Water-Energy-Food Nexus Tools in Theory and Practice: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Sector-based resource management approaches partly contribute to the insecurities in water, energy and food sectors and resources. These approaches fail to acknowledge and capture the interlinkages between these connected resources, a key strength in the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus approach. However, the multi-centric, multidimensional, and spatiotemporally dynamic WEF nexus is complex and uncertain, thus requiring dedicated tools that can unpack it. Various sources have blamed the slow uptake and practical implementation of the WEF nexus on the unavailability of appropriate tools and models. To confirm those claims with evidence, literature on WEF nexus tools was searched from Scopus and Web of Science and systematically reviewed using the PRISMA protocol. It was found that the WEF nexus tools are being developed increasingly, with a current cumulative number of at least 46 tools and models. However, their majority (61%) is unreachable to the intended users. Some available tools are in code format, which can undermine their applicability by users without programming skills. A good majority (70%) lack key capabilities such as geospatial features and transferability in spatial scale and geographic scope. Only 30% of the tools are applicable at local scales. In contrast, some tools are restricted in geographic scope and scale of application, for example, ANEMI 3 and WEF models for large and household scales, respectively. Most (61%) of the tools lack wide application in actual case studies; this was partly attributed to the tools not being readily available. Thus, efforts should be made to disseminate and ensure end-users' uptake and application of developed tools. Alternatively, the user-friendly tools should be developed on-demand as requested and inspired by potential clients. Developers should consider utility, transferability and scalability across uses and users when improving existing tools and developing new tools so that they are adaptable, only requiring new, specific location-adapted inputs and data. Where and when it is necessary to capture spatial dynamics of the WEF nexus, tools should be geographic information system (GIS)-enabled for automatic WEF nexus location selection, geospatial mapping, and visualization. Such GIS-enabled WEF nexus tools can provide a bird's eye view of hotspots and champions of WEF nexus practices.

Appraising the Water‐Energy‐Food Nexus From a Sustainable Development Perspective: A Maturing Paradigm?

“…Kurian (2020) goes further, arguing that place‐based observatories are needed to bridge science‐policy gaps and connect global environmental models with local development interventions and assessment tools. This accords with the observation that many nexus tools have not been practically applied and lack appropriate case‐based examples (Taguta et al., 2022).…”

“…Metrics, modeling, data analytics, and decision‐support tools are the most popular approaches to examining the nexus, and these have seen rapid developments over recent years (Bian & Liu, 2021; Borge‐Diez et al., 2022; Y. Chang et al., 2016; Dai et al., 2018; Garcia & You, 2016; King & Carbajales‐Dale, 2016; Kurian et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Mcgrane et al., 2019; Miralles‐Wilhelm, 2016; Mohtar & Lawford, 2016; Stylianopoulou et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2018; Wicaksono et al., 2017; Wolfe et al., 2016; C. Zhang et al., 2018; X. Zhang et al., 2018). Indeed, the most recent assessment suggests that there are at least 46 nexus models and tools (Taguta et al., 2022). Readers wishing to know more about the particularities of these models and tools should consult Albrecht et al.…”

“…To maintain momentum and maximize the positive contribution of the nexus to sustainable development across the seven challenge areas outlined in Section 5, we offer 10 emerging and underexplored avenues that we believe are necessary to undergird those developments and should be an increasing focus of nexus research going forwards: Address the impacts of nexus developments on human rights, environmental justice and just transitions (da Silva et al., 2020); Identify more inclusive stakeholder participatory and deliberative decision‐making processes to provide plural insights and shared understandings (Cabello et al., 2021; Fontana et al., 2021; Lazaro et al., 2022; Naidoo et al., 2021); Configure nexus systems to aid a green recovery as part of the “build back better” narrative from the COVID19 pandemic (Al‐Saidi & Hussein, 2021; Durodola et al., 2020); Define nexus interventions that emphasize system interconnectedness and lead to long‐term and sustainable human and environmental health (Nhamo & Ndlela, 2021); Investigate the probabilities and consequences of compounding nexus shocks on human migration and displacement (Daher et al., 2021), broadening the scope of the nexus to intersect with what has been termed the “disaster risk, global change, and sustainability nexus” (Peduzzi, 2019); Understand how nature‐based solutions and green infrastructure and associated green finance can enhance the climate resilience and adaptive capacity of nexus systems (Bellezoni et al., 2021; Hogeboom et al., 2021; Muthee et al., 2021); Institutionalize nexus thinking into governance systems at multiple scales, advancing a polycentric approach, for improved policy integration, cross‐sectoral planning and coordination for sustainable development (Lazaro et al., 2022; Mabhaudhi et al., 2021; Rasul & Neupane, 2021; Rasul et al., 2021; Srigiri & Dombrowsky, 2022); Explore how to close the gender gap in access to nexus resources and their management, decision‐making capabilities, and social relations (Purwanto et al., 2021; Villamor et al., 2020); Seek insights from retrospective forms of nexus management or “ancient WEF,” that can be adapted to our modern‐day nexus challenges (Pueppke, 2021); Utilize frontier data science technologies, such as Big Data and AI, and expand the use of geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing, to fully integrate multi‐source, multi‐temporal, and multi‐scale georeferenced data into nexus planning and implementation (Pitts et al., 2020; Taguta et al., 2022). …”

“…Utilize frontier data science technologies, such as Big Data and AI, and expand the use of geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing, to fully integrate multi‐source, multi‐temporal, and multi‐scale georeferenced data into nexus planning and implementation (Pitts et al., 2020; Taguta et al., 2022).…”

“…This suggests that more needs to be done to integrate diagnostic, guidance, and capacity building applications and critique model assumptions (Dargin et al., 2019). Several challenges remain, including data accuracy, availability and curation, the ability to describe nexus spatial dynamics, and providing appropriate metrics for policymaking (Purwanto et al., 2021; Taguta et al., 2022). For instance, most (61%) nexus applications are not available in the public domain (i.e., some form of authorized access is required, or they are located on an internal network), while only 30% have geospatial capabilities (Taguta et al., 2022).…”