Content uploaded by Bejoy K Thomas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bejoy K Thomas on Jul 05, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
1462-9011/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Review of the food, water and biodiversity nexus in India
J.C.G. Martin
a
,
*
, R. Kanade
b
, N. Bhadbhade
b
, K.J. Joy
b
, B.K. Thomas
c
, B. Willaarts
a
,
S. Hanger-Kopp
a
a
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
b
Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management, Pune, India
c
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Pune, Pune, India
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Systems map
Systems mapping
Nexus
Biodiversity
Water
Food
Kumu
India
ABSTRACT
Nexus research can help address issues arising at the intersection of traditionally independently treated man-
agement, policy, and research areas. While an extensive body of literature and reviews have been published on
the water, food and energy nexus, biodiversity is less commonly featured in food and water nexus research,
particularly in India. India hosts a large proportion of the world’s biological diversity. At the same time, it is
facing one of the world’s highest habitat conversion rates, among others for agricultural production, as well as
increasing water scarcity. Hence, the integration of biodiversity considerations into food and water nexus
management and governance decisions is particularly critical in India. Here, we explore linkages at the food,
water and biodiversity (FWB) nexus in India using a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature. A total of 208
nexus linkages were extracted from 55 articles and mapped using a qualitative systems mapping approach.
Results show a strong interdependence between all three nexus nodes, with biodiversity exhibiting the highest
number of linkages across the system (137 linkages), followed by water (131 linkages) and food (120 linkages).
Our results reect the state-of-the-art of research on biodiversity at the food-water nexus in India and highlight
the importance of better understanding the linkages and tradeoffs at India’s FWB nexus.
1. Introduction
Nexus research has been dened as the study of interlinkages be-
tween different subsystems or sectors within socio-ecological and other
systems (Sanders and Webber, 2012). Nexus research has the ambition
to highlight feedback loops, synergies and trade-offs between system
elements in a holistic fashion – therefore, the concept of nexus research
is closely linked to and partially rooted in systems thinking (Schl¨
or et al.,
2021; Liu et al., 2015).
Nexus studies aim to address issues arising at the intersection of
traditionally independently treated management, policy, and research
areas. In environmental sciences, nexus research is thought to rst have
fully risen to the limelight after the World Economic Forum of 2008,
where the importance of considering water, energy and food linkages
was ofcially recognized (Zhang et al., 2018). In addition, the run-up
events and Rio+20 conference and resulting United Nations Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs) are thought to have played an important
role in furthering nexus research (Liu et al., 2018; Hoff, 2011). As a
result, an extensive body of literature and reviews have been published
on the water, food and energy nexus (e.g., Biggs et al., 2015; Weitz et al.,
2017; Wichelns, 2017; Vakilifard et al., 2018; Schl¨
or et al., 2021; Rasul
and Sharma, 2016).
Yet, biodiversity is rarely featured in food and water nexus research
(Liu et al., 2015; Vargas et al., 2023), and has been more commonly
addressed as part of dual nexus issues, such as biodiversity and food
production (Iannetta et al., 2021; Godfray, 2011; Wittman et al., 2017;
Glamann et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2017) or the biodiversity climate
nexus (Mooney et al., 2009; Bellard et al., 2012; Araújo and Rahbek,
2006; Willis and Bhagwat, 2009; Mashwani, 2020). Due to its
wide-reaching signicance for ecological, human and economic sys-
tems, biodiversity is however increasingly gaining attention in nexus
considerations. For example, the ecosystem service framework emerged
with the ambition to quantify and connect the various benets people
derive from ecosystems in a more holistic way (Daily, 1997; Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2001). Likewise, the importance of a nexus
perspective for achieving SDGs has been widely recognized. Thus,
* Correspondence to: Schlossplatz 1, Laxenburg 2361, Austria.
E-mail addresses: martinj@iiasa.ac.at (J.C.G. Martin), bejoy@iiserpune.ac.in (B.K. Thomas), willaart@iiasa.ac.at (B. Willaarts), hanger@iiasa.ac.at (S. Hanger-
Kopp).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103826
Received 13 November 2023; Received in revised form 26 June 2024; Accepted 2 July 2024
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
2
numerous studies using a nexus approach to assess SDG linkages have
been put forward (Liu et al., 2018; Scharlemann et al., 2020; Bleischwitz
et al., 2018). These studies emphasized the importance of tradeoffs and
synergies between different SDGs (Nilsson et al., 2016; Pradhan et al.,
2017). Only recently, the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
published a scoping report for assessing the interlinkages among
biodiversity, water, food, and health (Schmeller and Bridgewater,
2021). The resulting nexus assessment, to be published in 2024, will
inform decision making towards policy options to achieve the post-2020
global biodiversity framework and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (llIPBES, 2021). However, developing sustainable gover-
nance options for nexus issues requires context- and scale-specic un-
derstanding of the same. There is therefore a need for national studies
assessing nexus linkages, trade-offs and synergies in specic geograph-
ical and institutional contexts (Nilsson et al., 2018).
The aim of this study is to provide an overview and insights into
nexus issues at the food, water and biodiversity interface in India and to
visualize these linkages using a qualitative systems mapping approach
(Hanger-Kopp et al., 2024). Through this exercise, we highlight key
challenges, linkages and trade-offs in the FWB nexus. India is home to
about 8 % of the world’s biodiversity and four biodiversity hotspots
(Chitale et al., 2014). As such, it is one of the world’s 17 ‘mega--
biodiverse’ countries (Venkataraman and Sivaperuman, 2018). At the
same time, India is among the largest food producers globally (Aditya
et al., 2020), which has led to habitat and biodiversity loss (Bawa et al.,
2021). India is also one of the world’s most important food producers
(Ramankutty et al., 2018). Agricultural expansion has also entailed
increased groundwater use for irrigation and water scarcity (World
Bank, 2012). For all these reasons, the integration of biodiversity con-
siderations into food and water nexus management by considering
trade-offs and linkages within this nexus and governance decisions is
particularly critical in India.
2. Methods
In this study, publications addressing the FWB nexus linkages were
identied through a systematic literature review, as well as additional
snowballing from included sources. To select relevant literature, a
search was undertaken in Scopus (Elsevier, 2022) in January-July 2022.
Scopus was selected because of its broad scientic literature coverage. In
addition to Scopus, key studies known by experts in the eld were added
to complement search results.
Only articles published after 2010 were included in the study. This is
due to the fact that although the linkages between food, water and
biodiversity have been recognized for a long time, the nexus terminol-
ogy itself (particularly for food, water and energy) began to assume most
prominence in academic and policy circles after the 2008 World Eco-
nomic Forum, as well as the run up to the 2012 United Nations Con-
ference on Sustainable Development (see Introduction). Table 1
provides a summary of the exact Boolean syntax (including search terms
and exclusion criteria) used in Scopus.
In function of the number of results found in Scopus, search terms
were rened to facilitate the screening process. This was mainly
necessary for the food and water nexus due to the extensive body of
literature on the topic. Literature was selected according to the guide-
lines dened in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement (Moher et al., 2009). Fig. 1 de-
picts the literature selection workow. Thus, a total of 55 journals and
reports were analysed in-depth, most of which were empirical studies to
ensure their scientic robustness.
We reviewed and analyzed the literature to illustrate insights on the
food-water-biodiversity nexus, using a qualitative system mapping
approach (QSM), which entails visualizing relationships through nodes
and linkages (Hanger-Kopp et al., 2024). Systems mapping is one area of
manifestation of systems thinking, and a way of grappling with complex
challenges. Systems thinking is known support more integrative policy
interventions that can bridge disciplines (Davila et al., 2021). QSM may
be useful in many different ways, but in this specic instance, we use it
to make nexus linkages (as implied in the academic literature) explicit
and visible (Barbrook-Johnson and Penn, 2022). The QSM effort forces
us to disentangle and organize linkages between nexus elements, which
ultimately helps us to communicate our insights better. According to
Hanger-Kopp et al. (2024), the QSM approach applied here ts the
intersection of concept maps and causal diagrams.
Fig. 2 illustrates the different steps of this analysis, while Fig. 3 ex-
plains the terminology applied. Based on the relevant literature identi-
ed and elements and linkages extracted (step 1), nexus linkages are
systematically coded (step 2). Depending on the analytical approach and
scope of a study, these linkages do not necessarily represent direct causal
connections, therefore step 3 explores all linkages (including interme-
diate and linkages that might not have been explicitly cited in literature)
and disaggregates them to identify all explicit and implicit causal re-
lationships. Step 4 involves the visualization of all (implicit and explicit)
coded linkages as a systems map in kumu.io. Finally, linkages were
quantied using common metrics used in Social Network Analysis, such
degree centrality, i.e., the number of ingoing and outgoing connections
for each nexus node and element (Wasserman and Faust, 1994) (step 5).
System elements (henceforth elements) and connections between these
elements (henceforth linkages), as well as the quantication of linkages
(degree) were performed using the Kumu.io system mapping software
(Mohr and Mohr, 2023).
Fig. 3 explains the terminology used in the systems map through an
illustrative example of farmland owls reducing rodent populations in
and around farmlands through predation (Ravikanth et al., 2020). Since
farmland owls impact rodents, the direction of the arrow linking both
elements goes from ‘farmland owls’ to ‘rodents’, meaning that the
linkage is ‘ingoing’ for rodents and ‘outgoing’ for farmland owls.
