Co-creating narratives for WEF nexus governance: a Quantitative Story-Telling case study in the Canary Islands

Abstract

The literature on the water–energy–food nexus has repeatedly signaled the need for transdisciplinary approaches capable of weaving the plurality of knowledge bodies involved in the governance of different resources. To fill this gap, Quantitative Story-Telling (QST) has been proposed as a science for adaptive governance approach that aims at fostering pluralistic and reflexive research processes to overcome narrow framings of water, energy, and food policies as independent domains. Yet, there are few practical applications of QST and most run on a pan-European scale. In this paper, we apply the theory of QST through a practical case study regarding non-conventional water sources as an innovation for water and agricultural governance in the Canary Islands. We present the methods mixed to mobilize different types of knowledge and analyze interconnections between water, energy, and food supply. First, we map and interview relevant knowledge holders to elicit narratives about the current and future roles of alternative water resources in the arid Canarian context. Second, we run a quantitative diagnosis of nexus interconnections related to the use of these resources for irrigation. This analysis provides feedback to the narratives in terms of constraints and uncertainties that might hamper the expectations posed on this innovation. Thirdly, the mixed analysis is used as fuel for discussion in participatory narrative assessment workshops. Our experimental QST process succeeded in co-creating new knowledge regarding the water–energy–food nexus while addressing some relational and epistemological uncertainties in the development of alternative water resources. Yet, the extent to which mainstream socio-technical imaginaries surrounding this innovation were transformed was rather limited. We conclude that the potential of QST within sustainability place-based research resides on its capacity to: (a) bridge different sources of knowledge, including local knowledge; (b) combine both qualitative and quantitative information regarding the sustainable use of local resources, and (c) co-create narratives on desirable and viable socio-technical pathways. Open questions remain as to how to effectively mobilize radically diverse knowledge systems in complex analytical exercises where everyone feels safe to participate.

Sustainability assessment of food industry with the approach of water, energy and food nexus

“…In the present paper, by using two tools, WEAP and Excel, and defining the scenarios in general, conditions have been provided for simultaneously advancing the goals of the three sections and reducing conflicting interventions between them. These two tools simultaneously exchange data dynamically, and the necessary analysis to identify the optimal scenario and show the impact of applied techniques in each guide the user to choose a more sustainable approach (Cabello et al, 2021).…”

Water Energy Food Nexus Analysis and Management Tools: A Review

“…QST draws upon qualitative issues only when the analysis includes constraints to the system and trade-offs between systems [37]. Cabello et al [38] used the narratives of involved actors for identifying convergences. SDG's also used qualitative and quantitative considerations.…”

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

“…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). …”

“…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);…”