and Allotey, Reference Reidpath and Allotey2019; Kowalski, Reference Kowalski, Leal Filho, Azul, Brandli, Lange Salvia, Özuyar and Wall2020).

As the nexus approach grows and expands, there has been rising interest to shift from theory to practice, thus applying the nexus for implementing technical solutions, resource management and policy development (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Yang, Cudennec, Gain, Hoff, Lawford, Qi, de Strasser, Yillia and Zheng2017; Purwanto et al., Reference Purwanto, Sušnik, Suryadi and de Fraiture2021). Previous studies have discussed WEF nexus tools (frameworks, discourses and models) comprehensively without linking them to applications (Kaddoura and el Khatib, Reference Kaddoura and el Khatib2017; Dai et al., Reference Dai, Wu, Han, Weinberg, Xie, Wu, Song, Jia, Xue and Yang2018; Shannak et al., Reference Shannak, Mabrey and Vittorio2018; McGrane et al., Reference McGrane, Acuto, Artioli, Chen, Comber, Cottee, Farr‐Wharton, Green, Helfgott and Larcom2019; Endo et al., Reference Endo, Yamada, Miyashita, Sugimoto, Ishii, Nishijima, Fujii, Kato, Hamamoto, Kimura, Kumazawa and Qi2020; Purwanto et al., Reference Purwanto, Sušnik, Suryadi and de Fraiture2021). This study focuses on WEF nexus applications within the Global South as the region is associated with high levels of poverty, high population growth rates and a high prevalence of food insecurity, among other issues (Akinbode et al., Reference Akinbode, Okuneye and Onyeukwu2022; Fuseini et al., Reference Fuseini, Enu-Kwesi, Abdulai, Sulemana, Aasoglenang and Domapielle2024). The specific objectives are to (i) identify how WEF nexus tools have been applied to facilitate knowledge generation and decision-making in the Global South, (ii) identify nexus nodes (units of the nexus structure) being considered under different contexts in the Global South, (iii) identify limitations in the application of WEF nexus tools for decision making and knowledge generation in the Global South and iv) propose pathways for operationalising the WEF nexus that are contextualised for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

The paper is structured as follows: after this introduction, ‘Materials and methods’ section describes the method and materials used, including data sources, data curation, and analysis of the data. ‘Results and discussion’ section presents the results: (i) a synopsis of the database, (ii) how WEF nexus tools have been applied for knowledge generation and decision support, and (iii) challenges associated with WEF nexus applications in the Global South. ‘Way forward and recommendations: Pathways towards operationalising the WEF nexus in Southern Africa’ section provides plausible pathways for operationalising the WEF nexus. ‘Study limitations’ section highlights the study’s limitations, and ‘Conclusions’ section is the study’s conclusion.

Materials and methods

Definition of terms

In this study, application refers to the published use of the WEF nexus (concept, discourse, model, etc.) in assessing real-life circumstances or status quo assessment or simulating and modelling hypothetical scenarios (Saundry and Ruddell, Reference Saundry and Ruddell2020). The WEF nexus can serve multiple roles, such as a conceptual framework, an analytical tool, or a discourse (Keskinen et al., Reference Keskinen, Guillaume, Kattelus, Porkka, Räsänen and Varis2016). Firstly, the WEF nexus conceptual framework leverages an understanding of WEF linkages to promote coherence in policy-making and enhance sustainability. Secondly, WEF nexus analytics systematically use quantitative tools (e.g. quantitative models) and/or qualitative methods (e.g. participatory stakeholder workshops) to highlight and understand interactions among water, energy, and food systems. Thirdly, the nexus discourse can facilitate problem-framing and promote cross-sectoral collaboration (Keskinen et al., Reference Keskinen, Guillaume, Kattelus, Porkka, Räsänen and Varis2016; Albrecht et al., Reference Albrecht, Crootof and Scott2018).

One of the study objectives was to identify the extent to which the WEF nexus was used to generate knowledge and make decisions. According to the Oxford Dictionary, knowledge is “facts and skills acquired through experience or learning; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject matter”. For context, this study applied the definition to assess and map the application of WEF nexus tools, frameworks and discourse to generate facts and tools that inform the better management of WEF nexus resources. This study targeted the whole knowledge generation value chain, i.e., knowledge generation as a process, output, and outcome in the WEF nexus theatre of activity (Mitchell and Boyle, Reference Mitchell and Boyle2010). Each value chain component is defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Knowledge generation value chain, i.e. process, output and outcome

The study also defined decision-making as situations whereby stakeholders are individually or collectively required to make choices based on the available facts or information (Hill and McShane, Reference Hill and McShane2008). The decision-making process can be a bottom-up or top-down approach.

Search strategy

The review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Moher et al., Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman and Group2009; Page et al., Reference Page, McKenzie, Bossuyt, Boutron, Hoffmann, Mulrow, Shamseer, Tetzlaff, Akl, Brennan, Chou, Glanville, Grimshaw, Hróbjartsson, Lalu, Li, Loder, Mayo-Wilson, McDonald, McGuinness, Stewart, Thomas, Tricco, Welch, Whiting and Moher2021) (SF1). The Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) framework was used to develop literature search strategies to ensure comprehensive and bias-free searches (Table 2).

Table 2. PICO strategy used to develop the search strategy

A literature search was conducted in two databases [Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection (WoS)] (The last search was on 02 April 2024). The search criteria in the two databases (Scopus and WoS) are presented in Table 3. In the WoS platform, we searched all editions of the WoS core collection.

Table 3. Terms used in searching literature in Scopus and WoS databases

Literature from the Global South was screened during abstract screening. The classification of studies between Global North and Global South was based on Dados and Connell (Reference Dados and Connell2012), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2018) and Kowalski (Reference Kowalski, Leal Filho, Azul, Brandli, Lange Salvia, Özuyar and Wall2020). The search identified 1,451 and 921 articles from Scopus and WOS, respectively. Together, the initial database comprised N = 2,372 articles. A duplicate check in MS Excel identified 703 duplicates that were immediately removed. Consequently, 1,699 articles were screened by title and abstract (Supplementary Figure [SF] 1). Consideration was given to peer-reviewed papers (articles), scientific book chapters, papers and proceedings written and published in English. The date of publication was limited to 2011 (birth of WEF nexus) to the date of the last search (02 April 2024), while the geographic scope, journal disciplines and impact factors were kept open to capture all WEF nexus case studies.

Screening and bias reporting

Three authors (T.P.C., C.T. and T.L.D.) were assigned to screen the abstracts independently. The screening was done by scoring an article’s relevance against a five-point Likert scale (1 – extremely irrelevant and 5 – denoting very relevant). The Koutsos et al. (Reference Koutsos, Menexes and Dordas2019) criteria for ranking article relevance was modified to develop scoring criteria for the articles and facilitate screening (Table 4). Articles that were scored 3 and above by all authors were automatically included. Articles scored 3 or above by at least two authors were also automatically included. Where only one author scored 3 or above, it was resolved by discussion. Articles that were scored 2 and below by all authors were excluded. Articles reporting WEF nexus applications from the Global North were scored 1 as they were extremely irrelevant for this review. Secondary articles, such as reviews, were also scored 1 as they summarised existing studies, and this study delved into primary research (Table 4). The screening favoured publications capturing any nexus and applying WEF nexus concepts, discourse and tools in addressing real-life situations from the Global South. Of the 1,699 articles, 815 were from the Global North, while 127 were reviews and other secondary articles. The remaining 757 articles included 336 studies that applied the WEF nexus approach for any reason (to gain insights, solve a problem, plan, identify factors and aid in decision-making.). These 336 studies were subjected to data extraction by one author (T.P.C.).

Table 4. Manuscript scoring based on the study’s relevance (modified from Koutsos et al., Reference Koutsos, Menexes and Dordas2019)

Data collection

A data extraction sheet was designed in MS Excel. Key data on the selected papers were extracted from the eligible studies and organised in the data extraction sheet. The data items were organised in columns, including publication details (author, year, title), objective, case study (location, country, continent, region), scale (spatial, temporal), nexus nodes, involvement of stakeholders and analytical or modelling tool used. The World Bank regional units (Africa, South Asia, Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Asia, and East Asia) were used to categorise regions. The spatial scales were classified as household, field, farm, community, village, town, city, municipality, district, metropolitan, provincial, national, catchment, watershed, river basin, aquifer, continent, and global. Where studies explicitly highlighted the limitations of the application, this was captured.

Data items and analysis of studies

To facilitate data visualisation and trend analysis, Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny packages from the R language environment were used to map research hotspots and to develop an international collaboration network map. The temporal two-dimensional multi-correspondence analysis (MCA) plot was used to visualise the WEF nexus case studies approach from 2011–2024. A trend analysis was done based on abstracts and keywords. The word tree was prepared using Jason Davies’ Word Tree (Wattenberg and Viégas, Reference Wattenberg and Viégas2008).

Results and discussion

Overview of WEF nexus application studies in the Global South

The conceptual structure map showed that the best size reduction between the two dimensions accounted for 66% of the total variability, i.e., 49.72% and 16.31% for dimensions 1 and 2, respectively (Figure 1). The conceptual structure map showed two distinct clusters (red and blue), and in the plot, the closer the points are to each other, the more similar subject matters they cover in their respective sectors. For example, the sectors Dim 2 (0.0–1.5) and Dim 1 (origin-0) with n= 12 words show a close relationship amongst the words water–energy, irrigation, crops, investments, optimization and energy utilisation, to mention a few. In this context, we observed that, to a greater degree, several cases were linked to economics, economic and social effects, water resources and food supply (Figure 1). China is the only country that appeared in the keyword mapping (Figures 1 and 3), implying that the database comprises many studies conducted in China compared to other countries. An earlier review (Correa-Porcel et al., Reference Correa-Porcel, Piedra-Muñoz and Galdeano-Gómez2021) and a recent one (Rhouma et al., Reference Rhouma, El Jeitany, Mohtar and Gil2024) reported that China ranks second to the USA regarding the total number of WEF nexus articles published in each country. This could be because China’s GDP has been increasing by 9% annually, making it the fastest-growing economy in the Global South (https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview).