Additionally, because farmland owls reduce rodents, the linkage type is
negative (represented by a dotted line), as depicted by a minus sign next
to the arrowhead. If the sign was positive, this would have represented
an increase in rodents. The size of elements’ circles within the produced
systems map is proportionate to the total number of ingoing and out-
going linkages for a given element. This means that the larger its circle,
the more connected the element is within the entire systems map. Dotted
lines represent a negative linkage, whereas solid lines represent a posi-
tive linkage between two elements.
3. Results
3.1. The food, water biodiversity nexus: overview
From the 55 data sources included in this study, 151 unique system
Table 1
Summary of Scopus Boolean syntax and search terms.
Nexus issue Boolean syntax of search terms used
in Scopus
Boolean syntax of
exclusion criteria
Water &
biodiversity
TITLE (water OR hydrol* OR aquatic*)
AND TITLE ( biodivers* OR diverse OR
"species richness" OR "species
composition*" OR evenness) AND
TITLE-ABS-KEY (india)
NOT (marine OR
coastal) AND
PUBYEAR >2010
Food &
biodiversity
TITLE (agricultur* OR crop OR food
OR nutrition) AND TITLE (biodivers*
OR "species diversity" OR "species
richness" OR "species composition*"
OR evenness OR diverse) AND TITLE-
ABS-KEY (india)
PUBYEAR >2010
Food & water TITLE (“food production” OR
agricultur* OR crop) AND TITLE
(water OR hydrol* OR aquatic*) AND
TITLE-ABS-KEY (india)
AND PUBYEAR >2010
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
3
elements and 208 linkages between these elements were extracted.
Table 2 reports on the general distribution of these linkages, as well as
their type - positive, negative or neutral (only 2 instances). ‘Positive’ and
‘negative’ indicate whether an element increases or reduces another
one, rather than representing a value judgement on the desirability of an
impact.
We identied mostly biodiversity elements, followed by water, food,
and a small number of other nexus issues (including social, economic
and health elements (N=12)). Most linkages were found between
biodiversity and food, followed by water and biodiversity, and nally
food and water. Most positive linkages were found between biodiversity
and food (35), and the most negative linkages were found between water
and biodiversity (17). In terms of reach (i.e., how far an element prop-
agates in the system), the elements with most reach were ‘agricultural
land expansion’, ‘droughts’ and ‘conservation agriculture’ (see Appen-
dix A). Fig. 4 shows the entire system map created based on the reviewed
literature, highlighting the diversity of elements as well as the most
connected elements, which are distinguished by their size. These central
elements may be indicative of research foci and areas of concern in the
nexus literature, such as food security, agricultural land expansion, and
freshwater biodiversity. Some elements are detached from the main
map, which may indicate that they are more independent in the overall
system and/or have been studied separately from more central concerns.
Due to the dense nature of the full systems map produced which makes it
hard to isolate individual elements on a static map, the main advantage
of the kumu.io software is that the fully interactive map is openly
available online here. The online map can be used to search, lter or
isolate specic elements. Additionally, clicking on individual elements
in the online map as well as linkages will reveal the data source used to
code a given linkage.
Biodiversity was the most interconnected nexus node, with a total of
137 linkages, closely followed by water (131 linkages) and food (120
linkages) (Table 3). In terms of the direction of these linkages, a large
number of outgoing linkages denotes that the nexus node is mainly
Fig. 1. Literature identication process, from the initial articles identied in Scopus (top) to the nal articles included in the analysis (bottom).
Fig. 2. The analytical process for building qualitative system maps from the literature. Adapted from Eker and Ilmola-Sheppard 2020.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
4
‘inuencing’ or impacting other nexus nodes, whereas a large number of
ingoing linkages signies that a given node is mainly ‘inuenced’ by
other nodes. We nd that biodiversity presents the highest number of
ingoing linkages (90), meaning that biodiversity is the most inuenced
by the other two nexus nodes. On the other hand, with 83 outgoing
linkages, water is the largest inuencer in the nexus system map (Fig. 5).
While the results provide an overview of the general FWB nexus land-
scape, the next sub-sections explore the key elements that were part of
each nexus node and how they were linked to each other. In each of the
three following sub-sections, the top three most frequently cited ele-
ments and their direct in- and out-going linkages are discussed.
3.2. Water nexus issues
With a very rapidly growing population, sustainable water man-
agement is a key issue in India which is likely become increasingly
critical under a changing climate (Gosain et al., 2011) and with
increasing water demands (Gupta and Deshpande, 2004). Indeed,
several studies have predicted that India might become one of the
world’s water scarcity hotspots in the future (Gosling and Arnell, 2016;
V¨
or¨
osmarty et al., 2000). The National Water Policy (Government of
India, 2012) is the main (national) legislation governing water resources
in India. Our results show that there is a clear link between water and
food, and water and biodiversity. Among the water linkages extracted
from literature, the most frequently cited and thus connected nexus el-
ements are water quality (directly connected through 16 linkages),
water extraction for irrigation (13 linkages) and droughts (11 linkages)
(Fig. 6).
In the analysed studies, water quality was mainly impacted by
agricultural practices and activities. For example, particularly during
monsoon seasons, water quality was shown to decrease due to increased
nutrient loads (mainly phosphates and nitrates) in Indian waterbodies
(Kumar et al., 2021), in turn related to agricultural fertilizer runoff
(Dubey et al., 2022). This is compounded by agricultural pesticide use,
which has in many instances increased the chemical load of water-
bodies, such as rivers in West Bengal (Bunting et al., 2015) or the
Western Ghats (IUCN, 2011), where pesticide runoff has been linked to
declines in water quality, freshwater habitat quality and biodiversity.
Additionally, many industries in India discharge waste into rivers due to
a lack of operational waste treatment plants (Dudgeon, 2000), further
impacting water quality. With India undergoing rapid urbanization,
urban sewage is also recognized as a major cause for decreasing water
quality (Amerasinghe et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2022). Inadequate
wastewater treatment infrastructure has resulted in crops getting
contaminated in peri-urban areas where wastewater is a primary source
for irrigation (Kookana et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2017). Water quality
was also impacted by changes in water availability and distribution.
Among their many socio-ecological and economic impacts, droughts
were particularly associated with deteriorated water quality (Udmale
et al., 2014). Likewise, changes in natural river ow and discharge due
to canalization and dam constructions have further degraded water
quality. For example, in the river Yamuna, water abstraction and in-
creases in industrial efuents have drastically impacted water quality
(Joshi et al., 2016). In terms of elements impacted by water quality, our
results highlight the direct link between water quality and freshwater
biodiversity, including sh (Joshi et al., 2016), macroinvertebrate
(Khatri et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021) and phytoplankton diversity
(Meshram et al., 2018). Indeed, good water quality leads to high di-
versity, and high biodiversity of certain taxonomic groups is an indicator
of good water quality (Meshram et al., 2018; Khatri et al., 2021).
Water extraction for irrigation was the second most connected
element and was identied as a main driver for declining groundwater
availability, and as whole, water security. Indeed, a signicant and
increasing proportion of freshwater resources in India is used for irri-
gation (Bunting et al., 2015), which has led to decreases in both surface
and ground water levels (Gupta et al., 2015). It is estimated that in India,
about 89 % of extracted groundwater is used for irrigation (Jain et al.,
2019). Water for irrigation is mainly extracted through wells, canals and
tanks (Shah, 2011). Yet, groundwater irrigation is also the backbone of
India’s agriculture (Zaveri et al., 2016), which employs about 55 % of
India’s population (Jain et al., 2019). Thus, there are important impli-
cations for the country’s food security. Indeed, agricultural water use
represents one of India’s National Water Policy’s main water allocation
priorities (Government of India, 2012). Yet, the Policy primarily sets
focus on water as a resource and does not address biodiversity or its
decline in relation to water exploitation. Yet, irrigation was also asso-
ciated with decreased freshwater sh diversity and general biodiversity.
It was estimated that freshwater species have declined by over 30 %
from 1970 to 2003, partially as a result of water diversions for irrigation
(Lakra et al., 2011). Fish and mollusk species that are particularly
affected include freshwater prawns, carps, catsh and ilish (ibidem),
whereas odonates are particularly threatened by dams, as observed in
the Western Ghats (IUCN, 2011). However, water reservoirs have also
evolved to be important sources of inland sheries (Sarkar et al., 2018).
Water extraction for irrigation is thus mainly inuencing other ele-
ments, and was in our results only impacted by monsoon rainfall, as
more rainfall leads to a lower reliance on water from irrigation (Zaveri
et al., 2016).
Finally, droughts were the third most connected element. While
droughts in India are largely determined by global climate patterns, such
as el Ni˜
no (Kumar et al., 2013), they can have catastrophic effects on
local livelihoods and are perceived to be on the rise by local farmers
(Sharma and Mujumdar, 2017). Unsurprisingly, droughts were mainly
driven by water scarcity (Zaveri et al., 2016), yet were an important
inuencer in the overall system, impacting not only food and water
nexus elements, but also health-related and economic elements. As such,
droughts have been linked to decreased agricultural yield and livestock
production (both associated with decreased income generation) and
Fig. 3. Explanation of the terminology of different components in the systems
map produced in kumu.io, using an annotated example from Ravikanth et al.
(2020) based on their article’s statement: “Owls which reside in and around
farmlands have signicantly contributed to managing the rodent population
damaging crops”(2020:35. Sizes of circles (elements) represent the number of
linkages going to and from a given element, while the thickness of lines rep-
resents the number of connections between two nodes. Dotted lines denote
negative linkages, whereas solid lines represent positive linkages.
Table 2
General statistics of the linkages extracted from literature.
