Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T18:11:57.472Z 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: Tafadzwanashe.Mabhaudhi@lshtm.ac.uk
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

Information

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
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 Mabhaudhi@ukzn.ac.za

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 Mabhaudhi@ukzn.ac.za

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.