Figure 1. Temporal two-dimensional visual showing the red and blue cluster grouping words according to WEF nexus associations with case studies that applied the WEF nexus approach to create knowledge or for decision support. The red cluster (n = 39 words) had higher word association than the blue cluster (n = 6 words).

Trend analysis gave an insight into trending topics based on word occurrence (Figure 2). Between 2020 and 2022, sustainable development and the WEF nexus resources dominated the discourse. This could mean that the WEF nexus is integral in the quest for integrative sustainable management of resources and economic development. A key WEF nexus challenge is to develop policies that support the sustainability of water, energy, and food resources while ensuring universal access to these resources (Simpson and Jewitt, Reference Simpson and Jewitt2019). Post 2022, the relatively dominant words included rivers, cultivation, and water pollution were dominant; this is potentially attributed to river basins being good examples where water, energy, and food interconnect as they supply freshwater, regulate water flow and quality, and generate energy (such as hydropower) (Ringler et al., Reference Ringler, Mondal, Paulos, Mirzabaev, Breisinger, Wiebelt, Siddig, Villamor, Zhu and Bryan2018). The word methodology was prominent post-2016–2016, which we assume could be attributed to the development of WEF nexus tools. The evolution of the WEF nexus as an integrative approach gained traction post-2016. After 2018, the term decision making became more prominent.

Figure 2. Trend topics associated with the WEF Nexus applications database. The trend diagram depicts the evolution of different subject matters related to the WEF nexus research frontier. After the year 2022, decision-making dominated the WEF nexus space. Decision-making is part of the knowledge generation value chain, i.e. process, outcome and output.

Application of nexus approaches

From the databases, we categorised the overall purpose of nexus applications. Two major themes were used: (i) to improve understanding and generate knowledge on WEF interactions and (ii) as a decision support tool.

Understanding and knowledge generation of WEF nexus interactions

Studies under this category aimed to generate knowledge on nexus interactions by quantifying WEF indices at varying scales and understanding the impact of resource allocation at different scales. This knowledge generation approach was mainly focused on the outcomes and outputs components of the knowledge generation value chain. These studies are important to facilitate adopting the approach through evidence on quantitative and qualitative relationships among the sectors and highlighting the advantages of nexus vs silo approaches (Naidoo et al., Reference Naidoo, Nhamo, Mpandeli, Sobratee, Senzanje, Liphadzi, Slotow, Jacobson, Modi and Mabhaudhi2021). Most of the studies in the database (N = 185) were under this category, which could be explained by the fact that the nexus research is shifting from theory to practice. Most studies have been focused on testing and validating the ability of nexus tools to capture intersectoral linkages, thus offering practical recommendations for their application as decision-support tools or to address specific challenges (Supplementary Table [ST] 1).

Taghdisian et al. (Reference Taghdisian, Bukkens and Giampietro2022) explored the potential of the ‘Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism’ (MuSIASEM) framework for resource analysis at the river basin scale. Their results showed that the framework would fill an important gap to guide nexus governance in the region; however, there was a need to co-produce analysis with social actors, and there was a need for good-quality basin data. Stein et al. (Reference Stein, Pahl-Wostl and Barron2018) analysed how actors involved in the governance of WEF are embedded in social networks. They highlighted that actors are not simply disconnected, but there are hierarchical structures that result in coordination challenges despite visible theoretical cross-sectorial linkages. By combining different methods (gridded water balance model and GIS), Daccache et al. (Reference Daccache, Ciurana, Diaz and Knox2014) quantified irrigated regions’ water demand and energy footprint. The study demonstrated the possibility of combining different methods to integratively analyse the WEF nexus and facilitate an understanding of the water, energy, and food nexus that could be used for policy formulation on irrigated agriculture (Daccache et al., Reference Daccache, Ciurana, Diaz and Knox2014). Another knowledge generation as an output scenario was done by Taguta et al. (Reference Taguta, Nhamo, Kiala, Bangira, Dirwai, Senzanje, Makurira, Jewitt, Mpandeli and Mabhaudhi2023). The authors (Taguta et al., Reference Taguta, Nhamo, Kiala, Bangira, Dirwai, Senzanje, Makurira, Jewitt, Mpandeli and Mabhaudhi2023) developed a geospatial integrative iWEF 1.0 model to assess WEF nexus usage across multiple scales for building resilience and adaptation strategies.

Planning and decision support

Planning is concerned with setting objectives and targets and formulating plans to accomplish the objectives. It involves logical thinking and rational decision-making. Nexus tools have been applied to evaluate options and scenarios for the identification of optimal decisions for resource allocation at different scales and contexts. The modified search strategy incorporating WEF nexus and decision-making produced a co-occurrence network in which decision-making was strongly linked to water supply, economic and social effects, multiple objective optimisation, population, policy making, and energy utilisation, to mention a few (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Decision-making linkages co-occurrence network. The main red cluster had decision-making at the centre and was effectively and directly linked to 32 socio-economic, socio-political-ecological related words. The minor blue cluster centred on water supply was linked with decision-making for food supply, hydropower, and environmental protection, to mention a few.

In addition to optimal resource allocation, nexus approaches have also been valuable in identifying the most economical strategies, such as energy utilisation, water management, water conservation, and resource allocation, to mention a few (Seeliger et al., Reference Seeliger, de Clercq, Hoffmann, Cullis, Horn and de Witt2018; Das et al., Reference Das, Sahoo and Panda2020; Siderius et al., Reference Siderius, Biemans, Kashaigili and Conway2022). The authors hypothesise that the application was based on the ability of the WEF nexus to identify trade-offs and synergies that facilitate decision-making at the operational and policy levels. An example of a nexus approach for planning purposes was when the future allocation of land and water resources for agriculture and hydropower generation in the transboundary upper Blue Nile (UBN) basin was determined using a WEF nexus framework by Allam and Eltahir (Reference Allam and Eltahir2019). Li et al. (Reference Li, Li, Fu, Liu, Yu and Li2021a) applied the WEF nexus approach at the field scale to identify a sustainable cropping system to maximise crop production while reducing energy consumption and water depletion. Also, under agricultural development, Guo et al. (Reference Guo, Zhang, Engel, Wang, Guo and Li2022) applied a nexus approach to determine sustainable agricultural irrigation development at the river basin scale without negatively affecting hydropower generation and other water uses. In another study, a nexus tool was used to identify stakeholders that would participate in a programme to rehabilitate a reservoir (Melloni et al., Reference Melloni, Turetta, Bonatti and Sieber2020). In the context of decision support, the nexus that included climate as an important node was applied to identify adaptation strategies and to ensure the resilience of current WEF policies to climate change (Mabhaudhi et al., Reference Mabhaudhi, Nhamo, Mpandeli, Nhemachena, Senzanje, Sobratee, Chivenge, Slotow, Naidoo, Liphadzi and Modi2019; Qi et al., Reference Qi, Li, Yuan and Wang2021; Yue et al., Reference Yue, Wu, Wang and Guo2021a).

Nexus nodes

Building from the World Economic Forum in 2011, the nexus was recognised from the water–energy–food nexus perspective. While this has been the most common definition, there have been varying interpretations in different sectors and contexts. Nexus thinking is an analytical approach that seeks to identify and quantify the links between the nexus nodes. In this review, nexus concepts analysed in each study were captured and subjected to a word tree to visualise other nexus nodes that have been used. Socio-economics was grouped to represent issues concerning human livelihoods, health, culture and general well-being. Results show that WEF environment has been quite popular in nexus studies (Figure 4). Environment has been a popular node as it addresses broader issues to do with land use, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint and biodiversity (Dhaubanjar et al., Reference Dhaubanjar, Davidsen and Bauer-Gottwein2017; Nie et al., Reference Nie, Avraamidou, Xiao, Pistikopoulos, Li, Zeng, Song, Yu and Zhu2019; Lahmouri et al., Reference Lahmouri, Drewes and Gondhalekar2019; Melloni et al., Reference Melloni, Turetta, Bonatti and Sieber2020; Malagó et al., Reference Malagó, Comero, Bouraoui, Kazezyılmaz-Alhan, Gawlik, Easton and Laspidou2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Tan, Zhang, Zhang and Zhang2021; Correa-Cano et al., Reference Correa-Cano, Salmoral, Rey, Knox, Graves, Melo, Foster, Naranjo, Zegarra, Johnson, Viteri-Salazar and Yan2022; Taghdisian et al., Reference Taghdisian, Bukkens and Giampietro2022). According to Simpson and Jewitt (Reference Simpson and Jewitt2019), the environment is an irreplaceable foundation for the WEF nexus as it underpins the security of WEF resources. Figure 4 shows that after the environment, there were many other branches (climate, land, socioeconomics) and sub-branches where climate was linked to land and ecosystems.

Figure 4. Word tree of nexus nodes considered in nexus application studies in the Global South.

Water–energy–food–climate, water–energy–food-ecosystems, water–energy–food–land and water–energy–food-socioeconomics were popular nexus definitions (Figure 4). It was observed that water–energy–food–climate was used in studies focussing on climate change adaptation and resilience of households/communities to climate change (Adom et al., Reference Adom, Simatele and Reid2022; de Souza and Versieux, Reference de Souza and Versieux2021; Diriöz, Reference Diriöz2021; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Assi, Daher, Mengoub and Mohtar2020; Pardoe et al., Reference Pardoe, Conway, Namaganda, Vincent, Dougill and Kashaigili2018; Rasul and Sharma, Reference Rasul and Sharma2016; Yang, et al., 2018; Yue et al., Reference Yue, Wu, Wang and Guo2021a). Like the environment, the ecosystem broadly refers to issues of biodiversity, ecology and the sustainability of the environment (AbdelHady et al., Reference AbdelHady, Fahmy and Pacini2017; Karabulut et al., Reference Karabulut, Udias and Vigiak2019; Müller-Mahn and Gebreyes, Reference Müller-Mahn and Gebreyes2019; Muthee et al., Reference Muthee, Duguma, Nzyoka and Minang2021). Studies addressing the water–energy–food–socioeconomics nexus were more popular at river basin and transboundary scales where livelihoods are directly impacted, especially for small-scale agriculture, fishing and tourism. For example, the consideration of health in the WEF nexus during dam development was highlighted following the transmission of Schistosoma spp. parasites in humans in the Senegal River Basin (Lund et al., Reference Lund, Harrington, Albrecht, Hora, Wall and Andarge2022).