Nexus node Biodiversity Water Food
Total unique*
elements
57 41 41
Biodiversity -
food
Water -
biodiversity
Water -
food
Total linkages 56 39 28
Positive linkages 35 22 10
Negative linkages 21 17 18
** Social, economic and health related elements.
*
Some elements (e.g., irrigation) are mentioned in several studies. Therefore,
the number of unique elements is reported here.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
5
poor health (including mental health) by farmers in the Maharashtra
State (Udmale et al., 2014). Droughts also led to environmental degra-
dation, and are associated with decreases in faunal diversity, including
freshwater sh (ibidem). For instance, droughts have a direct impact on
the success of carp cultures in Purulia (Mishra et al., 2022) and sh
spawns in the river Ganga (Das et al., 2013).
3.3. Biodiversity nexus issues
India hosts a substantial proportion of the world’s biological di-
versity (Jenkins et al., 2013; Chitale et al., 2014; Venkataraman and
Sivaperuman, 2018). At the same time, India is among the world’s
countries facing the highest habitat conversion rates (Watson et al.,
2016) and biodiversity loss (Venter et al., 2016). It is estimated that over
40 % of the country’s land is degraded, mainly due to the overuse of
agrochemicals and land conversion for irrigation (Ravikanth et al.,
2020). Yet, it is estimated that up to 150 million people (including
marginalized communities) directly depend on biodiversity for their
livelihoods (Bawa et al., 2021).
With a total of 137 linkages, results show that biodiversity is the most
connected nexus node in the food, water and biodiversity nexus. We nd
39 direct linkages between water and biodiversity, as well as 56 between
food and biodiversity. The most connected biodiversity elements are
freshwater sh diversity (directly connected through 16 linkages),
agrobiodiversity (16 linkages) and freshwater biodiversity as a whole
(15 linkages) (Fig. 7). It is noteworthy that these top 3 most connected
biodiversity elements are in fact not only related to biodiversity, but
already straddle the food and water nexus nodes. Indeed, freshwater
biodiversity and sh biodiversity relate to water, while agrobiodiversity
relates to food. This shows that by default, biodiversity is a highly
connected nexus node that goes beyond a single sector or discipline. This
is in line with the various denitions of biodiversity, placing it at the
root of functioning ecosystem processes and resulting ecosystem services
(Isbell et al., 2017; Harrison et al., 2014)
India has a very high freshwater sh diversity, hosting about 10 % of
the global freshwater sh (Kisku et al., 2017) and over 900 different
species (Joshi et al., 2016) and high endemism (Nesemann et al., 2017).
Fig. 4. Systems map of food, water and biodiversity nexus linkage in India based on literature. Sizes of circles (elements) represent the number of linkages going to
and from a given element. Dotted lines denote negative linkages, whereas solid lines represent positive linkages (a full version of the map is available here).
Table 3
Number and direction of linkages between food, water and biodiversity.
Nexus node Linkage direction Number of linkages
Water ingoing 48
outgoing 83
total 131
Biodiversity ingoing 90
outgoing 47
total 137
Food ingoing 56
outgoing 64
total 120
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
6
Fig. 5. Systems map of the food, water and biodiversity nexus in India based on literature. Sizes of circles (elements) represent the number of linkages going to and
from a given node, while the thickness of connections represents the total number of connections between two nodes (map available here).
Fig. 6. Systems maps showing the ingoing and outgoing linkages for water quality, water extraction for irrigation and droughts (full version of the map available
here). Sizes of circles (elements) represent the number of linkages going to and from a given element. Dotted lines indicate negative linkages and solid lines pos-
itive linkages.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
7
In the analyzed studies, freshwater sh diversity was mainly impacted
by other elements. Water quality (including water turbidity, pH, dis-
solved oxygen and the concentration of various fertilizer by-products)
was the biggest driver of freshwater sh diversity. Indeed, sh di-
versity depends on good water quality (Joshi et al., 2016). For example,
in the Paschim Medinipur District (West Bengal), a study revealed that
Community Development Blocks with the highest water quality
exhibited the highest sh diversity (Kisku et al., 2017). As previously
highlighted, the engineering of waterways (both for irrigation and other
water management purposes) also played a key role in reduced fresh-
water sh diversity. Thus, the construction of dams and canals, as well as
resulting inter- and intra-basin water transfers and changes in river
discharge were shown to have reduced sh diversity (Lakra et al., 2011;
Bunting et al., 2015; Grant et al., 2012). Equally, the loss of forests
(Lakra et al., 2011) and introduction of invasive species (Bunting et al.,
2015) were associated with lower sh diversity. Results also show that
freshwater habitats are currently underrepresented in the national
protected area network (Kumar Sarkar et al., 2013). The only element
directly impacted by sh diversity is food security. Indeed, India is
among the world’s largest aquaculture producers (FAO, 2021). As a
non-vegetarian source of protein, sh consumption and production are
increasing in India, thus contributing to nutrition and food security
(Barik, 2017). Freshwater sheries are thought to support the liveli-
hoods of over 23 million inland shermen and sh workers in the
country (Ghosh et al., 2022).
Agrobiodiversity was the second most connected biodiversity
element. Agrobiodiversity is broadly dened as the diversity of life on,
around or supported by agricultural land (Wood and Lenn´
e, 1999). As
many as 22 agrobiodiversity hotspots have been identied in India
(Nayar et al., 2009), pointing to the importance of India in global
agricultural diversity. In India, agrobiodiversity is a central source of
nutrition, raw materials and soil productivity for farmers (Ravikanth
et al., 2020). Besides, vegetation around farmland increases resilience to
disasters, e.g., by acting as windbreakers and increasing pest control
through predation (ibid). Agrobiodiversity is also vital for medicinal
plants, such as Terminalia chebula (Maske et al., 2011), which are a
non-negligible source of income for many small-scale farmers (Nautiyal
et al., 2020). These various non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are
recognized as crucial livelihood sources and include wild plants, fungi,
wild fruits, nuts, edible roots, small mammals, insects, sh, honey and
aforementioned medicinal plants (Pullanikkatil and Shackleton, 2019).
The reviewed studies reveal that agrobiodiversity can be increased
by conservation agriculture practices (including low intensity farming
or sustainable intensication) (Bunting et al., 2015; Kothari and Joy,
2017). For example, in Buxa (West Bengal), introducing multiple crop-
ping seasons, diversifying crops (e.g., combined rice and sh cultures)
and reducing agrochemical use was shown to have a positive impact on
agrobiodiversity and crop resilience (Bunting et al., 2015). However,
implementing measures supporting agrobiodiversity can be limited by
many factors, including the lack of resources, nancial and institutional
support, access to knowledge and needed paradigm shifts (Bhan and
Behera, 2014; Singh et al., 2023). Likewise, the co-creation of agricul-
tural conservation options is key. Participatory crop variety selection,
seed exchange and the establishment of community institutions
Fig. 7. Systems maps showing the ingoing and outgoing linkages for freshwater sh diversity, agrobiodiversity and freshwater biodiversity (full version of the map
available here). Sizes of circles (elements) represent the number of linkages going to and from a given element. Dotted lines indicate negative linkages and solid lines
positive linkages.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
8
promoting new varieties and knowledge exchange were proven to
strengthen livelihoods and biodiversity in three agrobiodiversity hot-
spots of India (Anil Kumar et al., 2015).
The third most connected biodiversity element is freshwater biodi-
versity. As freshwater sh are a subset of freshwater biodiversity, the
ingoing and outgoing connections are very similar to those for fresh-
water sh diversity, with few notable differences. For example, litera-
ture highlighted a mutual direct link between freshwater biodiversity
and local communities, including the importance of aquatic resources
for NTFPs and the harvesting of aquatic plants and animals (Bunting
et al., 2016; Kothari and Joy, 2017). Additionally, more focus was
attributed to the negative impacts of agricultural expansion (IUCN,
2011), resulting soil erosion (Bunting et al., 2015) and the use of ag-
rochemicals (Allen et al., 2012) on freshwater biodiversity.
To conclude, biodiversity elements are the most frequent in our
systems map, and the most connected. This can be explained by the
central role biodiversity plays in supporting provisioning services, such
as food and water (Naeem et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2019). Yet, our
results only highlight few linkages between biodiversity and human
well-being, which may point towards a lack of recognition of this linkage
in India. The Indian National Mission on Biodiversity and Human
Well-Being (NMBHWB) aims to ll this gap by integrating biodiversity,
agriculture, health, bio-economy, climate change and capacity building
within biodiversity science (Bawa et al., 2021).
3.4. Food nexus issues
India is among the largest food producers globally, with the agri-
cultural sector employing over 50 % of India’s workforce and remaining
the country’s primary food supplier (Ravikanth et al., 2020; Zaveri et al.,
2016). In our nexus systems map, the most connected agricultural ele-
ments are food security (19 linkages), conservation agriculture (12
linkages) and agricultural land expansion (11 linkages) (Fig. 8). Food
security is the most connected element, not only among food elements
but in the entire systems map. Yet, it only presents ingoing connections,
showing that it is mainly inuenced and impacted by other elements in
the system. An estimated 600 million Indian people directly or indirectly
depend on agriculture for their livelihoods (Anil Kumar et al., 2015).
Most of India’s farmers are small-scale and many live in poverty (Baw
et al., 2020), which means that sustainable agricultural practices are of
vital importance for local livelihoods and food security.
