ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The increasing pressure on resources and the persistent failure to address global malnutrition are evident challenges. A significant contributing factor is the decline in the quality of production resources, particularly water. As a result, many countries and their experts have prioritized the need to balance resource consumption. To address the research gap regarding balanced and optimal resource use, various methodologies have been developed over time, culminating in nexus studies. This study aimed to investigate the what, why, and how of conducting water-energy-food nexus (WEFN) studies. The research employed a sequential mixed-methods approach, integrating content analysis with the Analytical Network Process (ANP). The findings reveal that the objectives of WEFN studies encompass a wide range of interests, which can be systematically categorized into seven principal domains: system sustainability assessment, integration of planning and decision-making processes related to resource consumption, optimization of resource use, management of resource consumption systems, development of theoretical frameworks for the nexus, evaluation of the impacts of resource consumption, and assessment of associated risks. Notably, the results indicate that system sustainability assessment is the most critical reason for conducting WEFN studies. Furthermore, the analysis of WEFN methodologies identified simulation as the most effective technique within the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) framework. In the context of the ANP technique, statistical analysis and simulation emerged as the most important methods. This research advocates for using a diagram to facilitate the selection of the optimal method for conducting a WEFN study.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Conducting water-energy-food
nexus studies: what, why, and how
Ebrahim Farmandeh1, Shahla Choobchian2 & Shobeir Karami3
The increasing pressure on resources and the persistent failure to address global malnutrition
are evident challenges. A signicant contributing factor is the decline in the quality of production
resources, particularly water. As a result, many countries and their experts have prioritized the need to
balance resource consumption. To address the research gap regarding balanced and optimal resource
use, various methodologies have been developed over time, culminating in nexus studies. This
study aimed to investigate the what, why, and how of conducting water-energy-food nexus (WEFN)
studies. The research employed a sequential mixed-methods approach, integrating content analysis
with the Analytical Network Process (ANP). The ndings reveal that the objectives of WEFN studies
encompass a wide range of interests, which can be systematically categorized into seven principal
domains: system sustainability assessment, integration of planning and decision-making processes
related to resource consumption, optimization of resource use, management of resource consumption
systems, development of theoretical frameworks for the nexus, evaluation of the impacts of
resource consumption, and assessment of associated risks. Notably, the results indicate that system
sustainability assessment is the most critical reason for conducting WEFN studies. Furthermore, the
analysis of WEFN methodologies identied simulation as the most eective technique within the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) framework. In the context of the ANP technique, statistical analysis
and simulation emerged as the most important methods. This research advocates for using a diagram
to facilitate the selection of the optimal method for conducting a WEFN study.
Keywords Water-energy-food nexus, Analytical network process, Analytical hierarchy process, Nexus study
diagram
e water-energy-food nexus (abbreviated Nexus) is an interactive approach between the three main sources
of production, which was created with the aim of optimal and sustainable use of resources. e philosophy
of the formation of the Nexus is the need to pay attention to the three basic resources available to humans,
which are in danger of destruction due to continuous environmental changes and human manipulations. e
correlation between these three important sources determines the survival of humans and the biosphere1. e
main challenge is that the change in the spatial and temporal scales of one resource aects the other two, so
Nexus must be able to recognize the conicts created and resolve them2. A Nexus is a system that consists of
connecting other subsystems. erefore, the relationship between these subsystems, synergies and the eects
of each part on other parts, as well as the platforms related to it should be considered3. e Nexus is based on
productivity and integrated resource management. e infrastructures for the use and renewal of the three main
sources of production need to be reconstructed and redesigned today because the production of resources is
interdependent. Each part of the Nexus has unique eects, behaviors, and characteristics, so it is not possible to
plan for one part to guide another part4.
In the conducted studies and researches, dierent reasons for the implementation of the Nexus have been
stated, which include the supply chain of the three sources of water, energy and food, the severe limitation of
resources at the world level, the growing demand for the use or storage of the three sources, access to resources
in terms of quantity and quality, changes in the supply and demand of production resources in human societies,
the dependence of the main production resources on climate change and the need to cope with its challenges, the
increase in human crises such as poverty and hunger and the provision of water and healthy food for the people,
slow movement towards the approved goals of sustainable development, political conicts and governance of
the main sources of Nexus, changing lifestyles in the world, destruction of natural ecosystems to restore human
ecosystems, along with the ineciency of the old development approaches, instability in social systems due to
the loss of exibility in the face of the lack or absence of production resources, the need to ensure the security
1Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. 2Department of
Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran 1497713111,
Iran. 3Persian Gulf Research Institute, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran. email: shchoobchian@modares.ac.ir
OPEN
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 1
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
of production resources, integration, management, and stable governance, policymaking for balanced and
sustainable development in spatial and temporal scales, and nally, resilience, adaptability and adaptability to
complex conditions in human societies510.
e 20th century, aer World War II, was the beginning of unprecedented production using chemicals.