Waste, both urban and economic, was not often used relative to the environment, ecosystem, climate, and socioeconomics (Figure 4). We observed waste to be more popular in studies on urban development. This was also similar to the economy. These nodes were more popular in China, where the WEF nexus was more popular in the context of urban planning and urban metabolism (Li et al., Reference Li, Huang and Li2016; Niva et al., Reference Niva, Cai, Taka, Kummu and Varis2020; Xu et al., Reference Xu, Fan, Zhang, Li, Li, Lv, Shi, Zhu and Qian2020; An et al., Reference An, Liu, Cheng, Yao, Li and Wang2021; Ma et al., Reference Ma, Li, Hu, Wang and Li2021; Qi et al., Reference Qi, Farnoosh, Lin and Liu2022; Zan et al., Reference Zan, Iqbal, Lu, Wu and Chen2022). In some water–energy–food–waste studies, wastewater was proposed for irrigation purposes, thus promoting a circular economy characterised by recycling and reducing pressure on freshwater resources (Lahlou et al., Reference Lahlou, Mackey, McKay, Onwusogh and Al-Ansari2020; Das and Chirisa, Reference Das and Chirisa2021; Ramirez et al., Reference Ramirez, Almulla and Fuso Nerini2021).

Limitations of WEF Nexus applications in the Global South

Data availability allows stakeholders to take stock of economic and environmental resource availability, use and management (Naidoo et al., Reference Naidoo, Nhamo, Mpandeli, Sobratee, Senzanje, Liphadzi, Slotow, Jacobson, Modi and Mabhaudhi2021). Various studies highlighted data limitations as one of the major challenges in the real-life application of nexus approaches. This could have been a result of the unavailability of the data (Perrone and Hornberger, Reference Perrone and Hornberger2016; Ozturk, Reference Ozturk2017; Bellezoni et al., Reference Bellezoni, Sharma, Villela and Pereira Junior2018; Gaddam and Sampath, Reference Gaddam and Sampath2022; Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Fu, Cao, Liu and Li2022), uncertainties stemming from data sources (Perrone and Hornberger, Reference Perrone and Hornberger2016; Ozturk, Reference Ozturk2017; Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Fu, Liu, Yu and Li2021a), scale mismatch (Feng et al., Reference Feng, Chen, Duan, Fang, Li, Jiao, Sun, Li and Hou2022; Han et al., Reference Han, Yu and Cao2020; Nie et al., Reference Nie, Avraamidou, Xiao, Pistikopoulos, Li, Zeng, Song, Yu and Zhu2019) and biases especially in the case of qualitative data (Namany et al., Reference Namany, Govindan, Martino, Pistikopoulos, Linke, Avraamidou and Al-Ansari2021). Naidoo et al. (Reference Naidoo, Nhamo, Mpandeli, Sobratee, Senzanje, Liphadzi, Slotow, Jacobson, Modi and Mabhaudhi2021) emphasised data scarcity at sub-national scales and highlighted other data challenges at all scales related to heterogeneity, disparity, plurality, varied data collection and storage methods, and different data quality and standards. Some governments and organisations in the Global South guard WEF-related data as a matter of national security and sovereignty, while some charge thousands of dollars for long-term data, for example, 30-year multi-station daily climate data. Some custodians who commercialise such data as climate and hydrological claim that selling such data is their only source of income for meeting operation costs towards sustainable data collection without funding from the government and external sources. In a study to track the urban energy-water-land flows within local, regional, national, and global supply chains from the production and consumption perspectives. The sectoral data provided in the World input-output table (Timmer et al., Reference Timmer, Dietzenbacher, Los, Stehrer and de Vries2015) were highly aggregated and limited the reliability of the results (Meng et al., Reference Meng, Wang, Meng, Li, Liu, Yuan, Hu and Zhang2022). When national statistics were used, they misrepresented regional and local variations for various indicators of food, energy, and water security (Mohammadpour et al., Reference Mohammadpour, Mahjabin, Fernandez and Grady2019). In addition, analyses of nexus using political boundaries and administrative-area levels (provinces, metropolitans) limit the ability to extend to other nodes (environmental and ecosystem) that transcend political boundaries.

Concerning qualitative data, Namany et al. (Reference Namany, Govindan, Martino, Pistikopoulos, Linke, Avraamidou and Al-Ansari2021) reported that experts’ judgements can influence the estimation of importance scores. In addition, when experts from a single sector conduct scoring, they are subjective and not in the interest of nexus considerations (Namany et al., Reference Namany, Govindan, Martino, Pistikopoulos, Linke, Avraamidou and Al-Ansari2021). The strength of any quantification tool for nexus depends on the strength of the data. Where data is limited, or there are uncertainties, all the assumptions applied to cover the lack of data and to correct any uncertainties should be performed through sound scientific fundamentals (Bellezoni et al., Reference Bellezoni, Sharma, Villela and Pereira Junior2018; Sun et al., Reference Sun, Niu, Yu, Li, Yang and Ji2022).

Another limitation in applying the nexus approach to real-life case studies was the inability to capture the complexities of those interactions in reality and entirety (Perrone and Hornberger, Reference Perrone and Hornberger2016; Bakhshianlamouki et al., Reference Bakhshianlamouki, Masia, Karimi, van der Zaag and Sušnik2020; Shi et al., Reference Shi, Luo, Zheng, Chen, Hellwich, Bai, Liu, Liu, Xue, Cai, He, Uchenna Ochege, van de Voorde and de Maeyer2021; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Liu, Xia, Wang, Meng, Chen, Mao and Ye2021). A quantification of WEF nexus interactions in the Brahmaputra River Basin, South Asia, using a hydro-economic water system model showed the potential to provide advanced knowledge to inform policy dimensions of natural and social driver changes impact on the WEF nexus (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Ringler, Brown and Mondal2016a). However, the basin’s reality was more complex than captured by the model, which could cause policymakers to resist adopting such an analysis. The model did not consider capital and operational costs of water diversions, the loss of other ecosystem services and the diurnal variations in streamflow (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Ringler, Brown and Mondal2016a). To better represent the real world, agent-based water resources system models are more accurate than centralised optimization frameworks. However, agent-based water resources system models require comprehensive datasets with inherent weaknesses and limitations (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Ringler, Brown and Mondal2016a).

Way forward and recommendations: pathways towards operationalising the WEF nexus in Southern Africa

While the literature search focused on the Global South, we propose pathways for operationalising the WEF nexus contextualised for the SADC region. The SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan on Integrated Water Resources Development and Management Phase V highlights the importance of the WEF nexus and the need to have integrated planning and implementation at both a regional and national level (SADC, 2023) Due to the global approach applied in the study, the pathways are generalisable to many global South regions that share a similar context as the SADC. Plausible pathways towards operationalising the WEF nexus are summarised using the Theory of Change (ToC) framework developed by Naidoo et al. (Reference Naidoo, Nhamo, Mpandeli, Sobratee, Senzanje, Liphadzi, Slotow, Jacobson, Modi and Mabhaudhi2021) (Table 5). The crux of the framework was to develop a platform for cross-sectoral dialogues and institutions that can guide key stakeholders to identify and prioritise solutions together from an overall nexus perspective (Naidoo et al., Reference Naidoo, Nhamo, Mpandeli, Sobratee, Senzanje, Liphadzi, Slotow, Jacobson, Modi and Mabhaudhi2021). A ToC clarifies the connections between a given intervention and its outcomes, thus creating a better understanding of what is being implemented and why (Table 5).

Table 5. Accelerating WEF Nexus transition from theory to practice in the SADC region

Bridging the science-policy-practice gap

The inherently vulnerable Global South continues to suffer from thirst, darkness and hunger despite the promises of WEF security through historical sectoral and integrated approaches (Ringler et al., Reference Ringler, Bhaduri and Lawford2013). The security of WEF resources challenges the region and struggles to achieve SDGs, and this is intensified by historical inequities, injustices and imbalances in access and distribution (Murombedzi, Reference Murombedzi2016). For example, Chile currently leads the Global South countries in the overall progress towards achieving all 17 SDGs, but it has a score of 78.22% and is ranked 30th out of all 193 UN Member States (UN, 2022). South Africa demonstrates how historical inequalities contribute to distribution and access to WEF resources and SDG attainment. South Africa is ranked the world’s most unequal country, ranking first out of 164 countries (International Center for Transitional Justice, 2022). This has consequently led to the country being ranked 110th (SDG index score = 64%, global average = 66.7%) with stagnancy in SDGs 2 (zero hunger) and 7 (affordable and clean energy) and moderate improvements in SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) (UN, 2022). Disparities exist in access to WEF resources between South Africa’s urban and vulnerable peri-urban, rural, and informal settlements (StatsSA, 2019; 2023). Zimbabwe is ranked 138th (SDG index score = 55.6) with stagnancy in SDG 2 (zero hunger), a decrease in SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) and moderate improvements in SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy). Implementing the WEF nexus approach with equal consideration between social groups can redress inequity and inequality through just transition, social justice, and sustainable and equitable development of society towards low-carbon economies in the Global South (Murombedzi, Reference Murombedzi2021). Nexus implementation must consider outcomes for the poor and vulnerable to not compromise their well-being (Ringler et al., Reference Ringler, Bhaduri and Lawford2013).