Results show that food security is positively affected by conservation
agriculture measures, such as agroforestry (Dandabathula et al., 2021),
product diversication (Anil Kumar et al., 2015) or the presence of
hedges and woody trees between crops (Aditya et al., 2020; Hegde et al.,
2019). Several other elements related to biodiversity increased food
security, many of which were mentioned in the previous section (e.g.,
NTFPs, agrobiodiversity and freshwater sh diversity). Additionally, our
systems map reveals the importance of genetic diversity for food secu-
rity. For example, a eld experiment in Madhya Pradesh demonstrated
that in the case of pigeonpea, crops with a higher diversity exhibit lower
pod and grain damage from pests (Ambhure et al., 2014). Similarly, the
genetic diversity of forest species in India has been associated with many
species of food value (B´
elanger and Pilling, 2019) and is particularly
critical for the most vulnerable parts of the population (Anil Kumar
et al., 2015). Related to this, farmers’ experiential knowledge on tradi-
tional crops and farming practices as well as associated ecological pro-
cesses were proven key for maintaining indigenous food sovereignty in
India (Bisht et al., 2020). Yet, the qualitative and less tangible nature of
such knowledge makes its formal recognition in institutional policies
Fig. 8. Systems maps showing the ingoing and outgoing linkages for food security, conservation agriculture and agricultural land expansion (full version of the map
available here). Sizes of circles (elements) represent the number of linkages going to and from a given element. Dotted lines indicate negative linkages and solid lines
positive linkages.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
9
difcult (ˇ
S¯
umane et al., 2018).
A further key inuencer of food security is water availability and
security, largely dened by monsoons in many parts of the country
(Dhawan, 2017). India is the world’s largest groundwater user (World
Bank, 2012). Most of India’s extracted groundwater is used for irriga-
tion, without which the country’s agricultural transformation (or Green
Revolution) could not have been achieved (Mukherji, 2008; Quinlan
et al., 2014). Government subsidies for electricity powering irrigation
equipment have also led to increased water extraction – which did in-
crease food security, yet with important tradeoffs for groundwater levels
(Zaveri et al., 2016; Gulati and Pahuja, 2015). This linkage is also re-
ected in policy. Agriculture and food production are addressed in a
number of national frameworks in India, including the 2000 National
Agricultural Policy, the 2007 National Policy for Farmers, the 2001
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act and the 2002
National Seed Policy (Jacob et al., 2020). Water use is a key consider-
ation in most of these frameworks, while biodiversity is only marginally
addressed (Mondal et al., 2023; ˇ
S¯
umane et al., 2018; Bisht et al., 2020).
The second most connected food element is agricultural land
expansion. In contrast to food security, agricultural land expansion only
has outgoing connections, showing that the analyzed literature focused
on the impact this element has rather than its causes. While agricultural
expansion in India is associated with increased agrobiodiversity (Rav-
ikanth et al., 2020), this has been to the detriment of numerous habitats,
including wetlands (Behera et al., 2012), associated freshwater biodi-
versity (IUCN, 2011), forests, scrub- and grasslands (Ravikanth et al.,
2020). Indeed, in their study comparing crop yields of land sharing and
land sparing strategies in India, Phalan et al., 2011 show that overall,
more species are negatively impacted by agriculture than beneting
from it, particularly among endemic species. As discussed above, agri-
cultural land expansion has also greatly reduced water resources (Zaveri
et al., 2016; Quinlan et al., 2014; Dhawan, 2017).
Conservation agriculture, which was already mentioned in the
context of agrobiodiversity (see previous Section) was the third most
connected food element. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations denes conservation agriculture as practices that pro-
mote the maintenance and conservation of soil cover and the diversi-
cation of plants (FAO, 2023) – thus increasing agrobiodiversity. Because
of this close link, several of the elements connecting to and from con-
servation agriculture, such as crop diversity and soil nutrients, over-
lapped with those connecting to and from agrobiodiversity, described in
the previous section. Literature also highlighted the role conservation
agriculture practices, such as zero-tillage, can play in reducing invasives
weeds (Bhan and Behera, 2014), fuel and herbicide costs (Malik et al.,
2005) and increasing water use efciency by up to 30 % by preserving
soil water content (Gupta and Jat, 2010). However, literature also
revealed potential challenges in implementing conservation agriculture
measures. For example, the lack of appropriate seeders for small- and
medium-scale farmers, as well as limited skills and manpower to switch
to conservation agriculture practices were highlighted (Bhan and
Behera, 2014).
Finally, it is noteworthy that agricultural land expansion and con-
servation agriculture were among the three system elements with the
highest reach (0.137 and 0.123 respectively, see Appendix 1), pointing
towards the wide-reaching effects of these elements throughout the
entire FWB nexus.
4. Discussion
With this review, we address the need of a context-specic nexus
understanding and review academic literature to explore important
causal linkages at the food-water-biodiversity nexus in India. Applying a
systems thinking lens, we use qualitative system mapping to illustrate
our ndings.
As most extracted elements pertain to biodiversity, our results make
recent advancements in biodiversity and conservation research in India
evident. Biodiversity was the most connected element (both with food
and water), which can be explained by biodiversity representing the
backbone of ecosystem processes that support water regulation and food
availability. A central issue that emerged here was the safeguarding of
food security in a country where agriculture is expanding and water
resources are dwindling. While food elements were less frequent in the
nal systems map, they had a higher reach than other nexus issues, with
agricultural land expansion having the highest reach. This is due to the
severe impacts of agricultural expansion on water quality and use for
irrigation, as well as habitat fragmentation. In the reviewed literature,
particular emphasis was placed on agrobiodiversity and sustainable
farming practices to address trade-offs with biodiversity and water
management. Additionally, many studies focused on the impacts of river
alterations on ecosystems, including the construction of dams and
channels for irrigation. Thus, our ndings also reveal potential conicts
and competing interests within the FWB system.
In terms of nexus pairings, food and biodiversity linkages were most
frequent, followed by water and biodiversity linkages. Despite their
straightforward link, water and food linkages were the least frequent.
This might be explained by the timeframe chosen for including studies
(post 2010), chosen based on the rise of nexus research in this period.
Nevertheless, this timeframe also overlaps with a rise in studies on
biodiversity (Titley et al., 2017), whereas research on water manage-
ment and food production expanded earlier (Postel, 1998), which may
have created a bias towards this nexus node. Despite this, the role of
biodiversity in safeguarding nature’s provisioning services is less sys-
tematically addressed in Indian water or food policy, as opposed to the
linkage between food and water, which is traditionally more widely
recognized and straightforward. This is most likely due to the
complexity of the concept of biodiversity, and the indirect linkages that
connect it to provisioning ecosystem services such as food and water, as
highlighted in our nexus systems map. Our study therefore highlights a
need for further cross-sectoral policies addressing multiple FWB nexus
considerations simultaneously. ‘Horizontal’ coordination and
decision-making spanning across different sectors is a key characteristic
of polycentric governance arrangements (Ostrom, 1999), which have
indeed been proposed for addressing other nexus interdependencies and
their governance, e.g., in the water-energy-food (Srigiri and Dom-
browsky, 2022) or energy-water nexus (Villamayor-Tomas, 2018).A
related aspect is the oftentimes conicting objectives of biodiversity
conservation and economic development, which is particularly crucial
in the case of India (Srivathsa et al., 2023). On the one hand, the country
needs to improve the living standards of its vast and expanding popu-
lation, and lift people out of poverty through sustained and long-term
economic growth. On the other hand, many sectors that propel growth
and employment have adverse impacts on biodiversity and environment
(Jha and Bawa, 2006). This tension has resulted in complex policy
choices and tradeoffs (Chopra, 2017). Yet, India has a track record of
bringing in strong legal provisions to conserve biodiversity and protect
the environment. Examples include the Biological Diversity Act 2002
(Parliament of India, 2002) and the Forest Conservation Act 1980
(Parliament of India, 1980). In addition, the government has constituted
conservation bodies like the National Mission on Biodiversity and
Human Well-Being (Bawa et al., 2021) to protect biodiversity hotspots
and complex socio-ecological systems. Biodiversity conservation efforts
in India have attempted to bring in community participation and
ownership going beyond the traditional ‘fortress conservation’ strategies
(Rai et al., 2021). However, the tension between the need for economic
growth and environmental priorities has seen several of these efforts not
reaching their desired goals (Tisdell, 2020). Critics have argued that
legal provisions have been weakened to prioritize economic growth and
these have not been implemented properly on the ground: for example,
recent amendments to the Biological Diversity Act 2002 and the Forest
Conservation Act 1980 have come under critical scrutiny and evoked
strong responses from conservationists and experts (Gupta, 2023; Sax-
ena, 2024; Chouhan, 2023). While our review provides valuable insights
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
10
into key food, water and biodiversity nexus issues in India, it is not
without limitations, many of which are inherent to literature reviews
(Snyder, 2019). For example, our study only highlights those linkages
mentioned in the included literature, at the risk of missing important
(yet unpublished or omitted) nexus linkages. Since food, water and
biodiversity are all broad concepts that encompass many subelds,
sectors and disciplines, it is difcult to capture all nexus linkages in a
comprehensive manner. Additionally, as with any literature review, the
scope of the study was bound using specic search terms, with the
possibility that themes outside of the FWB nexus were insufciently
covered as a result. Similarly, we cannot be fully certain that the terms
reviewed covered all available studies on the topic, as authors may have
used different terminology for identical or similar concepts. Further
biases may have arisen by including only English language resources,
while key studies might be published in local languages or not be pub-
licly available. Moreover, terminology may often be used inconsistently,
thus forcing the reviewer to make potentially arbitrary decisions when
interpreting meaning.
Visualizing literature reviews using qualitative system maps is
increasingly common, for example to illustrate author or thematic net-
works. However, we are not aware of applications where QSM has been
used to structure and illustrate a literature review on nexus issues. This
approach is thus an innovation, which cannot build on available liter-
ature yet is explored in this review study. The key advantage is forcing
clarity on linkages by making them explicit and translating vast amounts
of information into easy to grasp, graphical illustrations.
