Background There have been numerous studies that consider the nexus interactions between energy systems, land use, water use and climate adaptation and impacts. These studies have filled a gap in the literature to allow for more effective policymaking by considering the trade-offs between land use, energy infrastructure as well as the use of water for agriculture and providing energy services. Though these studies fill a significant gap in the modelling literature, we argue that more work is needed to effectively consider policy trade-offs between the 17 United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) to avoid missing important interactions. Results We examine the 17 SDGs individually to determine if it should be included in a modelling framework and the challenges of doing so. We show that the nexus of climate, land, energy and water needs to be expanded to consider economic well-being of both individuals and the greater economy, health benefits and impacts, as well as land use in terms of both food production and in terms of sustaining ecological diversity and natural capital. Such an expansion will allow energy systems models to better address the trade-offs and synergies inherent in the SDGs. Luckily, although there are some challenges with expanding the nexus in this way, we feel the challenges are generally modest and that many model structures can already incorporate many of these factors without significant modification. Finally, we argue that SDGs 16 and 17 cannot be met without open-source models and open data to allow for transparent analysis that can be used and reused with a low cost of entry for modellers from less well-off nations. Conclusions To effectively address the SDGs, there is a need to expand the common definition of the nexus of climate, land, energy, and water to include the synergies and trade-offs of health impacts, ecological diversity and the system requirements for human and environmental well-being. In most cases, expanding models to be able to incorporate these factors will be relatively straight forward, but open models and analysis are needed to fully support the SDGs.

BackgroundThere have been numerous studies that consider the nexus interactions between energy systems, land use, water use and climate adaptation and impacts. These studies have filled a gap in the literature to allow for more effective policymaking by considering the trade-offs between land use, energy infrastructure as well as the use of water for agriculture and providing energy services. Though these studies fill a significant gap in the modelling literature, we argue that more work is needed to effectively consider policy trade-offs between the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to avoid missing important interactions.ResultsWe examine the 17 SDGs individually to determine if it should be included in a modelling framework and the challenges of doing so. We show that the nexus of climate, land, energy and water needs to be expanded to consider economic well-being of both individuals and the greater economy, health benefits and impacts, as well as land use in terms of both food production and in terms of sustaining ecological diversity and natural capital. Such an expansion will allow energy systems models to better address the trade-offs and synergies inherent in the SDGs. Luckily, although there are some challenges with expanding the nexus in this way, we feel the challenges are generally modest and that many model structures can already incorporate many of these factors without significant modification.Finally, we argue that SDGs 16 and 17 cannot be met without open-source models and open data to allow for transparent analysis that can be used and reused with a low cost of entry for modellers from less well off nations.ConclusionsTo effectively address the SDGs there is a need to expand the common definition of the nexus of climate, land, energy, and water to include the synergies and trade-offs of health impacts, ecological diversity and the system requirements for human and environmental well-being. In most cases, expanding models to be able to incorporate these factors will be relatively straight forward, but open models and analysis are needed to fully support the SDGs.

Background: There have been many studies that consider the nexus interactions between energy systems, land use, water use and climate adaptation and impacts. These studies have filled a gap in the literature to allow for more effective policymaking by considering the trade-offs between land use, energy infrastructure as well as the use of water for agriculture and providing energy services. Though these studies fill a significant gap in the modelling literature, we argue that more work is needed to effectively consider policy trade-offs between the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to avoid missing important interactions.Results: We examine the 17 SDGs to determine if it should be included in a modelling framework and the challenges of doing so. We show that the nexus of climate, land, energy and water needs to be expanded to consider economic well-being of both individuals and the greater economy, health benefits and impacts, as well as land use in terms of both food production and in terms of sustaining ecological diversity and natural capital. Such an expansion will allow systems models to better address the trade-offs and synergies inherent in the SDGs. Luckily, although there are some challenges with expanding the nexus in this way, we feel the challenges are generally modest and that many model structures can already incorporate many of these factors without significant modification.Finally, we argue that SDGs 16 and 17 cannot be met without open-source models and open data to allow for transparent analysis that can be used and reused with a low cost of entry for modellers from less well off nations.Conclusions: To effectively address the SDGs there is a need to expand the common definition of the nexus of climate, land, energy, and water to include the synergies and trade-offs of health impacts, ecological diversity and the system requirements for human and environmental well-being. In most cases, expanding models to be able to incorporate these factors will be relatively straight forward, but open models and analysis are needed to fully support the SDGs.

Systems models are an important tool for policy and energy planning decisions. These models generally fall into one of three modelling paradigms: energy economy, capacity expansion or power sector planning. Recent work seeks to combine these paradigms into an integrated framework to leverage the benefits of different model types. There is also interest and research in representing more system interactions to expand the modelling nexus. However, this increases model complexity and risks creating more black box models that are not well understood or trusted by users or policymakers. To understand the trade-offs and best practices of using combined models, we review current modelling practices, including an overview of the different modelling paradigms in the literature, how combined modelling has been applied to date and how the nexus has been represented in different modelling applications. Building on the literature review, we held a series of expert elicitation workshops to gain insight from energy modelling domain experts who use combined models. Finally, we encapsulate these findings and best practices into a modelling evaluation framework. We find that while there is interest and research being done in these areas, there are no set standards for how to build these types of models, resulting in a wide range of practices. Increasing model complexity to develop fully hard-linked coupled models that are also trustworthy and transparent generally requires more time and resources than is worthwhile. Instead, the focus should be on avoiding black box models by having a clear modelling purpose and developing best practices that allow for clarity and transparency. Expanding the nexus to include attributes such as biodiversity and cultural security presents a challenge and representing them as a cost is not congruent to equitable policy. These aspects could be better incorporated into analysis using stakeholder debate and citizens’ assemblies.

No abstract