Global changes in climate exacerbate the WEF challenges in the Global South, which are also amplified by pandemics (e.g., COVID-19) and conflicts (e.g., Russia-Ukraine) that disrupt the supply chains of food (grains, cooking oil), fertiliser and energy (fuel, gas). Interlinkages between climate change and WEF resources are forward and backwards because climate change affects WEF resources and sectors (Rasul and Sharma, Reference Rasul and Sharma2016). In the current era of climate change, global warming, and climate variability, the need arises to consider the climatic dimension in the nexus thinking equally for an inter-sectoral response. Similarly, climate mitigation and adaptation should be planned and implemented from an integrated nexus perspective to minimise maladaptation. Thus, a paradigm shift from a vicious cycle of conventional sectoral management approaches to a potentially virtuous cycle of implementing nexus approaches is more likely to accelerate the inclusive achievement of the COP21 Paris climate change commitments and SDGs. An equally important dimension in the nexus is the environment. Nexus deliberations must account for environmental outcomes to preserve and maintain ecosystems that underpin the security of WEF resources (Ringler et al., Reference Ringler, Bhaduri and Lawford2013).

The WEF nexus promises to simultaneously and collectively achieve the security of water, energy and food through improved allocation and efficiencies. The approach has progressed significantly, if not rapidly, in the research and policy space, although implementation is still in its infancy. Science through the research dimension has enhanced understanding and knowledge of the concept, developed relatively abundant tools, and amassed volumes of evidence. Similarly, the policy space has congregated decision-makers in dialogues that promote collaboration, sharing and integration. The Global South must contextualise the WEF nexus tools, evidence and relevant policies into actionable strategies, programs and actions that can be implemented, from pilots to full-scale, for just and inclusive transitions and transformations that leave no one behind in sustainable development. For example, dialogue findings can be used to develop coherent nexus-friendly policies. In contrast, lessons from nexus and scenario planning studies can be used to develop harmonised and integrative incremental and transformative pathways whose scenarios can be exploratively simulated by WEF nexus modelling tools. Promisingly optimal intervention(s) that optimise synergies and minimise trade-offs are combined into WEF investment packages, which are piloted so that their real-life impacts can be evaluated and monitored. Challenges are noted, lessons are learnt, and improvements are made for deep-, out- and up-scaling.

Addressing data needs to enable nexus applications

There is a high demand for quantitative and qualitative data and information to apply nexus models and frameworks. Nexus applications have relied heavily on secondary databases, which are largely sectorial and limited in depth, accuracy and spatial and temporal scale. The type of data, its format, and its accuracy are important for developing nexus tools and their usefulness and reliability in solving real-life challenges. Researchers need to clearly outline data needs at different scales from relevant authorities to satisfy WEF tools. This should be complemented by standardised data collection protocols that can guide data collection and ensure good quality and uniform data comparable across scales, space and time is obtained. Government departments, academia, research organisations, and development agencies are encouraged to collaboratively follow strict data curation practices to ensure that high-standard data is available and easily accessible. The development of nexus tools should also balance both simplicity and accuracy with minimal data input requirements.

Building and strengthening capacity for WEF nexus adoption and application

WEF nexus research still largely exists at an academic and scientific level, especially in the Global South (Lazaro et al., Reference Lazaro, Bellezoni, Puppim de Oliveira, Jacobi and Giatti2022). The move to Open Access is changing this. However, much research is still pay-walled, and some targeted end users of the research findings, such as policymakers, lack the skills to understand and translate scientific evidence (Cairney and Oliver, Reference Cairney and Oliver2017; Gollust et al., Reference Gollust, Seymour, Pany, Goss, Meisel and Grande2017). From the perspective of some policymakers, some main barriers to accessing scientific literature include time to read papers and difficulty in understanding technical language (Karam-Gemael et al., Reference Karam-Gemael, Loyola, Penha and Izzo2018). Thus, concise packaging of the relevant information is needed, paying particular attention to what information needs to be transferred to policymakers and how to package and present it to improve the likelihood of using it (Strydom et al., Reference Strydom, Funke, Nienaber, Nortje and Steyn2010). There is a need to build and strengthen the capacity of researchers, practitioners and policymakers to jointly undertake nexus assessments and translate the evidence into policy and practice outcomes, especially in the context of investment and sustainable development planning. Such capacity-building should consider the regional context and integrate the biophysical and socio-ecological systems to enhance people and planetary benefits across multiple scales (from farm or village to country and region). This requires transdisciplinary approaches that cut across disciplines, sectors and actors to ensure impact.

Study limitations

The review used the PRISMA guidelines to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. Due to the use of predefined search terms and inclusion criteria, some literature may have been excluded. The search was also done in scientific databases (WoS and Science Direct), thus excluding other potential sources of ‘grey literature’ such as reports and theses that are not all included in scientific databases. During synthesis, the study identified two major drivers of nexus applications: (i) to improve understanding and to generate knowledge on WEF interactions; and (ii) for planning purposes and as a decision support tool. While the categorisation was subjective, the authors represent expertise in the science and public space and are experts on the WEF nexus. While the pathways are contextualised for southern Africa, the literature review was at a Global South level due to limited research outputs specific to the region.

Conclusions

We reviewed WEF nexus applications in the Global South to develop pathways for WEF nexus operationalising at a regional scale. There is a drive to shift from nexus theory to practice. Hence, there has been a surge in studies aiming to validate nexus tools and improve understanding of nexus interactions at different scales (Al-Saidi et al., Reference Al-Saidi, Daher and Elagib2023). These studies have been valuable for knowledge generation and provide optimism on the possibilities of nexus approaches for solving real-world problems.

Nexus nodes are not limited to the default water, energy and food. The approach has extended to address global challenges such as climate change, environmental degradation, land scarcity, and livelihoods. This highlights the catalytic nature of the WEF nexus approach and how it can facilitate broader systemic change.

Data availability, quality, and scale mismatch concerns could hinder applying nexus approaches to solve problems. However, this should not be a deterrent. Data limitations can be overcome through sound methods when making assumptions and statistical methods to (dis)aggregate and down/upscale data to suit a specific scale.

The inability of nexus approaches to capture reality was also cited as a major limitation; however, we believe no model is perfect and is a true representation of reality. Models should aim to capture important aspects of the system and accurately respond to changes in input variables while addressing the questions and objectives in focus. That ability to respond to input variables and show trends is important for planning and decision-making. Recommendations towards operationalising the WEF nexus include bridging the science-policy-practice gap, generating data for developing and applying nexus tools and building capacity within students, researchers and practitioners. While these recommendations are contextualised for southern Africa, they are transposable to other global South regions with a similar development context.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2024.8.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2024.8.

Author contribution

T.M., Conceptualization, Writing—Original draft preparation, critical review and redrafting; T.P.C., Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Writing—Original draft preparation; C.T., Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Writing—Original draft preparation; T.L.D., Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Writing—Original draft preparation; and A.N., Critical analysis. All authors revised and edited the manuscript.

Financial support

The SADC Nexus Dialogue Project “Fostering Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus Dialogue and Multi-Sector Investment in the SADC Region,” which was supported by the European Commission as part of the global ‘Nexus Regional Dialogues Programme”. This work was funded, in part, by the Nexus Gains Initiative, which is grateful for the support of CGIAR Trust Fund contributors: www.cgiar.org/funders. The Water Research Commission of South Africa is also acknowledged for funding through WRC CON2022/2023-00910. The work was funded, in part, by the Sustainable and Health Food Systems – Southern Africa (SHEFS-SA) Project, supported through the Wellcome Trust’s Climate and Health Programme [Grant No 227749/Z/23/Z]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