Along with that, countries freed from war faced the crisis of explosive population growth. Providing food for
this hungry and war-weary population led the developed countries or the so-called rst-world countries to
seek colonization and trading of other countries’ resources in addition to using their resources, to combat their
hunger. is trend of population growth continued until the United Nations predicted 9.6billion people in the
world by 2050. It can be said that this growing population, despite the increase in the power of technology in
food production and management strategies for the use of resources, still puts a lot of pressure on resources, so
due to the lack of these resources, exploitation, and extraction are excessive. Food production has caused dietary
changes to occur in dierent regions of the world and creates a double concern for the protection of the planet11.
e development of urbanization, economic growth, and the reduction of non-renewable resources have caused
countries to put additional pressure on the few available resources to achieve a better situation and in most cases
to maintain their current situation12.
e increase in global population along with climate change has increased food insecurity in the world.
e increase in food insecurity has shown itself in two forms: the number of hungry people and the number
of malnourished people. As illustrated in Fig.1, the percentage of hungry people in the world has decreased
signicantly from 28% in 2000 to 18.3% in 2023. Concurrently, the percentage of individuals experiencing
malnutrition has also declined, dropping from approximately 12% in 2000 to around 10% in 2023. ese trends
highlight the progress made in addressing global hunger and malnutrition over the past two decade13.
is slowdown in the reduction of povert y and malnutrition is primarily due to uctuations in food production
processes. Fluctuations in food production can be due to various factors, but one of the most important factors
is climate change. Figure2 shows the dollar value map of global food production and Fig.3 shows the global
climate change map. As it is clear in these gures, countries with less climate risk have produced more food in
terms of value, and as a result, they will have fewer hungry people. is is because the people of these countries
Fig. 1. World GHI scores and prevalence of undernourishment in recent decades13.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 2
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Fig. 3. World climate change map15.
Fig. 2. World agricultural output map14.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 3
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
earn money by selling their food products and fullling their daily needs. As shown in the gures, African
countries that bear more climate risk also have lower economic value of food production, and as expected, the
hungriest people in the world also live on this continent.
e impact of climate change on global food production is undeniable, especially when the signicant
technological changes in the eld of agricultural production in recent decades are considered. With the increase
in the level of agricultural technologies, the increase in food production is a natural problem, but the rate of
this increase in food production is not in sync with the rate of increase in the level of technology. e most
important reason for this is the decreased quality of agricultural resources (water, soil, and temperature) due to
climate change16,17. is issue has made the matter of establishing a balance between production resources to
be on the agenda of many countries in recent years. By turning the balance of food production resources into
a concern, the topic of nexus appeared in the research literature of the world18,19. erefore, this study aims to
explore the what, why, and how of the water-energy-food nexus (WEFN) and identify the most eective method
for conducting such studies. e “what” aspect involves dening the WEFN across dierent studies, while the
“why” delves into the goals and motivations behind these studies. In the “how” section, various methods used
in conducting WEFN studies across dierent disciplines are analyzed. Ultimately, dierent methods for WEFN
studies are prioritized using analytical network analysis (ANP). e subsequent sections of this study will
provide further details on these aspects.
Technology has helped today’s world move towards more prosperous and comfortable societies. Governments
and countries consume more resources and energy to achieve ideal life and well-being for their people than ever
before. Investing in industries dependent on natural resources such as oil is also the reason. e important
point is that, in the path of progress, what is usually aected in countries, especially developing countries,
is the environment12. Inconsistency between production resources can cause a crisis in the sustainability of
the ecosystem and environment. For example, excessive use of fossil fuels causes all kinds of pollution in the
environment, or excessive use of water resources for food production will reduce these resources20. Any pressure
on the ecosystem of a region will directly aect the WEFN. For example, a drought aects food security, a
decrease in rain aects water resources, and temperature changes in an ecosystem aect the production and
consumption of energy resources. Climate change causes the loss of biodiversity in an ecosystem. Unexpected
changes in temperature in cold regions or changes in precipitation rates in rainy regions cause damage to plants
and living organisms in these regions. Also, the growth of the human population and the need to produce more
food causes humans to encroach on the boundaries of the ecosystem and change the use of the ecosystem to
acquire more land or water for food production, which in turn intensies the consequences of climate change
in the region21.