A wide variety of tools are available for such visualizations. Kumu.io
is a valuable and relatively novel option as it is freely accessible and
provides attractive visuals, apart from ample opportunities to deepen
the analysis by adding additional layers of information. Most impor-
tantly, the resulting maps are excellent knowledge repositories that can
be used and searched online. There are still certain drawbacks, as
complex overview maps are difcult to navigate or on the contrary can
create the illusion of an oversimplied system. There is ample room for
further studies into the most effective use of QSM in nexus review ef-
forts, specically providing clear review protocols and guidance, but
also exploring quantitative opportunities for areas with ample data
availability to gain additional levels of insights.
While care was taken to include studies from different parts of India,
studies will inevitably reect sample biases, for example towards areas
that are most accessible or well-studied. In particular, we note the lim-
itations of aggregating data from a variety of contexts and scopes, which
is however an inherent limitation of literature reviews (Grant and Booth,
2009). Acknowledging these limitations, our ndings nonetheless show
the value of a national study, which on the one hand allows to disag-
gregate nexus issues and highlight context-specic links, while on the
other hand still requiring some level of aggregation of common nexus
linkages.
Although our review captures important FWB nexus issues in India as
recognized by peer-reviewed literature, further on-the-ground work is
needed to validate and expand these results. Additionally, while this
review serves to inform and identify potential areas of policy action at
the FWB nexus, prescriptions on actual policy and practice are beyond
the scope of the review, and would require the consultation of decision-
makers and stakeholders through a participatory process, such as in-
terviews. We hope to ll this gap in the fairSTREAM project, where FWB
nexus issues in the Upper Bhima Basin are explored using mixed
(quantitative and qualitative) methods (see Kanade et al., 2023). To
develop sustainable policy options across the FWB nexus, the project
aims to develop a knowledge co-production approach involving direct
interactions with primary stakeholders (farmers, shermen and
forest-dependent communities) which will help further contextualize
the FWB nexus,its challenges and policy options in this region.
5. Conclusion
The current study represents a rst attempt at distilling some of the
central issues pertaining to the FWB nexus in India. Our results
emphasize that food, water and biodiversity in India are part of a highly
connected system, as demonstrated by the developed systems map(s),
which exhibit a dense network of nexus elements and only very few
isolated elements. Additionally, extracted linkages were very complex,
with individual elements often having a wide reach within the system.
Thus, impacting one given element can have cascading effects through
the entire FWB system. The developed systems map also highlights the
numerous tradeoffs and areas of competing interests within the FWB
nexus. Yet, the applied qualitative systems mapping method also rep-
resents a valuable approach for understanding wider sustainability
challenges.
This has important implications for policy and practice both within
and beyond India. Countries around the world have committed to
achieving their national targets as part of the SDGs, and nexus ap-
proaches are increasingly considered indispensable to successfully
deliver them (Estoque, 2023). The Government of India has imple-
mented various programs and interventions and has been keeping track
of and reporting progress towards SDGs (Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation, 2023). While efforts have been focused on
tracking progress towards individual SDGs, there is still a need for
empirical studies monitoring the complex interlinkages between SDGs in
India, especially as the country needs to meet the twin goals of economic
growth to improve livelihoods and biodiversity conservation to ensure
environmental well-being, which are often conicting. The WFB nexus
system map developed in this study provides insights into key linkages
between SDGs 2, 6 and 15 in India.
Balancing biodiversity with socio-economic needs will require
navigating complex trade-offs and synergies within the food, water and
biodiversity nexus, some of which have been highlighted in this review.
As pointed out earlier, India has made strong legal enactments to
enhance biodiversity conservation. An engaged civil society, supported
by academic studies, also ensured that the principles of community
participation are adhered to in designing policies. However, recent
conservation policy amendments cast questions on how environment
and biodiversity will be prioritized as India advances on a growth and
development trajectory. The challenge for policymakers will be to bal-
ance these competing goals, avoid short-termism and develop a long-
term vision for sustainability. Fostering inclusive collaborations
among stakeholders will be critical to help achieve India’s sustainability
goals.
This study shows the necessity for integrated policies and cross-
sectoral collaboration (characteristic of polycentric governance sys-
tems) to advance sustainable development in India. It also highlights the
perils in ignoring nexus issues. To overcome silo-thinking, policies and
governance structures that manage food, water or biodiversity must
address nexus challenges across multiple scales, national, regional and
local, including cross-scale linkages. Indeed, a more integrated systems
approach is key to addressing India’s growing water and food demands
and enable the design of sustainable development policies and syner-
gistic governance approaches.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Susanne Hanger-Kopp: Funding acquisition, Project administra-
tion, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Bejoy K.
Thomas: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. Barbar´
a Willaarts: Writing – original draft. Neha Bhadb-
hade: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. J.K. Joy:
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Juliette Crescentia Genevieve, Martin:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft,
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
11
Writing – review & editing. Radhika Kanade: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Summary metrics
Table A.1
Summary metrics of nexus elements included in the analysis
Element Nexus node Betweenness Closeness Degree Indegree Outdegree Reach
Recreational shing water 0 0.000 1 1 0 0.007
Water quality water 0.009 0.077 12 7 6 0.075
Macroinvertebrate diversity biodiversity 0.001 0.054 2 2 2 0.055
Freshwater sheries food 0.001 0.007 6 5 1 0.014
Freshwater biodiversity biodiversity 0.005 0.018 11 11 2 0.021
Freshwater sh diversity biodiversity 0.001 0.007 13 12 1 0.021
Freshwater habitat connectivity water 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Macrophyte community structure biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Nutrient load water 0.001 0.059 3 1 2 0.062
Invasive macrophytes biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Agricultural fertilizer runoff food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Wetlands water 0 0.013 2 0 2 0.021
Microbial diversity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Phytoplankton diversity biodiversity 0 0 2 2 0 0.007
Irrigation food 0.006 0.057 2 3 6 0.007
Food security food 0 0 15 15 0 0.007
Income generation economic 0 0 6 6 0 0.007
Endemism biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Nutrition for indigenous communities food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Highland aquatic ecosystems water 0.000 0.028 3 1 2 0.041
Invasive sh biodiversity 0 0 2 2 0 0.007
River discharge water 0.001 0.057 4 2 2 0.068
Agrobiodiversity biodiversity 0.003 0.050 13 7 6 0.068
Agricultural resilience food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Non-timber forest products biodiversity 0.004 0.030 5 3 3 0.048
Groundwater availability water 0 0 8 8 0 0.007
Social and family ties social 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Ecological knowledge transfer biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Soil microbial activity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Soil erosion food 0.000 0.018 2 1 1 0.021
Poverty reduction social 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Medicinal plants food 0.003 0.020 5 2 3 0.027
Faunal diversity biodiversity 0 0 6 6 0 0.007
Floral diversity biodiversity 0 0 5 5 0 0.007
Habitat diversity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Genetic diversity (forests) biodiversity 0.000 0.007 2 1 1 0.014
Crustacean diversity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Agricultural yield food 0 0 7 7 0 0.007
Freshwater habitats water 0.000 0.017 4 2 2 0.034
Forest biodiversity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Grassland/scrubland biodiversity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Rodents biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Farmland owls biodiversity 0.000 0.007 2 1 1 0.014
Soil productivity food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Crop climate resilience food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Soil conservation food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Disease protection biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Water use efciency water 0 0 3 3 0 0.007
Nutrient availability food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Land cover change biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Water depletion water 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Land degradation biodiversity 0 0 2 2 0 0.007
Biodiversity loss biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Habitat loss biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Woody trees biodiversity 0.000 0.007 2 1 1 0.027
Crop yield food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Wild plants biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Crop pest control food 0 0 2 2 0 0.007
Tree species richness biodiversity 0 0 2 2 0 0.007
Bird species richness biodiversity 0 0 2 2 0 0.007
(continued on next page)
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
12
Table A.1 (continued )
Element Nexus node Betweenness Closeness Degree Indegree Outdegree Reach
Genetic diversity (crops) biodiversity 0.000 0.007 2 1 1 0.014
Tailwater sheries water 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Freshwater sh community structure biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Indigenous sh diversity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Surface water water 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Groundwater quality water 0 0 2 2 0 0.007
Green revolution food 0.001 0.007 3 2 1 0.014
Water security water 0.000 0.007 3 2 1 0.014
Water extraction for irrigation water 0 0.035 8 0 3 0.089