AbdelHady, RS, Fahmy, HS and Pacini, N (2017) Valuing of Wadi El-Rayan ecosystem through water–food–energy nexus approach. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 17, 247253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adom, RK, Simatele, MD and Reid, M (2022) Addressing the challenges of water-energy-food nexus programme in the context of sustainable development and climate change in South Africa. Journal of Water and Climate Change 13, 27612779. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akinbode, SO, Okuneye, PA and Onyeukwu, CO (2022) Inequality, population growth, and hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa. SN Social Sciences 2(11), 250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albrecht, TR, Crootof, A and Scott, CA (2018) The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environmental Research Letters 13(4), 043002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allam, MM and Eltahir, EAB (2019) Water-energy-food nexus sustainability in the upper Blue Nile (UBN) basin. Frontiers in Environmental Science 7, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/FENVS.2019.00005/BIBTEX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Saidi, M, Daher, B and Elagib, NA (2023) Editorial: (10 years) Water-Energy-Food nexus: Towards knowledge synthesis, action prioritization and revitalization of security debates. Frontiers in Water 4, 1125534. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.1125534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An, R, Liu, P, Cheng, L, Yao, M, Li, H and Wang, Y (2021) Network analysis of the food-energy-water nexus in China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt from a synergetic perspective. Environmental Research Letters 16, 054001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe25e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhshianlamouki, E, Masia, S, Karimi, P, van der Zaag, P and Sušnik, J (2020) A system dynamics model to quantify the impacts of restoration measures on the water-energy-food nexus in the Urmia Lake Basin, Iran. Science of the Total Environment 708, 134874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazilian, M, Rogner, H, Howells, M, Hermann, S, Arent, D, Gielen, D, Steduto, P, Mueller, A, Komor, P, Tol, RSJ and Yumkella, KK (2011) Considering the energy, water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39, 78967906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellezoni, RA, Sharma, D, Villela, AA, and Pereira Junior, AO (2018) Water-energy-food nexus of sugarcane ethanol production in the state of Goiás, Brazil: An analysis with regional input-output matrix. Biomass and Bioenergy 115, 108119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.04.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bian, Z, and Liu, D (2021) A comprehensive review on types, methods and different regions related to water–energy–food nexus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 8276. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cai, X, Wallington, K, Shafiee-Jood, M and Marston, L (2018) Understanding and managing the food-energy-water nexus – opportunities for water resources research. Advances in Water Resources 111, 259273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.11.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P and Oliver, K (2017) Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Research Policy and Systems 15(1), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correa-Cano, ME, Salmoral, G, Rey, D, Knox, JW, Graves, A, Melo, O, Foster, W, Naranjo, L, Zegarra, E, Johnson, C, Viteri-Salazar, O and Yan, X (2022) A novel modelling toolkit for unpacking the Water-Energy-Food-Environment (WEFE) nexus of agricultural development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 159, 112182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correa-Porcel, V, Piedra-Muñoz, L and Galdeano-Gómez, E (2021) Water–Energy–Food Nexus in the Agri–Food Sector: Research Trends and Innovating Practices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 12966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daccache, A, Ciurana, JS, Diaz, JAR and Knox, JW (2014) Water and energy footprint of irrigated agriculture in the Mediterranean region. Environmental Research Letters 9, 124014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dados, N and Connell, R (2012) The global South. Contexts 11, 1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, J, Wu, S, Han, G, Weinberg, J, Xie, X, Wu, X, Song, X, Jia, B, Xue, W and Yang, Q (2018) Water-energy nexus: A review of methods and tools for macro-assessment. Applied Energy 210, 393408. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.08.243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Fontana, M and Boas, I (2019) The politics of the nexus in the city of Amsterdam. Cities 95, 102388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, A, Sahoo, B and Panda, SN (2020) Evaluation of nexus-sustainability and conventional approaches for optimal water-energy-land-crop planning in an irrigated canal command. Water Resources Management 34, 23292351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, DK and Chirisa, I (2021) Exploring the water-nutrient-food nexus for an African City region: Linking the Chivero Lake and Harare City region, Zimbabwe. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development 9, 82101. https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.9.4_82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Souza, M and Versieux, BH (2021) Nexus water, energy, and food in the context of climate change: The case of Northeast Brazil. Estudos Internacionais 9, 112130. https://doi.org/10.5752/P.2317-773X.2021V9N1P112-130.Google Scholar
Dhaubanjar, S, Davidsen, C and Bauer-Gottwein, P (2017) Multi-objective optimization for analysis of changing trade-offs in the Nepalese water-energy-food nexus with hydropower development. Water (Switzerland) 9, 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030162.Google Scholar
Diriöz, AO (2021) Addressing climate change through the water-energy-food nexus: Lessons learned from Turkey. In Climate Change Law and Policy in the Middle East and North Africa Region (pp. 136152). https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85118362965andpartnerID=40andmd5=8f433e43318afcd7815325131dcd79d9.Google Scholar
Endo, A, Yamada, M, Miyashita, Y, Sugimoto, R, Ishii, A, Nishijima, J, Fujii, M, Kato, T, Hamamoto, H, Kimura, M, Kumazawa, T and Qi, J (2020) Dynamics of water–energy–food nexus methodology, methods, and tools. Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health 13, 4660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, S (2016) A nexus approach to food, water, and energy: Sustainably meeting Asia’s future food and nutrition requirements. Pakistan Development Review 55, 297311. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85041651690andpartnerID=40andmd5=0d9b758e807376887af5f58ec5927185.Google Scholar
Feng, M, Chen, Y, Duan, W, Fang, G, Li, Z, Jiao, L, Sun, F, Li, Y and Hou, Y (2022) Comprehensive evaluation of the water-energy-food nexus in the agricultural management of the Tarim River Basin, Northwest China. Agricultural Water Management 271, 107811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuseini, MN, Enu-Kwesi, F, Abdulai, IA, Sulemana, M, Aasoglenang, TA and Domapielle, MK (2024) Poverty in the global south: Does the geographical theory offer any new insight to understanding penury? Cogent Social Sciences 10(1), 2321710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddam, SJ and Sampath, PV (2022) Are multi-scale water-energy-land-food nexus studies effective in assessing agricultural sustainability? Environmental Research Letters 17, 014034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac435f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollust, SE, Seymour, JW, Pany, MJ, Goss, A, Meisel, ZF and Grande, D (2017) Mutual distrust: Perspectives from researchers and policy makers on the research to policy gap in 2013 and recommendations for the future. Inquiry 54, 0046958017705465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958017705465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomo, FF, Macleod, C, Rowan, J, Yeluripati, J and Topp, K (2018) Supporting better decisions across the nexus of water, energy and food through earth observation data: Case of the Zambezi basin. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences 376, 1523. https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-376-15-2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, S, Zhang, F, Engel, BA, Wang, Y, Guo, P and Li, Y (2022) A distributed robust optimization model based on water-food-energy nexus for irrigated agricultural sustainable development. Journal of Hydrology 606, 127394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, D, Yu, D and Cao, Q (2020) Assessment on the features of coupling interaction of the food-energy-water nexus in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 249, 119379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, CW and McShane, SL (2008) Principles of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, pp. 404420.Google Scholar
Hoff, H (2011) Understanding the nexus: Background paper for the Bonn2011 Nexus Conference. SEI. Available at http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-65883.Google Scholar
International Center for Transitional Justice (2022). South Africa Most Unequal Country in the World, New York City, USA. Available at https://www.ictj.org/node/35024 (accessed 18 June 2024).Google Scholar
Johnson, WHA (2002) Assessing organizational knowledge creation theory in collaborative R&D projects. International Journal of Innovation Management 6 (4), 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaddoura, S and el Khatib, S (2017) Review of water-energy-food Nexus tools to improve the Nexus modelling approach for integrated policy making. Environmental Science and Policy 77, 114121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karabulut, AA, Udias, A and Vigiak, O (2019) Assessing the policy scenarios for the Ecosystem Water Food Energy (EWFE) nexus in the Mediterranean region. Ecosystem Services 35, 231240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karam-Gemael, M, Loyola, R, Penha, J and Izzo, T (2018) Poor alignment of priorities between scientists and policymakers highlights the need for evidence-informed conservation in Brazil. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 16(3), 125132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keskinen, M, Guillaume, JHA, Kattelus, M, Porkka, M, Räsänen, TA and Varis, O (2016) The Water-Energy-Food Nexus and the Transboundary Context: Insights from Large Asian Rivers. Water 8 (5), 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klümper, F and Theesfeld, I (2017) The land-water-food nexus: Expanding the social-ecological system framework to link land and water governance. Resources 6, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsos, TM, Menexes, GC and Dordas, CA (2019) An efficient framework for conducting systematic literature reviews in agricultural sciences. Science of The Total Environment 682, 106117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kowalski, AM (2020) Global South-Global North Differences. In Leal Filho, W, Azul, AM, Brandli, L, Lange Salvia, A, Özuyar, PG and Wall, T, eds., No Poverty. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Lahlou, FZ, Mackey, HR, McKay, G, Onwusogh, U and Al-Ansari, T (2020) Water planning framework for alfalfa fields using treated wastewater fertigation in Qatar: An energy-water-food nexus approach. Computers and Chemical Engineering 141, 106999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahmouri, M, Drewes, JE and Gondhalekar, D (2019) Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in centralized and decentralized water reclamation with resource recovery strategies in Leh Town, Ladakh, India, and potential for their reduction in context of the water-energy-food nexus. Water (Switzerland) 11, 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050906.Google Scholar
Lawford, RG (2019) A design for a data and information service to address the knowledge needs of the Water-Energy-Food (W-E-F) Nexus and strategies to facilitate its implementation. Frontiers in Environmental Science 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaro, LLB, Bellezoni, RA, Puppim de Oliveira, JA, Jacobi, PR, and Giatti, LL (2022) Ten years of research on the water-energy-food nexus: An analysis of topics evolution. Frontiers in Water 4, 859891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, SH, Assi, AT, Daher, B, Mengoub, FE and Mohtar, RH (2020) A Water-Energy-Food Nexus approach for conducting trade-off analysis: Morocco’s phosphate industry in the Khouribga region. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 24, 47274741. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4727-2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, G, Huang, D, Li, Y (2016) China’s input-output efficiency of water-energy-food nexus based on the data envelopment analysis (DEA) model. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8, 927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H, Li, M, Fu, Q, Cao, K, Liu, D and Li, T (2022) Optimization of biochar systems in the water-food-energy-carbon nexus for sustainable circular agriculture. Journal of Cleaner Production 355, 131791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M, Li, H, Fu, Q, Liu, D, Yu, L and Li, T (2021a) Approach for optimizing the water-land-food-energy nexus in agroforestry systems under climate change. Agricultural Systems 192, 103201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J, Yang, H, Cudennec, C, Gain, AK, Hoff, H, Lawford, R, Qi, J, de Strasser, L, Yillia, PT, and Zheng, C (2017) Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy–food nexus. Hydrological Sciences Journal 62, 17141720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, AJ, Harrington, E, Albrecht, TR, Hora, T, Wall, RE and Andarge, T (2022) Tracing the inclusion of health as a component of the food-energy-water nexus in dam management in the Senegal River Basin. Environmental Science and Policy 133, 7486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, L, Li, C, Hu, X, Wang, P and Li, X (2021) Synergetic change of water, energy and food in China: Quantitative description and challenges. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 35, 4368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01812-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabhaudhi, T, Nhamo, L, Mpandeli, S, Nhemachena, C, Senzanje, A, Sobratee, N, Chivenge, P P, Slotow, R, Naidoo, D, Liphadzi, S and Modi, AT (2019) The water–energy–food nexus as a tool to transform rural livelihoods and well-being in Southern Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 2970. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malagó, A, Comero, S, Bouraoui, F, Kazezyılmaz-Alhan, CM, Gawlik, BM, Easton, P and Laspidou, C (2021) An analytical framework to assess SDG targets within the context of WEFE nexus in the Mediterranean region. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 164, 105205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malhotra, A and Majchrzak, A (2004) Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(4), 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarl, BA, Yang, Y, Schwabe, K, Engel, BA, Mondal, AH, Ringler, C and Pistikopoulos, EN (2017a) Model use in WEF nexus analysis: A review of issues. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 4, 144152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0078-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarl, BA, Yang, Y, Srinivasan, R, Pistikopoulos, EN and Mohtar, RH (2017b) Data for WEF nexus analysis: A review of issues. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 4, 137143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0083-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadyen, MA and Cannella, AA Jr (2004) Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal 47(5), 735746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrane, SJ, Acuto, M, Artioli, F, Chen, P, Comber, R, Cottee, J, Farr‐Wharton, G, Green, N, Helfgott, A and Larcom, S (2019) Scaling the nexus: Towards integrated frameworks for analysing water, energy and food. The Geographical Journal 185, 419431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melloni, G, Turetta, APD, Bonatti, M and Sieber, S (2020) A stakeholder analysis for a water-energy-food nexus evaluation in an Atlantic forest area: Implications for an integrated assessment and a participatory approach. Water (Switzerland) 12, 1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12071977.Google Scholar