e most important applications of ANP in choosing the appropriate research method in WEFN studies are:
(1) determining priorities: using ANP, researchers can determine dierent priorities based on multiple criteria
that may overlap. is is especially critical in situations where the choice of research method is inuenced
by various factors, (2) considering dependencies: ANP allows researchers to consider internal and external
dependencies between criteria and options. is feature is very important to choose appropriate research
methods that may be aected by environmental or social factors, and (3) scenario analysis: ANP allows the
analysis of dierent scenarios, which can help decision makers to choose the best options for research. ese
analyzes can include evaluating the eects of changes in conditions or management policies. Research on the
water-energy-food nexus underscores the crucial role of agricultural development. e direct impacts and
synergies between water, energy, and food resources and grappling with major environmental eects like climate
change can aect in sustainable development. Optimizing resource utilization necessitates conducting studies
within a robust method and framework. Moreover, diverse approaches to these resources across various studies
reveal that, without an optimal methodology, research outcomes oen lack clarity and practicality. Focusing on
the nexus and its regional eects, including the inuence of internal factors like population growth and external
factors such as climate change, has been extensively examined. However, the need for an optimal methodology
to conduct comprehensive nexus studies remains pronounced, and this research aims to ll this knowledge gap.
Research Method
e method of conducting this research was a sequential mixed research method. e dierent stages of this
research are shown in Fig.4. In the rst phase, researches were analyzed from the point of view of what, why, and
how to conduct WEFN studies, and it was used to develop a decision tree. To perform this part of the research,
content analysis was used. In the second stage, participants in the research were selected. In the third phase, the
decision tree was developed, and in the fourth phase of the research, the Analytical Network Analysis (ANP)
method was used to determine the relative importance of alternatives and criteria.
Step 1: literature review and content analysis
In the eld of selecting the articles to be studied, articles were considered that mentioned WEFN in their title.
Due to the time limit of the research, about 100 articles were selected. Content analysis is one of the documentary
methods that deals with the systematic, objective, quantitative, and generalizable examination of communication
messages. is method is considered a concealer in the classication of methods, and it is used to check the
obvious content of the messages in a text, as a result, it does not enter into the interpretation and semiotics of
the message content. Content analysis is a convenient way to answer questions about the content of a message.
Although in the early approaches, it was claimed that content analysis could deal with the characteristics of
the author and the impact on the audience in addition to the message content, today, the latter two functions
are considered possible only in eld and document integration methods. Referring to this topic, only objective
messages were considered. In the context of examining the nature of the WEFN, dierent dimensions of the
WEFN were reviewed and presented in dierent articles. In the context of identifying the reason for conducting
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 4
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
the research, referring to the purpose of the research, if mentioned, the reasons why (and not the interpretation
according to the opinion of this study authors) can be extracted. In the investigation of how using the "Research
method" section of the studied articles in the why section, the hows were determined.
Step 2: selection of participants
In terms of selecting participants in the research, 3 experts in the eld of water, 3 experts in the eld of energy, 3
experts in the eld of food, and 3 experts in the eld of nexus studies were selected. e selection characteristics
of these experts can be seen in Table1. e criteria for selecting the respondents were representativeness of
the views of Iranian experts in their eld, having the power of logical thinking, having the ability to complete
a pairwise interview, being a key informant, working in dierent dimensions of their expertise, and working at
dierent organizational levels.
Step 3: develop the decision tree
To determine the relative importance of the nexus’s why and how, the decision tree of this research was
developed based on the ndings of stage 1. A decision tree is an algorithm that is widely used in classication
and prediction problems. In this algorithm, for each sample of the input data, a decision tree is built, which
hierarchically includes the overall goal, criteria, and alternatives. In this research, the criteria consist of the
reasons for conducting WEFN studies, and the objectives are how to achieve these reasons (or dierent methods
of conducting WEFN studies).
Step 4: ANP analysis
e ANP method is one of the multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM), which is similar to the AHP
method, but in which criteria or sub-criteria or alternatives have dependencies or relationships. e AHP
method can be considered a special mode of the ANP technique. If there is a problem in which the criteria,
sub-criteria, or alternatives have internal relationships with each other, this type of problem cannot be solved
through the AHP method because the problem will leave the hierarchical state and create a network state. e
process of network analysis provides a comprehensive and powerful method for making accurate decisions using
empirical information or personal judgments available to each decision-maker and providing a structure for
organizing dierent criteria and evaluating the importance and preference of each of them over alternatives
makes the decision-making process easier. ANP is implemented using Super Decisions soware and is applied
Groups of participants No. Reasons for selection
Water experts 3 To represent the view of their discipline in Iran
Food experts 3 Logical thinking ability
Energy experts 3 Capable for pairwise comparison
3 Key informants
Working in dierent dimensions of expertise
Nexus experts Working at dierent organizational levels
Tab le 1. Descriptions of the research participants.
