Stakeholder Perspectives on Sustainability in the Food-Energy-Water Nexus

Abstract

Interest in the various dimensions of environmental, economic, and social sustainability for food, energy, and water (FEW) systems, independently and collectively (i. e., the FEW nexus), has spawned an increasing amount of literature that seeks to understand the various linkages within the FEW nexus and provide guidance to inform decision-making to enhance sustainability. While the use of science and data can generate important and relevant information, it is not clear how important they are relative to relevant policy and the integration of policy within and across the individual FEW domains. In this work, we assessed perspectives on various considerations that pertain to sustainability in the FEW nexus. To do so, we identified numerous stakeholder groups who have interests throughout the FEW nexus, and conducted a survey of a subset of these groups. Although the responses differed across the stakeholder groups that we surveyed, the consistent result was that stakeholders generally understand that FEW systems are physically connected at high levels, and that policy is less integrated than desired. When forced to choose between priorities for science and data or for integrated policy to enhance sustainability, respondents from Academia and Extension preferred more science and data, whereas respondents who are, or more frequently interact with, practitioners and policy-makers preferred integrated policy. Overall, with other results and findings that are relevant for advancing sustainability and improving communication the FEW nexus, we conclude that the importance of science, data, and integrated policy depends on the context in which the stakeholders operate in the FEW domain.

A Review of the Water–Energy–Food Nexus Research in Africa

“…If not facilitated well, they will fail to co-create a shared understanding of the varied factors that modulate the social-ecological systems [54]. There is a need to formulate innovative approaches that are beneficial to the three nexus domains, and which are capable of addressing the salient features of each domain and their inherent challenges [55].…”

Growing Spatial Overlap Between Dam-Related Flooding, Cropland and Domestic Water Points: A Water–Energy–Food Nexus Management Challenge in Malawi and Ghana

“…The WEF nexus requires interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to advance nexus assessments and achieve optimal solutions (Albrecht et al, 2018;Botai et al, 2021), together with numerous and diverse analytical tools from environmental management, economics and social science (Albrecht et al, 2018). These include indicator-based approaches (Mabhaudhi et al, 2019;Nhamo et al, 2020a), scenario analysis (De Stercke et al, 2020), and stakeholder engagement (Hoolohan et al, 2018;Bielicki et al, 2019). Using geospatial water point mapping data, land cover classification, and flood mapping from satellite imagery, our study illustrates a methodology for potential integration of such geospatial products to examine the WEF nexus at catchment or regional scale, and evaluates the impacts of land use change on the community at local scale.…”

Localizing the Water-Energy Nexus: The Relationship between Solar Thermal Power Plants and Future Developments in Local Water Demand

“…Taking the perceptions and assessments of local stakeholders into account can, for example, support a broader and deeper understanding of the decision-making context [31]. As well as these methodological advantages for research design and output, participatory approaches can also help to provide stakeholders with a better understanding of the complexity of the water-energy nexus and to clarify their priorities and expectations, resulting in better decision-making based on negotiation and stakeholder buy-in [32].…”

“…Besides the fact that when working at the local and community-level those aff by and affecting the water-energy nexus should be involved in the discussions and ysis of their environment and their future, stakeholder engagement also unearths w sources of knowledge and, consequently, the potential for better research results [28] ing the perceptions and assessments of local stakeholders into account can, for exa support a broader and deeper understanding of the decision-making context [31]. A as these methodological advantages for research design and output, participator proaches can also help to provide stakeholders with a better understanding of the plexity of the water-energy nexus and to clarify their priorities and expectations, resu in better decision-making based on negotiation and stakeholder buy-in [32].…”