Meng, F, Wang, D, Meng, X, Li, H, Liu, G, Yuan, Q, Hu, Y and Zhang, Y (2022) Mapping urban energy–water–land nexus within a multi-scale economy: A case study of four megacities in China. Energy 239, 122038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R and Boyle, B (2010) Knowledge creation measurement methods. Journal of Knowledge Management 14(1), 6782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadpour, P, Mahjabin, T, Fernandez, J and Grady, C (2019) From national indices to regional action—An Analysis of food, energy, water security in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru. Environmental Science and Policy 101, 291301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG and Group, P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151, 264269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohtar, RH and Daher, B (2017) Beyond zero sum game allocations: Expanding resources potentials through reduced interdependencies and increased resource nexus synergies. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 18, 8489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2017.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohtar, RH and Lawford, R (2016) Present and future of the water-energy-food nexus and the role of the community of practice. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6, 192199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-016-0378-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Mahn, D and Gebreyes, M (2019) Controversial connections: The water-energy-food nexus in the Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia. Land 8, 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8090135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murombedzi, JC (2016) Inequality and natural resources in Africa. In World Social Science Report 2016 - Challenging Inequalities: Pathways to a Just World. Paris, France: International Social Science Council (ISSC); United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).Google Scholar
Murombedzi, JC (2021) Natural resources, climate change and inequality in Africa. In: The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of the Environment. London: Routledge; Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Muthee, K, Duguma, L, Nzyoka, J and Minang, P (2021) Ecosystem-based adaptation practices as a nature-based solution to promote water-energy-food nexus balance. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031142.Google Scholar
Naidoo, D, Nhamo, L, Mpandeli, S, Sobratee, N, Senzanje, A, Liphadzi, S, Slotow, R, Jacobson, M, Modi, AT and Mabhaudhi, T (2021) Operationalising the water-energy-food nexus through the theory of change. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 149, 111416. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2021.111416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Namany, S, Govindan, R, Martino, MD, Pistikopoulos, EN, Linke, P, Avraamidou, S and Al-Ansari, T (2021) An energy-water-food nexus-based decision-making framework to guide national priorities in Qatar. Sustainable Cities and Society 75, 103342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Y, Avraamidou, S, Xiao, X, Pistikopoulos, EN, Li, J, Zeng, Y, Song, F, Yu, J and Zhu, M (2019) A Food-Energy-Water Nexus approach for land use optimization. Science of the Total Environment 659, 719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niva, V, Cai, J, Taka, M, Kummu, M and Varis, O (2020) China’s sustainable water-energy-food nexus by 2030: Impacts of urbanization on sectoral water demand. Journal of Cleaner Production 251, 119755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozturk, I (2017) The dynamic relationship between agricultural sustainability and food-energy-water poverty in a panel of selected Sub-Saharan African Countries. Energy Policy 107, 289299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, Boutron, I, Hoffmann, TC, Mulrow, CD, Shamseer, L, Tetzlaff, JM, Akl, EA, Brennan, SE, Chou, R, Glanville, J, Grimshaw, JM, Hróbjartsson, A, Lalu, MM, Li, T, Loder, EW, Mayo-Wilson, E, McDonald, S, McGuinness, LA, Stewart, LA, Thomas, J, Tricco, AC, Welch, VA, Whiting, P and Moher, D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ 372, n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pardoe, J, Conway, D, Namaganda, E, Vincent, K, Dougill, AJ and Kashaigili, JJ (2018) Climate change and the water–energy–food nexus: Insights from policy and practice in Tanzania. Climate Policy 18 863877. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1386082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parent, M and Gallupe, RB (2000) Knowledge creation in focus groups: Can group technologies help. Information & Management 38(1), 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrone, D and Hornberger, G (2016) Frontiers of the food-energy-water trilemma: Sri Lanka as a microcosm of trade-offs. Environmental Research Letters 11, 014005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purwanto, A, Sušnik, J, Suryadi, FX and de Fraiture, C (2021) Water-energy-food nexus: Critical review, practical applications, and prospects for future research. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041919.Google Scholar
Qi, X, Li, J, Yuan, W and Wang, RY (2021) Coordinating the food-energy-water nexus in grain production in the context of rural livelihood transitions and farmland resource constraints. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 164, 105148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, Y, Farnoosh, A, Lin, L and Liu, H (2022) Coupling coordination analysis of China’s provincial water-energy-food nexus. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29, 2330323313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17036-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramaswami, A, Boyer, D, Nagpure, AS, Fang, A, Bogra, S, Bakshi, B, Cohen, E and Rao-Ghorpade, A (2017) An urban systems framework to assess the trans-boundary food-energy-water nexus: Implementation in Delhi, India. Environmental Research Letters 12, 025008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, C, Almulla, Y and Fuso Nerini, F (2021) Reusing wastewater for agricultural irrigation: A water-energy-food Nexus assessment in the North Western Sahara Aquifer System. Environmental Research Letters 16, 044052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasul, G and Sharma, B (2016) The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: An option for adaptation to climate change. Climate Policy 16, 682702. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reidpath, DD and Allotey, P (2019) The problem of ‘trickle-down science’ from the Global North to the Global South. BMJ Global Health 4(4), e001719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhouma, A, El Jeitany, J, Mohtar, R and Gil, JM (2024) Trends in the Water–Energy–Food Nexus Research. Sustainability 16(3), 1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringler, C, Bhaduri, A and Lawford, R (2013) The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): Potential for improved resource use efficiency? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5, 617624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringler, C, Mondal, MAH, Paulos, H, Mirzabaev, A, Breisinger, C, Wiebelt, M, Siddig, K, Villamor, G, Zhu, T and Bryan, E (2018) Research Guide For Water-Energy-Food Nexus Analysis Insights from “The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Global, Basin and Local Case Studies of Resource Use Efficiency under Growing Natural Resource Scarcity” project. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
SADC (2023) Regional Strategic Action Plan on Integrated Water Resources Development and Management Phase V. (2021-2025), Gaborone, Botswana.Google Scholar
Saundry, P and Ruddell, BL (2020) The Food-Energy-Water Nexus. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 686. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29914-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeliger, L, de Clercq, WP, Hoffmann, W, Cullis, JDS, Horn, AM and de Witt, M (2018) Applying the water-energy-food nexus to farm profitability in the Middle Breede catchment, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 114. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2018/5062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannak, S, Mabrey, D and Vittorio, M (2018) Moving from theory to practice in the water–energy–food nexus: An evaluation of existing models and frameworks. Water-Energy Nexus 1, 1725. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WEN.2018.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, H, Luo, G, Zheng, H, Chen, C, Hellwich, O, Bai, J, Liu, T, Liu, S, Xue, J, Cai, P, He, H, Uchenna Ochege, F, van de Voorde, T and de Maeyer, P (2021) A novel causal structure-based framework for comparing a basin-wide water-energy-food-ecology nexus applied to the data-limited Amu Darya and Syr Darya river basins. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 25, 901925. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-901-2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siderius, C, Biemans, H, Kashaigili, J and Conway, D (2022) Water conservation can reduce future water-energy-food-environment trade-offs in a medium-sized African river basin. Agricultural Water Management 266, 107548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, GB and Jewitt, GPW (2019) The development of the water-energy-food nexus as a framework for achieving resource security: A review. Frontiers in Environmental Science 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/FENVS.2019.00008.Google Scholar
StatsSA (2019) Sustainable Development Goals: Country Report 2019. Statistics South Africa (StatsSA), Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
StatsSA (2023) Census 2022 Municipal fact sheet. Statistics South Africa (StatsSA), Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Stein, C, Pahl-Wostl, C and Barron, J (2018) Towards a relational understanding of the water-energy-food nexus: An analysis of embeddedness and governance in the Upper Blue Nile region of Ethiopia. Environmental Science and Policy 90, 173182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strydom, WF, Funke, N, Nienaber, S, Nortje, K and Steyn, M (2010) Evidence-based policymaking: A review. South African Journal of Science 106(5–6), 1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Styhre, A, Roth, J and Ingelgard, A (2002) Care of the other: Knowledge-creation through care inprofessional teams. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18(4), 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, L, Niu, D, Yu, M, Li, M, Yang, X and Ji, Z (2022) Integrated assessment of the sustainable water-energy-food nexus in China: Case studies on multi-regional sustainability and multi-sectoral synergy. Journal of Cleaner Production 334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taghdisian, A, Bukkens, SGF and Giampietro, M (2022) A societal metabolism approach to effectively analyze the water–energy–food nexus in an agricultural transboundary river basin. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14, 9110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguta, C, Nhamo, L, Kiala, Z, Bangira, T, Dirwai, TL, Senzanje, A, Makurira, H, Jewitt, GP, Mpandeli, S and Mabhaudhi, T (2023) A geospatial web-based integrative analytical tool for the water-energy-food nexus: The iWEF 1.0. Frontiers in Water 5, 1305373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguta, C, Senzanje, A, Kiala, Z, Malota, M and Mabhaudhi, T (2022) Water-energy-food nexus tools in theory and practice: A systematic review. Frontiers in Water 4, 837316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmer, MP, Dietzenbacher, E, Los, B, Stehrer, R and de Vries, GJ (2015) An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: The case of global automotive production. Review of International Economics 23, 575605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN (2022) Sustainable Development Report: Rankings - The overall performance of all 193 UN Member States. [Internet]. United Nations (UN). Available at https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/rankings (accessed 24 February 2023).Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) (2018) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
Wang, K, Liu, J, Xia, J, Wang, Z, Meng, Y, Chen, H, Mao, G and Ye, B (2021) Understanding the impacts of climate change and socio-economic development through food-energy-water nexus: A case study of Mekong river delta. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 167, 105390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenberg, M and Viégas, FB (2008) The word tree, an interactive visual concordance. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14, 12211228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, M, Fan, B, Zhang, Y, Li, A, Li, Y, Lv, M, Shi, Y, Zhu, S and Qian, T (2020) Effects of resource-oriented waste management on optimizing water-food-energy nexus in rural China: A material and energy flow analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 276, 124259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, YCE, Ringler, C, Brown, C and Mondal, MAH (2016a) Modeling the agricultural water-energy-food nexus in the Indus River Basin, Pakistan. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 142. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yue, Q, Wu, H, Wang, Y and Guo, P (2021a) Achieving sustainable development goals in agricultural energy-water-food nexus system: An integrated inexact multi-objective optimization approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 174, 105833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zan, F, Iqbal, A, Lu, X, Wu, X and Chen, G (2022) “Food waste-wastewater-energy/resource” nexus: Integrating food waste management with wastewater treatment towards urban sustainability. Water Research 211, 118089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, J, Campana, PE, Yao, T, Zhang, Y, Lundblad, A, Melton, F and Yan, J (2018) The water-food-energy nexus optimization approach to combat agricultural drought: A case study in the United States. Applied Energy, 227, 449464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, T, Tan, Q, Zhang, S, Zhang, T and Zhang, W (2021) A participatory methodology for characterizing and prescribing water-energy-food nexus based on improved causal loop diagrams. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 164, 105124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Knowledge generation value chain, i.e. process, output and outcome