Fig. 4. Research Stages.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 5
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
to a variety of decisions including marketing, medical, political, military, social, forecasting, and many others22.
e ANP method and its application in various elds are well documented in the operational research literature.
e purpose of using this method was to compare the whys (as criteria) and the hows (as indicators) in the
rst step and determine the more important method by referring to the purpose of the study. In the second
step, which transforms the process from AHP to ANP, the goal is to determine which method can serve as a
better complement when performing a method to overlap with that method. is issue was chosen because, in
addition to the criteria, alternatives are also compared with each other from the point of view of alignment and
complementarity with other alternatives, because many researchers seek to determine a research process for
themselves. erefore, for researchers who are interested in the topic of nexus, it is better to rely on methods
that the data and ndings of that method can be used in future studies that may be done with other methods.
It is important to note that the Ethical Committee of Tarbiat Modares University granted approval for the
research, and all aspects of the study were conducted according to the relevant guidelines and regulations.
Additionally, adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki was ensured throughout the research process.
Findings
What is the WEF nexus?
Water-energy-food nexus which is called “WEFN” for short in this research, is an adaptive approach that increases
the resilience of energy, water, and food resources in the conditions of climate change and population growth23.
e conceptual WEFN is local, national, territorial, and extra-territorial and in it, synergies and exchanges take
place between water, food, and energy resources and the security of these resources for sustainable production,
development, and environmental protection. In the nexus, a balance has been made for synergizing resources
and correct and sucient exchanges between resources, and the result is cost-eective production while using
few resources and on the path of sustainable development. Nexus from the terminological perspective is an
emerging concept focusing on the link between social sciences and natural sciences. By understanding the nexus
between water, energy, and food resources, the nexus is trying to reach a unied concept and be able to deal with
the problems of today’s world. In addition, the concept of nexus is directly or indirectly aected by issues such
as climate change, population growth, or human damages such as increased land use change, war, social issues,
urbanization, etc11.
In the denition of the nexus, two categories can be mentioned: (1) e rst category, which refers to the
interaction between the three main poles, deals more with the development of concepts that depend on their
connection and relationships. For example, at the border between energy and water and where water is used for
energy or energy for water, the denition of the nexus and its classication is formed. In the food dimension,
the concepts begin where the border of food production and energy and water use are intertwined. In this
category, the interactions and subsystems related to each section and the general characteristics of the WEFN
are also taken into consideration. (2) e second category, which is used more in research, looks at the concept
of connection as a paradigm of analysis and quantication of concepts and relationships between the three
main dimensions. is category ends with smaller denitions such as the approach of man and nature or the
integrated management of natural resources through WEFN. In this category, researchers focus on the nature
of production, use, and distribution of resources, along with how these resource links evolve and reach a state
of sustainability in the environment and ecosystem, and use analytical tools, governance theories, and the like20.
In 2011, at the World Nexus Conference in Bonn, Germany, for the rst time, concepts related to nexus and its
relationship with sustainability were discussed. In the initial concepts of the WEFN, the direction of the studies
was more toward systematic decision-making in critical conditions of water, energy, and food resources23,24.
Awareness of the double pressure on water, energy, and food resources and the threat it had created for sustainable
development in the countries of the world led to the establishment of this conference because these pressures
caused irreparable damage to the body of sustainable development25. e concepts of water, food, and energy
in the nexus paradigm both individually and continuously examine the dimensions of sustainable development
and resource protection. e continuity of these three concepts is based on the three ows of “access, availability,
and use”. Access refers to that aspect of resources in which people can purchase, produce, or be assisted in the
process of acquiring that concept. Availability refers to the processing and distribution of food and renewable
energy, and nally, the use of resources means valuable and regulated consumption12,20. e nexus has two
distinct dimensions, inter-disciplinary and supra-disciplinary. e rst dimension deals with the link between
water, food, and energy and the relationships between these dimensions, and in the second dimension, the
relationships between beneciaries, dierent privileged and disadvantaged groups, governance, decision-
making and creative thinking, and in general non-technical issues in the eld of water, food, and energy24.
Water-energy-food nexus dimension
Water system (rst dimension): Water resources have been the place of gathering and formation of human
communities, and more than that, the place of concentration and expansion of civilization. Water systems
consider all issues and challenges related to human drinking water, domestic use, livestock consumption,
plant production and garden construction, industrial use, and energy production. e connection of water is
much more important than the other two dimensions, namely food, and energy, because the existence of water
resources largely leads to the existence, production, and sustainability of food and energy resources. In the
past years, due to the excessive use of water resources, especially underground reserves in dierent parts of the
world, problems such as land subsidence, the change and dominance of invasive alternatives, the destruction of
ecosystems and biodiversity, and the destruction of natural ecosystems by humans have arisen. Several solutions
are used to prevent the collapse and disintegration of water systems in dierent regions of the world. e rst is
the development of water extraction, transfer, and recycling infrastructures, in which, through the design of a
comprehensive and extensive system in economic, social, and political dimensions, eorts are made to prevent
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 6
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
water wastage and inappropriate use and to introduce new technologies of use and recycling and add water into
the natural cycle. Second, there is the issue of water governance, which, in short, according to the historical
background and the role of water in human civilization, all traditional and modern water management solutions
in a region are considered, and the way water is used is managed with the participation of the people who are
its beneciaries11.