Cost of agricultural production economic 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Soil nutrients food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Conservation agriculture food 0.002 0.085 9 2 7 0.123
Invasive weeds biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Crop diversity food 0.001 0.027 5 1 4 0.034
Human-wildlife conicts social 0 0 3 3 0 0.007
Agricultural practices food 0.000 0.013 4 2 2 0.021
Livestock production food 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Freshwater sh biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Human health health 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Droughts water 0.001 0.110 11 1 10 0.130
Horticultural diversity biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Flood plain farming food 0.000 0.013 3 1 2 0.021
River ow water 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Fish migration biodiversity 0 0 1 1 0 0.007
Local communities social 0.004 0.025 4 4 2 0.034
Rivers and streams water 0 0.020 3 0 3 0.027
Agricultural pesticide use food 0 0.081 5 0 5 0.103
Overgrazing food 0 0.052 1 0 1 0.055
Rainfall water 0 0.017 2 0 2 0.027
Agricultural land expansion food 0 0.100 10 0 10 0.137
Unsustainable shing practices food 0 0.018 1 0 1 0.027
Dams water 0 0.099 9 0 9 0.116
Agricultural fertilizer use food 0 0.084 6 0 6 0.075
Agricultural sediment runoff food 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.027
Brackish waters water 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Freshwater aquaculture food 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Habitat quality biodiversity 0 0.039 1 1 1 0.021
Pollution (wastewater) water 0 0.052 1 0 1 0.055
Canals water 0 0.056 3 0 3 0.055
Rural livelihood diversication social 0 0.038 2 0 2 0.062
Fish pond integrated in irrigation scheme food 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Fishing food 0 0.013 2 0 2 0.021
Invasive species biodiversity 0 0.010 1 0 1 0.027
Sustainable farming food 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Water regime modications water 0 0.018 1 0 1 0.021
Agriculture food 0 0.019 1 0 1 0.021
Forest rivers water 0 0.013 2 0 2 0.021
Agroforestry food 0 0.020 3 0 3 0.027
Riparian buffers water 0 0.013 2 0 2 0.021
Forest ecosystems biodiversity 0 0.010 1 0 1 0.021
Tribal groups social 0 0.030 2 0 2 0.041
Protected areas (tiger reserves) biodiversity 0 0.022 2 0 2 0.034
Trees on farmland biodiversity 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Soil microbial diversity biodiversity 0 0.020 3 0 3 0.027
Pollination biodiversity 0 0.013 2 0 2 0.021
Bird populations biodiversity 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Hedge trees between crops biodiversity 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Land sharing biodiversity 0 0.013 2 0 2 0.021
Forest protection biodiversity 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Restoration biodiversity 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Gene seed and grain banks biodiversity 0 0.010 1 0 1 0.021
Product diversication food 0 0.037 2 0 2 0.055
Inter- and intra-basin water transfers water 0 0.023 3 0 3 0.041
River diversions water 0 0.010 1 0 1 0.027
Deforestation biodiversity 0 0.010 1 0 1 0.027
Jute retting economic 0 0.023 3 0 3 0.041
Crop exports food 0 0.013 2 0 2 0.021
Financial incentives for water intensive crops economic 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Financial incentives for irrigation economic 0 0.042 2 0 2 0.021
Water scarcity water 0 0.075 2 0 2 0.089
Monsoons water 3 0 3
Distorted water prices water 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Water-saving agronomic practices food 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Multiple sector water use water 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Lack of seeders food 0 0.056 1 0 1 0.062
Lack of specialised manpower and skills food 0 0.056 1 0 1 0.062
(continued on next page)
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
13
Table A.1 (continued )
Element Nexus node Betweenness Closeness Degree Indegree Outdegree Reach
Reuse of treated wastewater water 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Protected freshwater habitats biodiversity 0 0.010 1 0 1 0.021
Elephant raids biodiversity 0 0.020 2 0 2 0.034
Primate raids biodiversity 0 0.020 2 0 2 0.034
Leopard attacks biodiversity 0 0.007 1 0 1 0.014
Pastoral landscapes biodiversity 0 0.034 1 0 1 0.055
Floods water 0 0.013 1 0 1 0.027
Terrestrial biodiversity biodiversity 0 0.021 1 0 1 0.027
Appendix B. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103826.
References
Aditya, V., Sumashini, P.S., Aravind, N.A., Ravikanth, G., et al., 2020. Reconciling
biodiversity conservation with agricultural intensication: challenges and
opportunities for India. Curr. Sci. 118 (12), 1870–1873.
Allen, D.G., Smith, K.G., Darwall, W.R.T., 2012. The status and distribution of freshwater
biodiversity in Indo-Burma. IUCN.
Ambhure, K.G., Gaikwad, V.R., Pawar, U.A., 2014. Effect of crop biodiversity on
pigeonpea damage and yield due to pod infesting pest complex. Ecol., Environ.
Conserv. 20, S439–S442.
Amerasinghe, P., Bhardwaj, R.M., Scott, C., Jella, K., et al., 2013. Urban wastewater and
agricultural reuse challenges in India. IWMI.
Anil Kumar, N., Arivudai Nambi, V., Geetha Rani, M., Israel Oliver King, E.D., et al.,
2015. Community agro biodiversity conservation continuum: an integrated
approach to achieve food and nutrition security. Curr. Sci. 109 (3), 474–487.
Araújo, M.B., Rahbek, C., 2006. How does climate change affect biodiversity? Science
313 (5792)), 1396–1397.
Barbrook-Johnson, P., Penn, A.S., 2022. Systems mapping: how to build and use causal
models of systems. Springe Nat.
Barik, N.K., 2017. Freshwater sh for nutrition security in India: evidence from FAO data
(Available from:). Aquac. Rep. 7, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aqrep.2017.04.001.
Baw, K.S., Nawn, N., Chellam, R., Krishnaswamy, J., et al., 2020. Envisioning a
biodiversity science for sustaining human well-being (Available from:). Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 117 (42), 25951–25955. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018436117.
Bawa, K.S., Sengupta, A., Chavan, V., Chellam, R., et al., 2021. Securing biodiversity,
securing our future: a national mission on biodiversity and human well-being for
India (Available from:). Biol. Conserv. 253, 108867. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BIOCON.2020.108867.
Behera, M.D., Chitale, V.S., Shaw, A., Roy, P.S., et al., 2012. Wetland monitoring, serving
as an index of land use change-a study in samaspur wetlands, Uttar Pradesh, India
(Available from:). J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 40 (2), 287–297. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12524-011-0139-6.
B´
elanger, J., Pilling, D., 2019. The state of the world’s biodiversity for food and
agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO.
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., et al., 2012. Impacts of climate
change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15 (4), 365–377.
Bhan, S., Behera, U.K., 2014. Conservation agriculture in India – Problems, prospects and
policy issues (Available from:). Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2 (4), 1–12. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S2095-6339(15)30053-8.
Biggs, E.M., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, J.M.A., et al., 2015. Sustainable development
and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods (Available from:).
Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2015.08.002.
Bisht, I.S., Rana, J.C., Yadav, R., Ahlawat, S.P., 2020. Mainstreaming agricultural
biodiversity in traditional production landscapes for sustainable development: the
Indian scenario. Sustainability 12 (24), 10690.
Bleischwitz, R., Spataru, C., VanDeveer, S.D., Obersteiner, M., et al., 2018. Resource
nexus perspectives towards the United Nations sustainable development goals. Nat.
Sustain. 1 (12), 737–743.
Bunting, S.W., Luo, S., Cai, K., Kundu, N., et al., 2016. Integrated action planning for
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of highland aquatic resources:
evaluating outcomes for the Beijiang River, China (Available from:). J. Environ.
Plan. Manag. 59 (9), 1580–1609. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09640568.2015.1083414.
Bunting, S.W., Mishra, R., Smith, K.G., Ray, D., 2015. Evaluating sustainable
intensication and diversication options for agriculture-based livelihoods within an
aquatic biodiversity conservation context in Buxa, West Bengal, India (Available
from:). Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 13 (4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14735903.2014.966530.
Chitale, V.S., Behera, M.D., Roy, P.S., 2014. Future of endemic ora of biodiversity
hotspots in India (Available from:). PLoS ONE 9 (12). https://doi.org/10.1371/
JOURNAL.PONE.0115264.
Chopra, K., 2017. Development and environmental policy in India: The last few decades.
Springer.
Chouhan, P., 2023. The amended Biological Diversity Act puts prots over people.
Frontline. Available from: 〈https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/how-the-a
mended-biological-diversity-act-puts-prots-over-people/article67657862.ece〉.
Daily, G.C., 1997. Introduction: what are ecosystem services. Nat. ’S. Serv.: Soc. Depend.
Nat. Ecosyst. 1 (1).
Dandabathula, G., Chintala, S.R., Ghosh, S., Balakrishnan, P., et al., 2021. Exploring the
nexus between Indian forestry and the Sustainable Development Goals (Available
from:). Reg. Sustain. 2 (4), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2022.01.002.
Das, M.K., Sharma, A.P., Sahu, S.K., Srivastava, P.K., et al., 2013. Impacts and
vulnerability of inland sheries to climate change in the Ganga River system in
India. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 16 (4), 415–424.
Davila, F., Plant, R., Jacobs, B., 2021. Biodiversity revisited through systems thinking.
Environ. Conserv. 48 (1), 16–24.
Dhawan, V., 2017. Water and agriculture in India. : Backgr. Pap. South Asia Expert Panel
Glob. Forum Food Agric. 2017, 80–85.
Dubey, D., Kumar, S., Dutta, V., 2022. Impact of nutrient enrichment on habitat
heterogeneity and species richness of aquatic macrophytes: evidence from
freshwater tropical lakes of Central Ganga Plain, India (Available from:). Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 19 (6), 5529–5546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-
03438-4.
Dudgeon, D., 2000. The ecology of tropical Asian rivers and streams in relation to
biodiversity conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31 (1), 239–263.
Estoque, R.C., 2023. Complexity and diversity of nexuses: a review of the nexus approach
in the sustainability context (Available from:). Sci. Total Environ. 854, 158612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158612.
FAO (2021) FAO Yearbook of Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Rome, Italy.
FAO (2023) Conservation Agriculture. [Online]. 2023. Available from: 〈https://www.fao.
org/conservation-agriculture/en/〉.
Fischer, J., Abson, D.J., Bergsten, A., Collier, N.F., et al., 2017. Reframing the
food–biodiversity challenge. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32 (5), 335–345.