Figure 1

Table 2. PICO strategy used to develop the search strategy

Figure 2

Table 3. Terms used in searching literature in Scopus and WoS databases

Figure 3

Table 4. Manuscript scoring based on the study’s relevance (modified from Koutsos et al., 2019)

Figure 4

Figure 1. Temporal two-dimensional visual showing the red and blue cluster grouping words according to WEF nexus associations with case studies that applied the WEF nexus approach to create knowledge or for decision support. The red cluster (n = 39 words) had higher word association than the blue cluster (n = 6 words).

Figure 5

Figure 2. Trend topics associated with the WEF Nexus applications database. The trend diagram depicts the evolution of different subject matters related to the WEF nexus research frontier. After the year 2022, decision-making dominated the WEF nexus space. Decision-making is part of the knowledge generation value chain, i.e. process, outcome and output.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Decision-making linkages co-occurrence network. The main red cluster had decision-making at the centre and was effectively and directly linked to 32 socio-economic, socio-political-ecological related words. The minor blue cluster centred on water supply was linked with decision-making for food supply, hydropower, and environmental protection, to mention a few.

Figure 7

Figure 4. Word tree of nexus nodes considered in nexus application studies in the Global South.

Figure 8

Table 5. Accelerating WEF Nexus transition from theory to practice in the SADC region

Supplementary material: File

Mabhaudhi et al. supplementary material 1

Mabhaudhi et al. supplementary material
Download Mabhaudhi et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 61.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mabhaudhi et al. supplementary material 2

Mabhaudhi et al. supplementary material
Download Mabhaudhi et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 332.2 KB

Author comment: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R0/PR1

Comments

Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems,

School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences,

University of KwaZulu-Natal,

P. Bag X01,

Pietermaritzburg 3209,

South Africa

15 November 2023

The Editor(s)

Cambridge Prisms: Water

Dear Sir/ Dear Madam,

We wish to submit a review entitled “Review of Water-Energy-Food Nexus Applications in the Global South” for consideration to publish in Cambridge Prisms: Water. We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

In the paper, we synthesize research on WEF nexus applications to identify how WEF nexus tools have been applied to facilitate knowledge generation and decision-making in the Global South and some opportunities and challenges arising from these efforts. Optimistic opportunities for applying nexus approaches for solving real problems and informing policy decisions are identified. The review will be of value to scientists and practitioners as it outlines recommendations towards operationalizing the WEF nexus.

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to [email protected]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

T. Mabhaudhi

Recommendation: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R0/PR2

Comments

Dear Authors,

the paper has ben carefully revised by 3 reviewers, who provided a thorough review of your paper yet with contrasting opinions. In my view, the paper is relevant and with potential to be published provided that is improved based on the comments received.

In particular, I would like to stress here:

- the need to update the review (ideally end of 2023)

- the need to better support (and quantify) some statements

- the need to restructure some sections according to the reviewers' comments

- the opportunity to revise some figures and tables

Decision: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R0/PR3

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R1/PR4

Comments

Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems,

School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences,

University of KwaZulu-Natal,

P. Bag X01,

Pietermaritzburg 3209,

South Africa

07 May 2024

The Editor(s)

Cambridge Prisms: Water

Dear Sir/ Dear Madam,

We wish to submit the revisions for our review entitled “Review of Water-Energy-Food Nexus Applications in the Global South” We have attempted to address all the suggested revisions and below are our responses (in bold) to each of the revisions suggested.

Handling Editor’s Comments to Author:

The paper has been carefully revised by 3 reviewers, who provided a thorough review of your paper yet with contrasting opinions. In my view, the paper is relevant and with potential to be published provided that it is improved based on the comments received. Thank you. We have addressed the comments from the editor and all the reviewers.

the need to update the review (ideally to the end of 2023)

<b>The review and literature have been updated from 2011 to April 2024. </b>

the need to better support (and quantify) some statements

<b>This has been addressed and we have taken note to do this throughout the document.

</b>the need to restructure some sections according to the reviewers' comments

<b>Some sections have been restructured accordingly. We hope that the improvements will be satisfactory to the reviewers.

the opportunity to revise some figures and tables</b>

<b>The tables and figures have been revised. We have replaced the word cloud and keyword analysis with multi-correspondence analysis (MCA) and trend analysis. The word tree is now of better quality.

</b>

Reviewer 1

The paper claims to review WEF nexus applications in the context of the Global South. This is done mainly via a literature review from SCOPUS and Web of Science. While potentially interesting, I feel the review lacks rigour, does not add much to the current literature, and actually fails to show examples of real-world applications of the WEF nexus approach. Detail comments can be found below.

There have been some major edits to the manuscript. We hope that the improvements will be satisfactory to the reviewer.

Does nexus approaches seek only to “maximise economic returns”? I do not agree with this statement, and feel it does a disservice to most ongoing nexus research. I would suggest removing this, or adding other factors that are also being considered.

We have looked at the</b> statement, and it reads, ‘ Nexus approaches facilitate the evaluation of synergies and trade-offs holistically to avoid conflicts, optimize resource allocation, minimize risk on investment and maximize economic returns’. Other factors are also considered, and the statement does not imply that only economic returns are considered.

Somewhere in the Introduction, you should add a justification as to why you focus on the Global South. What is the rationale here? In addition, somewhere, you should define what you mean by Global South in this paper? Countries/regions, etc.

The justification has been added in the introduction and we have added a section 2.1: Definition of terms where we define major terms in the review.

The last literature search was September 2022. This is nearly 18 months ago. Since then, much new literature related to this review has been published, some of which may add to, and/or significantly change your findings. I would strongly suggest updating your review until at least September 2023, if not more recent. This a is major issue the in my opinion prohibits publication of this work.

<b>Thank you for raising this. The literature search has been updated and is now from 2011 to April 2024. </b>

The English at the end of the last paragraph on page 5 of 37 (in the PDF) is very odd. Please rewrite the last few lines.

<b>The paragraph has been rewritten and the authors have taken time to revise the entire manuscript</b>

On the Likert Scale, it is noted that this is a 5-point scale, but then your scoring scale only seems to have 4 points (1 to 4). Please correct this mismatch.

<b>This was an error and has been corrected </b>

You state that ultimately, 312 studies (to be updated) are included in your analysis. I suggest you include the full list of analysed papers as an Appendix/Supplementary Information to this paper.

<b>Supplementary Table 1 has been added with the full list of analysed papers.</b>

Regarding the Word Cloud and Word Tree figures: the cloud is not really a scientifically valid visualisation, not offering any real information. I suggest you remove this figure. The Word Tree is merely a screenshot. This needs vastly improving in any future submission.

<b>The section has been updated. More advanced tools such as the Multi Correspondence Analysis/Factorial analysis have been applied to improve the analysis and the reporting on the section</b>

Section 3.1

Major comment: for all your results, you should quantify your statements. You must have the data, so statements such as “the most frequent…”, etc., should be quantifiable. This relates to my comment about the word cloud – it is fairly meaningless. However, with your quantitative data, you could replace the figure with one that quantifies the occurrence of different terms, making the analysis a little more robust.

<b>The section has been updated. More advanced tools such as the Multi Correspondence Analysis/Factorial analysis have been applied to improve the analysis and the reporting on the section</b>

I disagree that the statement suggesting that because Sustainability is a common keyword implies that it supports that nexus approaches are integral in the quest for integrative sustainable management of resources. It is just a keyword for indexing. Does the paper content actually reflect that? Can you, or the reader, be confident that the Sustainability keyword actually reflects a broader ambition to support sustainable resources management? I am not convinced that your assumption is supported in this case. Are the studies’ intents indeed supported by the keywords, and can you show this?

<b>Thank you, We have revised the keyword analysis and throughout the document have better quantified our statements. The statement referring to the keyword “Sustainability” as a has been revised accordingly.</b>

Some studies have been done at household level. For example, Hussien, W.A., Memon, F.A., Savic, D.A., 2017. An integrated model to evaluate water energy-food nexus at a household scale. Environ. Model Softw. 93, 366–380. https://10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.034.

<b>Thank you for the suggestion. Household scale WEF nexus studies are few and minimal including the one suggested and these two:

Ningi, T, Taruvinga, A, Zhou, L and Ngarava, S. 2021. Household water-energy-food security nexus: Empirical evidence from Hamburg and Melani communities in South Africa. International Journal of Development and Sustainability 10 (8): 315-339.

Hussien, WeA, Memon, FA and Savic, DA. 2018. A risk-based assessment of the household water-energy-food nexus under the impact of seasonal variability. Journal of Cleaner Production 171 1275-1289.</b>

I am not convinced by your statement that China has the most case studies because of a rapid growth in GDP. Could it not be down due to the number of Chinese authors? Or some other factor? Can you really correlate GDP growth with publications in a given field of research? I find that implication very weak, and not supported.