Energy system (second dimension): e evolution and sustainability of human societies depend on energy.
Aer the industrial revolution of the 19th century, the issue of energy extraction and production is as much a
priority for societies as food production. e energy system deals with issues such as energy production, access
to raw resources, energy production from renewable sources, energy sales and trading, energy policy, energy
resource governance, energy consumers and traders, and so on. Today’s energy crisis is the product of excessive
use of non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels and wood resources such as forests so until 2018, more
than a third of the world’s population did not have access to suitable and sucient energy sources.
On the other hand, the use of fossil fuel resources in less developed societies has caused the climate of these
regions and, as a result, the climate of the whole world to be in crisis. e ever-increasing need for energy
resources comes from the increase in the world’s population, and in the meantime, the development of new
technologies that are mainly dependent on the production and consumption of electrical energy also fuels this
problem11.
Food system (third dimension): A food system of production, production method, distribution method,
consumption, used inputs, transportation, labor force, policies related to food production, type of diet of the
studied community, local ecosystem and regional climate, consumers and links are formed between these
components. Food systems are directly aected by the increase in population its growth rate, and climate change.
Findings have shown that in the early 20th century and the 1930s, the world population was about 2billion
people. is population reached three billion people aer nearly 30 years, but it took only 50 years until around
2011 to reach more than double and nearly seven billion people, so with this unprecedented growth and due
to the signicant growth of technology, food systems cannot meet the needs of human society. is decrease
in the power of food systems in the 20th century was accompanied by the increase in the use of chemicals and
the change in the use of natural ecosystems for food production. e result of these actions was the pollution of
water, soil, and air and the destruction of biodiversity11.
Why nexus?
In this sections, the reason for carrying out WEFN studies was analyzed. To analyze this issue, the studies
conducted on the connection of water were examined. e results showed that these studies can be classied into
seven groups. ese categories included system sustainability assessment, integrating planning and decision-
making processes on resources consumption, resources consumption optimization, resources consumption
system’s management, developing nexus theoretical foundations, resources consumption impacts assessment,
and resources consumption risks evaluation (Table2). As can be seen in Table2, among the studies conducted,
the most common reason for conducting the WEFN studies was to determine the system sustainability
assessment (with 21 studies), and the least reason for conducting these studies was to evaluate the risks caused
by the consumption of resources (9 studies).
How to nexus?
Aer examining why WEFN studies were conducted, how these studies were conducted were analyzed and the
ndings of this section are presented in Table3. As seen, trend analysis, meta-analysis, simulation (with dierent
simulation methods), survey, content analysis, input-output analysis, economic analysis, multi-criteria decision-
making, statistical analysis, life cycle analysis (LCA), ecological network analysis, experiment, and optimization
modeling has been various methods used in the study of WEFN. Among these methods, simulation (31 cases)
has the highest amount of use, and trend analysis, meta-analysis and experiment methods (1 case) have the
lowest amount of use.
Why WEF nexus References
Resources consumption risks evaluation
(9 studies) 2633
System sustainability assessment
(21 studies) 2,3453
Resources consumption system’s management
(13 studies) 5466
Integrating planning and decision-making process on resource consumption (18 studies) 57,6783
Resources consumption optimization (17 studies) 49,8499
Resources consumption impacts assessment
(18 studies) 100117
Developing nexus theoretical foundations
(13 studies) 118130
Tab le 2. Classication of reasons for using WEFNs.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 7
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Developing decision tree
Referring to the ndings of why and how to perform WEFN, the research decision tree was developed. e
purpose of developing this tree was to choose a better way to conduct the WEFN research (Fig.5). In this tree,
the reasons for carrying out WEFN studies (system sustainability assessment, integrating planning and decision-
making process on resources consumption, resources consumption optimization, resources consumption
system’s management, developing nexus theoretical foundations, resources consumption impacts assessment, and
resources consumption risks evaluation) were chosen as criteria and how to conduct these studies (simulation,
survey, content analysis, input-output analysis, MCDM, statistical analysis, LCA, and optimization). It should be
noted that in the selection of alternatives, the methods that have been used the most were chosen as alternatives.
en, referring to the decision tree, a pairwise comparison questionnaire was compiled and the participants
were interviewed face-to-face. ere were 3 questions in this questionnaire:
1. Pairwise comparison of criteria using the purpose of the research: referring to the purpose of the research, in
conducting WEFN studies how much more important is the case of ……… than the case of ………?
2. Pairwise comparison of alternatives using criteria: in conducting a WEFN study with the ……… purpose,
how much more important is the ……… method than the ……… method?
3. Pairwise comparison of alternatives using alternatives: in conducting a WEFN study with the ……… meth-
od, how much more important is the ……… method than the ……… method?