Ghosh, R., Mukherjee, J., Pathak, S., Choudry, A., et al. (2022) A Situational Analysis of
Small-Scale Fisheries in the Sundarbans, India: From Vulnerability to Viability . [Online]
V2V Workin. Available from: 〈https://www.v2vglobalpartnership.org/_le
s/ugd/fd58f8_ff4f382e6fc2406aa7e8e17d4e48421e.pdf?index=true〉.
Glamann, J., Hanspach, J., Abson, D.J., Collier, N., et al., 2017. The intersection of food
security and biodiversity conservation: a review. Reg. Environ. Change 17 (5),
1303–1313.
Godfray, H.C.J., 2011. Food and biodiversity (Available from:). Science 333 (6047),
1231–1232. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1211815.
Gosain, A.K., Rao, S., Arora, A., 2011. Climate change impact assessment of water
resources of India. Curr. Sci. 101 (3), 356–371.
Gosling, S.N., Arnell, N.W., 2016. A global assessment of the impact of climate change on
water scarcity (Available from:). Clim. Change 134 (3), 371–385. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S10584-013-0853-X.
Government of India (2012) National Water Policy. [Online]. Available from: 〈https://nw
m.gov.in/sites/default/les/national〉water policy 2012_0.pdf.
Grant, M.J., Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26 (2), 91–108.
Grant, E.H.C., Lynch, H.J., Muneepeerakul, R., Arunachalam, M., et al., 2012. Interbasin
water transfer, riverine connectivity, and spatial controls on sh biodiversity
(Available from:). PLoS ONE 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034170.
Gulati, M., Pahuja, S., 2015. Direct delivery of power subsidy to manage energy–ground
water–agriculture nexus. Aquat. Procedia 5, 22–30.
Gupta, T.D., 2023. India moves to adopt bill that would weaken forest protections.
Science 381 (6657), 471.
Gupta, N., Bower, S.D., Raghavan, R., Danylchuk, A.J., et al., 2015. Status of recreational
sheries in India: development, issues, and opportunities (Available from:). Rev.
Fish. Sci. Aquac. 23 (3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23308249.2015.1052366.
Gupta, S.K., Deshpande, R.D., 2004. Water for India in 2050: rst-order assessment of
available options. Curr. Sci. 86 (9), 1216–1224.
Gupta, R., Jat, M.L., 2010. Conservation agriculture: addressing emerging challenges of
resource degradation and food security in South Asia. Conserv. Agric. 1, 18.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
14
Hanger-Kopp, S., Lemke, L.K.-G., Beier, J., 2024. What qualitative systems mapping is
and what it could be: integrating and visualizing diverse knowledge of complex
problems (Available from:). Sustain. Sci. 19 (3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-024-01497-3.
Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J.R., et al., 2014. Linkages between
biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 9,
191–203.
Hegde, H.T., Gunaga, R.P., Thakur, N.S., Bhusara, J.B., et al., 2019. Utilization of mahua
resources: traditional knowledge as a tool for sustainable management (Available
from:). Curr. Sci. 117 (10), 1727–1730. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v117/i10/
1727-1730.
Hoff, H., 2011. Underst. Nexus Backgr. Pap. Bonn. 2011 Conf.: Water, Energy Food
Secur. Nexus.
Iannetta, P.P.M., Hawes, C., Begg, G.S., Maaß, H., et al., 2021. A multifunctional solution
for wicked problems: value-chain wide facilitation of legumes cultivated at
bioregional scales is necessary to address the climate-biodiversity-nutrition nexus.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5.
Isbell, F., Gonzalez, A., Loreau, M., Cowles, J., et al., 2017. Linking the inuence and
dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546 (7656)), 65–72.
IUCN (2011) The status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in the Western Ghats,
India. [Online]. Available from: 〈https://www.iucn.org/content/status-and-distri
bution-freshwater-biodiversity-western-ghats-india〉.
Jacob, C.T., Parida, A., Kumar, N.K., 2020. Conservation of India’s agrobiodiversity
towards increasing food, nutritional and livelihood security. Curr. Sci. 119 (4), 607.
Jain, R., Kishore, P., Singh, D.K., 2019. Irrigation in India: status, challenges and options.
J. Soil Water Conserv. 18 (4), 354–363.
Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., Joppa, L.N., 2013. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate
diversity and conservation (Available from:). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. [Online 110
(28), E2603–E2610. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1302251110.
Jha, S., Bawa, K.S., 2006. Population growth, human development, and deforestation in
biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 20 (3), 906–912.
Joshi, K.D., Alam, A., Jha, D.N., Srivastava, S.K., et al., 2016. Fish diversity, composition
and invasion of exotic shes in river Yamuna under altered water quality conditions.
Indian J. Anim. Sci. 86 (8), 957–963.
Kanade, R., Lohakare, K., Bhadbhade, N., Joy, K.J., et al. (2023) Situational Analysis of
the Upper Bhima sub-basin in the context of the Water-Food-Biodiversity Nexus.
Khatri, N., Raval, K., Jha, A.K., 2021. Integrated water quality monitoring of Mahi river
using benthic macroinvertebrates and comparison of its biodiversity among various
stretches (Available from:). Appl. Water Sci. 11 (8). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13201-021-01451-z.
Kisku, S., Chini, D.S., Bhattacharya, M., Kar, A., et al., 2017. A cross-sectional study on
water quality in relation to sh diversity of Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, India
through geoinformatics approaches (Available from:). Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 43 (4),
283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2017.12.001.
Kookana, R.S., Drechsel, P., Jamwal, P., Vanderzalm, J., 2020. Urbanisation and
emerging economies: issues and potential solutions for water and food security. Sci.
Total Environ. 732, 139057.
Kothari, A., Joy, K.J., 2017. Alternative futures: India unshackled. Authors Upfront New
Delhi.
Kumar, R., Kumari, R., Prasad, C., Deep, A., et al., 2021. Inuence of water quality on the
diversity of macroinvertebrates in the Mandakini River in India (Available from:).
Water Sci. Technol.: Water Supply 21 (4), 1843–1860. https://doi.org/10.2166/
WS.2021.020.
Kumar, K.N., Rajeevan, M., Pai, D.S., Srivastava, A.K., et al., 2013. On the observed
variability of monsoon droughts over India. Weather Clim. Extrem. 1, 42–50.
Kumar, D., Ram, S., Srivastav, A.L., 2022. Urban water quality and wastewater
discharges in mega and metro cities of India—Challenges, impacts, and
management: An overview. Curr. Dir. Water Scarcity Res. 6, 223–244.
Kumar Sarkar, U., Kumar Pathak, A., Kumar Tyagi, L., Mohan Srivastava, S., et al., 2013.
Biodiversity of freshwater sh of a protected river in India: Comparison with
unprotected habitat (Available from:). Rev. De. Biol. Trop. [Online 61 (1), 161–172.
https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v61i1.10942.
Lakra, W.S., Sarkar, U.K., Dubey, V.K., Sani, R., et al., 2011. River inter linking in India:
status, issues, prospects and implications on aquatic ecosystems and freshwater sh
diversity (Available from:). Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 21 (3), 463–479. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11160-011-9199-5.
lIPBES (2021) Scoping report for the thematic assessment of the interlinkages among
biodiversity, water, food and health (nexus assessment) with revised chapter
structure. [Online]. Available from: 〈https://ipbes.net/sites/default/les/inline-le
s/Nexusscopingconsolidated.pdf〉.
Liu, J., Hull, V., Godfray, H.C.J., Tilman, D., et al., 2018. Nexus approaches to global
sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1 (9), 466–476.
Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S.J., et al., 2015. Systems integration for global
sustainability. Science 347 (6225)). Available from: doi:10.1126/
SCIENCE.1258832/ASSET/F0BA4106-BF5F–4AE3-9D77-2E70C1A5C51F/ASSETS/
GRAPHIC/347_1258832_FA.JPEG [Accessed: 1 August 2022].
Malik, R.K., Gupta, R.K., Singh, C.M., Yadav, A., et al., 2005. Accelerating the adoption
of resource conservation technologies in rice wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic
Plains. In: Proceedings of Project Workshop, Directorate of Extension Education,
2005. Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), pp. 1–2.
Mashwani, Z.-R., 2020. Environment, climate change and biodiversity. Environment
climate plant and vegetation growth. Springer, pp. 473–501.
Maske, M., Mungole, A., Kamble, R., Chaturvedi, A., et al., 2011. Impact of non-timber
forest produces (NTFPs) on rural tribes economy in Gondia district of Maharashtra,
India. Arch. Appl. Sci. Res. 3 (3), 109–114.
Meshram, D., Bopinwar, S., Sangolkar, L., Ghosh, T.K., et al., 2018. Assessment of
physicochemical water quality and phytoplankton diversity in Narikulam reservoir
in Kanniyakumari district, Tamilnadu, India (Available from:). Sustain. Water
Resour. Manag. 4 (4), 735–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0158-8.
Millennium ecosystem assessment (2001) Millennium ecosystem assessment.
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (2023) Sustainable Development
Goals National Indicator Framework: progress Report 2023.
Mishra, P.K., Parey, A., Saha, B., Samaddar, A., et al., 2022. Production analysis of
composite sh culture in drought prone areas of Purulia: the implication of nancial
constraint. Aquaculture 548, 737629.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., et al., 2009. Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med.
151 (4), 264–269.
Mohr, J. & Mohr, R. (2023) Kumu - relationship mapping software. [Online]. 2023.
Available from: https://kumu.io.
Mondal, K., Chatterjee, C., Singh, R., 2023. An analytical framework for state level water-
energy-food nexus analysis in India: Insight from implemented policies (Available
from:). Environ. Sci. Policy 141, 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2022.12.018.
Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., Elmquist, T., et al., 2009. Biodiversity, climate
change, and ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1 (1), 46–54.
Mukherji, A., 2008. Spatio-temporal analysis of markets for groundwater irrigation
services in India: 1976–1977 to 1997–1998. Hydrogeol. J. 16 (6), 1077–1087.
Naeem, S., Duffy, J.E., Zavaleta, E., 2012. The functions of biological diversity in an age
of extinction. science 336 (6087)), 1401–1406.
Nautiyal, S., Smitha, K.C., Kaechele, H., 2020. Medicinal plant biodiversity in India:
Harnessing opportunities for promoting livelihood and food security (Available
from:). Environ. Sci. Eng. 135–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32463-6_7.
Nayar, M.P., Singh, A.K. & Nair, K.N. (2009) Agrobiodiversity Hotspots in India:
Conservation and Benet Sharing.
Nesemann, H.F., Sharma, G., Kumar, R., Sheetal, A., et al., 2017. Do the rivers of Chota
Nagpur Dry Forests (Jharkhand), Damodar and Subarnarekha differ in biodiversity
of aquatic macrozoobenthos, functional feeding groups and biological water quality?
(Available from:). Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 20 (1–2), 116–129. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14634988.2017.1300041.
Nilsson, M., Chisholm, E., Griggs, D., Howden-Chapman, P., et al., 2018. Mapping
interactions between the sustainable development goals: lessons learned and ways
forward. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1489–1503.
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., 2016. Policy: map the interactions between
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534 (7607)), 320–322.
Ostrom, E., 1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2 (1),
493–535.
Parliament of India (1980) Forest Conservation Act. [Online]. Available from: 〈https:
//www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19381/1/the_forest_%28conservati
on%29_act%2C_1980.pdf〉.
Parliament of India (2002) The Biological Diversity Act. [Online]. Available from:
〈https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2046/4/a2003-18.pdf〉.
Postel, S.L., 1998. Water for food production: will there be enough in 2025? BioScience
48 (8), 629–637.
Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., et al., 2017. A systematic study of
sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’S. Future 5 (11),
1169–1179.
Pullanikkatil, D., Shackleton, C.M., 2019. Poverty reduction through non-timber forest
products. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer Nature, Berlin.
Quinlan, J.P., Sen, S., Nanda, K., 2014. Thirsty Nation: Priorities for India’s Water Sector.
Random House India.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S., Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., et al., 2021. Beyond fortress conservation:
the long-term integration of natural and social science research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India (Available from:). Biol. Conserv. 254, 108888. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108888.
Ramankutty, N., Mehrabi, Z., Waha, K., Jarvis, L., et al., 2018. Trends in global
agricultural land use: implications for environmental health and food security. Annu.
Rev. Plant Biol. 69, 789–815.
Rasul, G., Sharma, B., 2016. The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: an
option for adaptation to climate change. Clim. Policy 16 (6), 682–702.
Ravikanth, G., Aditya, V., Shaanker, R.U., 2020. Biodiversity in and around Farmlands
Food and Nutritional Security and Rural Livelihoods. Econ. Political Wkly. 55 (49),
34–39.
Sanders, K.T., Webber, M.E., 2012. Evaluating the energy consumed for water use in the
United States (Available from:). Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.1088/
1748-9326/7/3/034034.
Sarkar, U.K., Sandhya, K.M., Mishal, P., Karnatak, G., et al., 2018. Status, prospects,
threats, and the way forward for sustainable management and enhancement of the
tropical Indian reservoir sheries: an overview. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 26 (2),
155–175.
Saxena, K.B., 2024. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023: a threat to forest
lands and forest dwellers (Available from:). Soc. Change 54 (1), 108–117. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00490857231222101.
Scharlemann, J.P.W., Brock, R.C., Balfour, N., Brown, C., et al., 2020. Towards
understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of
environment–human linkages (Available from:). Sustain. Sci.. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-020-00799-6.
Schl¨
or, H., M¨
arker, C., Venghaus, S., 2021. Developing a nexus systems thinking test –A
qualitative multi- and mixed methods analysis (Available from:). Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 138, 110543. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2020.110543.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
Environmental Science and Policy 159 (2024) 103826
15
Schmeller, D.S., Bridgewater, P., 2021. The eighth plenary of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES-8): online,
nexus, and transformative change. Biodivers. Conserv. 30 (11), 2857–2862.
Shah, T., 2011. Past, present, and the future of canal irrigation in India. India Infrastruct.
Rep. 70–87.
Sharma, S., Mujumdar, P., 2017. Increasing frequency and spatial extent of concurrent
meteorological droughts and heatwaves in India. Sci. Rep. 7 (1), 1–9.
Singh, S.P., Priya, Sajwan, K., 2023. Factors inuencing the adoption of organic farming:
a case of Middle Ganga River basin, India. Org. Agric. 1–11.
Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and
guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339.
Srigiri, S.R., Dombrowsky, I., 2022. Analysing the water-energy-food nexus from a
polycentric governance perspective: conceptual and methodological framework.
Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 725116.
Srivathsa, A., Vasudev, D., Nair, T., Chakrabarti, S., et al., 2023. Prioritizing India’s
landscapes for biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Nat. Sustain.
6 (5), 568–577.
ˇ
S¯
umane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., et al., 2018. Local and farmers’ knowledge
matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and
resilient agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 59, 232–241.
Thomas, B.K., Deepthi, N., Jamwal, P., 2017. Going With The Flow? Urban wastewater
and livelihoods change in peri-urban Bengaluru. Transcending boundaries:
Reecting on twenty years of action and research at. ATREE 114, 121.
Tisdell, C.A., 2020. In: Hazra, Somnath, Bhukta, Anindya (Eds.), Biodiversity
Conservation and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals: India’s Responses
Evaluated—Particularly in Relation to SDG15 BT - Sustainable Development Goals:
An Indian Perspective. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 225–233.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42488-6_15.
Titley, M.A., Snaddon, J.L., Turner, E.C., 2017. Scientic research on animal biodiversity
is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions. PloS One 12
(12), e0189577.
Udmale, P., Ichikawa, Y., Manandhar, S., Ishidaira, H., et al., 2014. Farmers׳ perception
of drought impacts, local adaptation and administrative mitigation measures in
Maharashtra State, India (Available from:). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 10 (PA),
250–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2014.09.011.
Vakilifard, N., Anda, M., A. Bahri, P., Ho, G., 2018. The role of water-energy nexus in
optimising water supply systems – Review of techniques and approaches (Available
from:). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 1424–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2017.05.125.
Vargas, D.C.M., Hoyos, C., del, P.Q., Manrique, O.L.H., 2023. The water-energy-food
nexus in biodiversity conservation: a systematic review around sustainability
transitions of agricultural systems. Heliyon.
Venkataraman, K., Sivaperuman, C., 2018. In: Sivaperuman, Chandrakasan,
Venkataraman, Krishnamoorthy (Eds.), Biodiversity Hotspots in India BT - Indian
Hotspots: Vertebrate Faunal Diversity, Conservation and Management Volume 1.
Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-
6605-4_1.
Venter, O., Sanderson, E.W., Magrach, A., Allan, J.R., et al., 2016. Sixteen years of
change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity
conservation. Nat. Commun. 7 (1), 12558.
Villamayor-Tomas, S., 2018. Polycentricity in the water–energy nexus: A comparison of
polycentric governance traits and implications for adaptive capacity of water user
associations in Spain. Environ. Policy Gov. 28 (4), 252–268.
V¨
or¨
osmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., Lammers, R.B., 2000. Global water resources:
vulnerability from climate change and population growth (Available from:). Science
289 (5477), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.289.5477.284.
Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Soc. Netw. Anal.: Methods Appl.
Watson, R., Baste, I., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P., et al., 2019. Summary for
policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services
of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, pp. 22–47.
Watson, J.E.M., Jones, K.R., Fuller, R.A., Marco, M.Di, et al., 2016. Persistent disparities
between recent rates of habitat conversion and protection and implications for future
global conservation targets. Conserv. Lett. 9 (6), 413–421.
Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E., Nilsson, M., 2017. Closing the governance
gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: insights from integrative governance
(Available from:). Glob. Environ. Change 45, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
GLOENVCHA.2017.06.006.
Wichelns, D., 2017. The water-energy-food nexus: is the increasing attention warranted,
from either a research or policy perspective? (Available from:). Environ. Sci. Policy
69, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.12.018.
Willis, K.J., Bhagwat, S.A., 2009. Biodiversity and climate change. Science 326 (5954)),
806–807.
Wittman, H., Chappell, M.J., Abson, D.J., Kerr, R.B., et al., 2017. A social–ecological
perspective on harmonizing food security and biodiversity conservation. Reg.
Environ. Change 17 (5), 1291–1301.
Wood, D., Lenn´
e, J.M., 1999. Why agrobiodiversity. CABI Publishing.
World Bank (2012) India Groundwater: a Valuable but Diminishing Resource. [Online].
2012. Available from: 〈https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012
/03/06/india-groundwater-critical-diminishing#:~:text=Key〉Issues-,India is the
largest user of groundwater in the world,supplies are dependent on groundwater.
Zaveri, E., Grogan, D.S., Fisher-Vanden, K., Frolking, S., et al., 2016. Invisible water,
visible impact: groundwater use and Indian agriculture under climate change
(Available from:). Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (8). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
11/8/084005.
Zhang, C., Chen, X., Li, Y., Ding, W., et al., 2018. Water-energy-food nexus: concepts,
questions and methodologies (Available from:). J. Clean. Prod. 195, 625–639.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.05.194.
J.C.G. Martin et al.