<b>The statement has been updated to include both factors as potentially driving the prominence of China in the bibliometric analysis.

</b>Section 3.2.1 – I am not convinced by this section, or indeed why it is needed. Arguably, don’t all (nexus) studies aim to better understand and generate knowledge on the WEF nexus and interactions therein? I would suggest to remove or significantly re-focus this section.

<b>The definitions have been explained in section 2.1 and the section has been refocused.

</b>Can you quantify what ‘policy being quite popular’ actually means?

<b>With the major revisions of the paper this section is no longer there. </b>

The examples given in this section I also find weak. They may demonstrate examples of understanding or knowledge creation, but are they actually examples of the nexus approach in practice? Was there any real-world application, or they ‘just’ academic studies? This relates also to a question I shall pose later in this review. <b>The definitions have been explained in section 2.1 and the review has been substantially edited. </b>

Section 3.2.2 - again, did any of the studies or their findings/recommendations actually get taken up and used in real life, or do they just remain suggestions? In which case, one case ask if these constitute actual applications at all.

<b>All these case studies remain hypothetical applications in academic real-life, to the best of our knowledge the uptake of their findings into practical real-life is not reported in the same literature that we analyzed. Maybe further studies need to analyse related and unrelated projects documents (grey literature) such as implementation and evaluation reports to assess how the uptake and maybe impacts of uptake of the WEF nexus approach.</b>

Section 3.4

The whole first paragraph of this section is very poorly written. It would have been nice to see a critical discussion of the implications of your limitations, for example some suggestions on how to overcome them. The reference to Figure 4 in this section is out of place as it is not really a limitation, so more needs to be made of this and/or this bit needs re-writing

<b>Thank you. We have revised accordingly.</b>

Section 4

This comment relates to the issue of application above. I think somewhere you need to define what you mean by application. I would interpret it as research that is used on the ground, in real world situations. However, from 4.1, you seem to use ‘implementation’ to suggest real world use. These are then two very different things. I feel you need to include near the start of the paper a definition of is meant by ‘application’. Is it a real world application/use of findings? Or is it application of the ‘nexus approach’ (including all its myriad tools, angles, etc.) to find out new insights about integrated resources management in the global south? In essence, your need to much better define the scope of your review and search criteria.

<b>The suggested has been addressed and we have defined the terms ‘knowledge generation’ or ‘decision support’ as per the scope of the review.</b>

Section 4.2

Addressing data needs to be consistent/harmonised is not that simple. Each nexus study case is unique in terms of scale, focus issues, tools/approach/model used, aims, quantitative/qualitative/policy-focussed, etc. Thus, data often need tailoring per specific case study. Also, I find the argument of a lack of data does not hold up. Often, there is too much data. The question is more about accessibility of the data, and how best to use it all. I would strongly consider updating this section to reflect more on some of these issues.

<b>Thank you. We have revised accordingly We hope that the improvements will be satisfactory to the reviewer.

</b>Section 4.3

I do not agree entirely that scientific publications are only accessible to researchers. The move to Open Access is changing this, though it is true that much research is still indeed pay-walled. I would add a comment to this effect. <b>Thank you. We have revised accordingly We hope that the improvements will be satisfactory to the reviewer.

</b>

Reviewer 2

Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled, “ Review of Water-Energy-Food Nexus Applications in the Global South”, which provides a comprehensive and insightful review of the applications of the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus in the Global South. The authors successfully bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical applications, shedding light on the challenges, opportunities, and the potential for addressing broader global issues. The study is well-structured, with a clear focus on knowledge generation, decision-making, and the operationalization of the WEF nexus. <b>Thank you

</b>The paper establishes clear objectives at the outset, making it easy for readers to understand the purpose of the study. The focus on WEF nexus applications in the Global South provides a valuable perspective on the specific challenges faced by these regions. The use of the PRISMA protocol to identify and select relevant studies from reputable databases like the Web of Science and Scopus enhances the credibility of the review. This methodological rigor adds weight to the findings. The authors demonstrate awareness of the limitations associated with WEF nexus applications, including data scarcity, uncertainties, scale mismatch, and biases. The critical analysis of these limitations contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the challenges involved.

<b>Thank you</b>

The paper goes beyond identifying challenges and limitations by offering practical recommendations for overcoming issues like data scarcity. The discussion on regionally differentiated pathways for operationalizing the WEF nexus in the Global South adds value for policymakers and practitioners.

<b> Thank you</b>

Firstly, while the paper is generally well-organized, there are instances where the flow of information could be improved for better coherence. A seamless transition between sections would enhance overall readability, and the authors should consider revisiting the organization of certain segments to create a more logical and cohesive narrative. Secondly, the paper acknowledges the limitations associated with WEF nexus applications, such as data scarcity, uncertainties, scale mismatch, and biases. However, a deeper exploration of specific case studies or examples where these challenges were particularly pronounced would strengthen the paper. Providing more concrete instances would offer readers a more tangible understanding of the issues faced in real-world applications. Lastly, the addition of more visual aids, such as graphs, charts, or tables, could enhance the presentation of key findings and trends. Visual representation of data could facilitate a quicker understanding of complex information and make the content more engaging for readers. The authors should consider incorporating visual elements to complement the textual descriptions and improve the overall visual appeal of the paper. In conclusion, with these minor revisions, the paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the understanding of WEF nexus applications in the Global South, and addressing these issues will ensure its readiness for publication.

<b>Thank you for the suggestions. The manuscript has undergone extensive edits and we have considered the suggestions ‘i) a seamless transition between sections ii) revisiting the organization of certain segments to create a more logical and cohesive narrative. Part 3 of the Question: the authors have added more visual to enhance the delivery of our message to the audience.

</b>

Reviewer: 3

I carefully your manuscript WAT-22-2023.

The topic is very relevant and the idea to fill the gap of a review paper specifically focused on applications is a very good one, in particular given your geographical interest for the Global South.

The approach you adopted for your review is a sort of current standard, with a combination of the PRISMA approach and the bibliometric tools offered by the R software package.

The number of selected papers is adequate for a review paper and for extracting relevant messages for the readers. Thank you

General issues:

In general, I had the impression that the paper does not exploit its potential. The structure is clear, but not adequately justified for what concerns section 3 and 4. The reader would expect that there would be a strong link between tables, figures and the text, but I could not find it. For example Table 3, which may be of greater interest is structured according to four elements for accelerating WEF transition, which are not described into details in the text. Instead, the text cites that tables and presents three subsections, which are inconsistent with the table. There, the Theory of Change is just mentioned, but not presented, justified and discussed as a key for developing the way forward.

<b>Thank you. The manuscript has undergone extensive edits and we have considered the suggestions</b>

Similarly, methods and tools are mentioned, but not described, such as PICO, NVivo, Vosviewer. SF1 and ST1 acronyms are mentioned without explanations. Even in the case of the SADC acronym, which should be well known to all, it would be correctly spelled out when used for the first time.

<b>Thank you we have described the methods and we have correctly spelled out acronyms</b>

The results of the review are presented through examples, quite often combined with an explanations of the reason why you found certain evidences (“because”, but at least in some cases explanations are debatable and purely subjective. For example the justification of the high number of Chinese paper referred to the intensive GDP growth of the country.

<b>Thank you for raising this. It has also been raised by other reviewers. We have edited the manuscript avoiding subjective statements. </b>

Sections 3.1-3.3 are not very informative, because they are based upon reporting a series of examples, without a clear and concise synthesis of the main messages that you could extract from the literature.

<b>The section has been updated. More advance tools such as the Multi Correspondence Analysis/Factorial analysis have been applied to improve the analysis and the reporting on the section

We have revised the keyword analysis and throughout the document have better quantified our statements.</b>

Interesting messages emerge from Section 3.4; not clear are the references to countries at p.13: are they the countries of applications or the countries of origin of the authors? It refers to countries of origin of authors and this has been specified in text.

Section 4 should be the most important one. I suggest to revise it in accordance to Table 3 (or vice versa) and develop much more the adoption of the Theory of Change, if this is your reference framework. I recommend also to explain what you mean by pathways in that context. Finally, I recommend to show the links between the literature and your elaborations and the messages you include in the way forward. <b>Thank you. We have revised accordingly We hope that the improvements will be satisfactory to the reviewer.</b>

In the study limitations you state that you preferred to exclude grey literature. I’m not sure this is a good idea, given your interest for applications. In that way you exclude all the publications and reports of international institutions that are very active in the WEF Nexus. We did not prefer to exclude grey literature but we used scientific databases which often excludes grey literature. It was highlighted as a limitation. <b>We realize grey literature (reports from international institutions) is valuable and a follow up study will focus on implementation and evaluation reports to assess how the uptake and impacts of uptake of the WEF nexus approach.</b>

In the conclusions you declare that your intention was “to develop pathways for WEF nexus operationalizing at a regional scale”. That was not introduced before and the scale of interest in particular was not discussed before.

<b>Thank you for highlighting this. An objective has been added.

</b>The quality of the figures is poor; e.g. Figure 2 is blurred and difficult to read and Figure 3 is just a print screen with limited visibility. <b>Tables and figures have been revised. We have replaced the word cloud and keyword analysis with multi-correspondence analysis (MCA) and trend analysis. The word tree is now of better quality.</b>

Minor issues:

p. 6 r.5-13: 3 reviewers are mentioned, but then they disappear and authors are mentioned. I presume they are the same, but authors are 5.

p.7 r.44: “trend analysis” is mentioned, but I could not find it.

p.8 r.15: should be sustainable development instead than sustainability twice.

p.10 r.41-54: why referring to the World Economic Forum, instead than to your review?

<b>The manuscript has undergone extensive edits and we have considered the suggestions by the reviewer during the revisions.</b>

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to [email protected]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

T. Mabhaudhi

Recommendation: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R1/PR5

Comments

Dear Authors,

the feedback on the revised version of the paper was positive, and it has been significantly improved. I would just kindly ask to make a few additional revisions as suggested by one of the reviewers, before the paper can be considered for publication.

Decision: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R2/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R2/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Review of water–energy–food nexus applications in the Global South — R2/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.