ANP analysis
Criteria comparison
Comparing the criteria based on the research objective (Fig.6) showed that the criteria of system sustainability
assessment, integrating planning and decision-making process on resources consumption, resources consumption
optimization, resources consumption system’s management, developing nexus theoretical foundations,
resources consumption impacts assessment, and resources consumption risks evaluation with weights of 0.248,
0.221, 0.146, 0.131, 0.100, 0. and 0.063 respectively, are placed in the sequence of relative importance of why to
conduct WEFN studies. e inconsistency index of this pairwise comparison, which according to the Super
Decision soware developers should be less than 0.1, is 0.0242, which indicates a rational comparison of the
criteria with each other. As the ndings in Fig.6 show, WEFN studies that seek system sustainability are more
important to conduct than other studies. Of course, it should be noted that all WEFN studies emphasize the
available resources and their evaluation because the limitation of resources has been the most important reason
for conducting WEFN studies.
Alternatives comparison based on criteria
In the next step, the relative importance of the researched alternatives (methods of conducting WEFN studies)
was compared with each other according to the criteria (reasons for conducting WEFN studies) and the results
were shown in Table4; Figs.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. As can be seen, based on the developing nexus theoretical
foundation criteria, content analysis, MCDM, and simulation methods have more relative importance compared
to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0223) (Fig.7). Of course, according to the nature of the
How to WEFN References
Trend analysis
(1 study) 131
Meta synthesizes
(1 study) 132
Simulation
(31 studies) 27,30,31,34,49,55,62,64,65,7779,82,87,95,96,98,101,103,104,109111,127129,133137
Survey
(8 studies) 35,58,67,74,118,138140
Content analysis
(5 studies) 26,39,141143
Input-output analysis
(5 studies) 84,112,120,144,145
Economic analysis (3 studies) 36,54,146
Multi-criteria decision-making
(6 studies) 33,75,106,113,126,147
Statistical analysis (5 studies) 28,35,37,146,148
Life cycle analysis (LCA)
(4 studies) 29,41,52,56
Ecological network analysis
(2 studies) 117,149
Experiment
(1 study) 61
Optimization modeling
(10 studies) 25,38,45,60,80,93,94,100,123,124
Tab le 3. Classication of how to conduct WEFN studies.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 8
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
studies that seek the theoretical development of a subject, it is natural to be placed in this relative importance.
Because these studies mostly look for what variables are used or can be used in a subject and refer to the
researcher’s intended framework, which one has more relative importance and supports the research’s theoretical
hypotheses?
Based on the criteria of integrating planning and decision-making processes on resource consumption, and
resources consumption impacts assessment, the methods of simulation, optimization, and input-output analysis
have more relative importance compared to other methods (respectively with the inconsistency index of 0.0127
and 0.0092) (Figs.9 and 10). Referring to the nature of the planning and decision-making process, the use of
methods that lead to a judgmental statement150 or the selection of resources will be prioritized.
Based on the criteria of resource consumption optimization criteria, optimization, simulation, and input-
output analysis methods have more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index
of 0.0114) (Fig.11). Also, based on the criteria of resources consumption risk evaluation criteria, simulation,
statistical analysis, and survey methods have more relative importance compared to other methods (with an
inconsistency index of 0.0461) (Fig.12). is issue is mostly due to the nature of risk analysis, which requires a
comprehensive review and consideration of various possibilities.
Fig. 5. Decision tree to choose a better method for WFE nexus research.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 9
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Based on the resource consumption system’s management criteria, simulation, and optimization methods
have more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0141) (Fig.13). In
the end, the comparison of alternatives based on the system sustainability assessment criteria showed that the
methods of simulation, optimization, and input-output analysis have more relative importance compared to
other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0189) (Figs.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21).
Alternatives comparison based on alternatives
In the next step, the relative importance of the investigated alternatives (methods of conducting WEFN studies)
was compared with other alternatives (complementarity for other methods in conducting interdisciplinary
research), and the results were shown in Table5; Figs.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. As can be seen, based on
complementarity for the content analysis method, statistical analysis, MCDM, and survey methods have more
relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0139) (Fig.14). Considering
the qualitative nature of this research, which is the analysis of previous studies in a eld, understanding the
statistical relationship of studies and variables to each other, prioritizing variables, and re-examining them in
society can be a better complement to this method than other methods that are more based on mathematical
equations.
As can be seen, based on complementarity for the input-output analysis method, simulation, optimization,
and LCA methods have more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of
0.0226) (Fig.15). Considering that this method is more about analyzing the input and output of the system in a
certain period and drawing conclusions from the current situation. From this point of view, these three methods
can be a better supplement compared to others due to their nature. is situation of the relative importance of
complementarity for optimization is also repeated (with the inconsistency rate index of 0.0431) (Fig.19).
Based on the complementarity of the LCA method, input-output analysis, content analysis, and simulation
methods have more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0374)
(Fig.16). e presence of content analysis in the second stage of the LCA process, as well as the analysis of
Alternatives
Criteria
Developing a
nexus theoretical
foundation
Integrating
planning
and resource
consumption
Resources
consumption
impacts assessment
Resources
consumption
optimization
Resources
consumption risk
evaluation
Resources
consumption
system
management
System
sustainability
assessment
Content analysis 0.206 0.060 0.075 0.077 0.075 0.071 0.065
Input-output analysis 0.089 0.136 0.132 0.161 0.059 0.126 0.151
LCA 0.098 0.115 0.228 0.107 0.127 0.071 0.078
MCDM 0.183 0.136 0.066 0.088 0.087 0.126 0.116
Optimization 0.102 0.136 0.132 0.245 0.121 0.153 0.178
Simulation 0.143 0.244 0.219 0.161 0.201 0.234 0.214
Statistical analysis 0.089 0.085 0.071 0.077 0.192 0.091 0.090
Survey 0.089 0.085 0.079 0.083 0.138 0.128 0.108
Inconsistency index 0.0223 0.0127 0.0092 0.0114 0.0461 0.0141 0.0189
Tab le 4. Compare alternatives based on criteria.
Fig. 6. Compare criteria based on the main goal.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 10
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
dierent libraries for the best estimation of the eects, can be a good supplement for this method and increase
the quality of the studies conducted with this method.
Based on the complementarity of the MCDM method, the simulation and content analysis methods have
more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0062) (Fig.17). Because
content analysis can be a suitable supplement for this method in the decision tree development stage. Also,
the simulation can apply the ndings of this method in long-term studies and can conrm the ndings of this
prioritization. Based on complementarity for the simulation method, statistical analysis, and survey methods
have more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0254) (Fig.18). e
most important reason for this issue is the role of statistical analysis in determining the relationships between
research variables and the role of surveys in collecting relevant data.
Fig. 8. Compare alternatives based on system sustainability assessment.
Fig. 7. Compare alternatives based on developing a nexus theoretical foundation.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 11
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Based on complementarity for the statistical analysis method, content analysis, and survey methods have
more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0062) (Fig.20). Based
on the complementarity of the survey method, statistical analysis, simulation, and content analysis methods
have more relative importance compared to other methods (with an inconsistency index of 0.0223) (Fig.21).
e most important reason for this is that the method of content analysis helps to articulate the conceptual
framework and theoretical foundations of survey studies. On the other hand, simulation and statistical analysis
make it possible to generalize and create scenarios in the ndings of survey studies.
Fig. 10. Compare alternatives based on resource consumption impact assessment.
Fig. 9. Compare alternatives based on integrating planning and decision-making processes on resource
consumption.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 12
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Synthesis of alternatives
e synthesis of alternatives was done and its results for two modes are shown in Figs.22 and 23. In the rst
mode, the ndings were shown in the form of AHP analysis (Fig.22). In this case, the alternatives were compared
with each other only according to the criteria. e ndings of this mode showed that simulation methods
(normalized coecient is equal to 0.208), optimization (normalized coecient is equal to 0.160), input-output
analysis (normalized coecient is equal to 0.132), MCDM (normalized coecient is equal to 0.118), LCA
(normalized coecient is equal to 0.108), survey (normalized coecient is equal to 0.099), statistical analysis
(normalized coecient is equal to 0.092), and content analysis (normalized coecient is equal to 0.082) are in
the hierarchy of relative importance. But the important question in this context is how much these methods can
help other WEFN studies and other methods. Or to put it more simply, complete them?
e answer to this question lies in the second mode and performing ANP analysis (Fig.23). In this mode, the
alternatives were compared with each other not only regarding criteria but also regarding complementarity for
Fig. 12. Compare alternatives based on resource consumption risk evaluation.
Fig. 11. Compare alternatives based on resource consumption optimization.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 13
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
other methods. e ndings of this mode showed that the methods of statistical analysis (normalized coecient
is equal to 0.155), simulation (normalized coecient is equal to 0.153), survey (normalized coecient is equal to
0.135), content analysis (normalized coecient is equal to 0.124), input-output analysis (normalized coecient
is equal to 0.124), optimization (normalized coecient is equal to 0.113), LCA (normalized coecient is equal
to 0.100), and MCDM (normalized coecient is equal to 0.096) are in the hierarchy of relative importance. As
the ndings show, methods such as statistical analysis and survey, which were prioritized from the point of view
of why, were prioritized relatively less important, due to their complementarity, they have gained signicant
importance in ANP analysis.
Fig. 14. Compare alternatives based on content analysis.
Fig. 13. Compare alternatives based on resources consumption system management.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 14
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Conclusion and recommendations
Population increases, urbanization development, economic boom, and growth, as well as the reduction of hard
renewable resources, have caused countries to put a lot of pressure on available resources to achieve a better
situation and maintain their current status. is double pressure on resources is being applied in the conditions of
climate change. However, the failure of this pressure to achieve the goal of decreasing the problem of malnutrition
in the world is obvious. e most important reason for this is the decreased quality of production resources
(especially water). As a result, balancing the consumption of resources was put on the agenda of many countries
Fig. 16. Compare alternatives based on life cycle analysis (LCA).
Fig. 15. Compare alternatives based on input-output analysis.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 15
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
and their experts. In response to the research need for studies on balanced and optimal resource consumption, a
range of methods has been utilized. Over time, these studies have been consolidated into what are now known as
nexus studies. One of the types of nexuses was WEFN, which is specic to countries and regions where energy
is the most important competitor of food in the consumption of water resources. erefore, the purpose of this
study was to investigate what, why, and how to conduct WEFN studies.
e ndings suggest that the objectives of WEFN studies encompass a broad spectrum of interests, which
can be systematically delineated into seven principal domains: system sustainability assessment, integration
of planning and decision-making processes concerning resource consumption, optimization of resource
consumption, management of resource consumption systems, development of theoretical frameworks for the
nexus, evaluation of the impacts of resource consumption, and assessment of associated risks.
From this category, it is evident that the majority of studies conducted focus on the sustainability of systems
in light of resource consumption, aiming to yield appropriate solutions aligned with resource planning and
Fig. 18. Compare alternatives based on simulation.
Fig. 17. Compare alternatives based on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM).
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 16
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
optimal management. Additionally, the research ndings underscore the signicance placed on evaluating
system sustainability compared to other rationales for WEFN studies. However, a crucial aspect of conducting
such studies is ensuring they yield decisive insights that can guide policymakers in planning and implementing
eective management strategies.
Furthermore, an analysis of methods employed in conducting WEFN studies revealed that simulation,
survey, content analysis, input-output analysis, Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), statistical analysis,
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and optimization modeling were among the most commonly utilized techniques.
e research also indicated that simulation emerged as the preferred method in comparative assessments based
on specied criteria. Taking into account their respective criteria and their complementary nature, statistical
analysis and simulation were identied as the most crucial methods. e key nding of this research underscores
Fig. 20. Compare alternatives based on statistical analysis.
Fig. 19. Compare alternatives based on optimization modeling.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 17
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
that the optimal methods for conducting WEFN studies may not always receive prioritization in comprehensive
and combined research endeavors, largely due to the inherent capabilities and limitations of these methods. In
multidimensional studies such as WEFN, there is a preference for methods whose outcomes can be integrated
with those of other methodologies. is research proposes the use of a diagram to guide the selection of the
optimal method for conducting WEFN studies (see Fig.24). e diagram prompts consideration of six main
questions that can lead them to optimal method. Two factors inuencing the answers to these questions and
the selection of the optimal research method are whether the research is designed for long-term or short-term
ndings and whether the research method is purely theoretical or applied in nature. Given the nature of WEFN
studies and the demand for their results, methods that facilitate the generation of judgmental statements are
recommended. Ultimately, it is suggested that studies be conducted iteratively to develop a decision support
system for stakeholders within the study’s scope.
Alternatives Content analysis Input-output analysis LCA MCDM Optimization Simulation Statistical analysis Survey
Content analysis - 0.074 0.170 0.202 0.073 0.098 0.202 0.174
Input-output analysis 0.110 - 0.241 0.110 0.197 0.157 0.110 0.090
LCA 0.110 0.160 - 0.110 0.161 0.080 0.110 0.064
MCDM 0.180 0.074 0.083 - 0.089 0.078 0.110 0.131
Optimization 0.093 0.196 0.132 0.110 - 0.155 0.110 0.096
Simulation 0.099 0.262 0.151 0.248 0.240 - 0.110 0.183
Statistical analysis 0.258 0.117 0.092 0.110 0.132 0.253 - 0.263
Survey 0.150 0.117 0.134 0.110 0.108 0.178 0.248 -
Inconsistency index 0.0139 0.0226 0.0374 0.0062 0.0431 0.0254 0.0062 0.0223
Tab le 5. Comparative analysis of Alternatives.
Fig. 21. Compare alternatives based on survey.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 18
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Fig. 23. Synthesized results based on ANP.
Fig. 22. Synthesized results based on AHP.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 19
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Data availability
Data will be made available by rst author on request.
Received: 23 June 2024; Accepted: 6 November 2024
Fig. 24. the diagram for choosing the optimal method of conducting a WEFN study.
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 20
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
References
1. Zhu, M. Water–energy–food nexus based on a new perspective of regional sustainable development. Water Supply. 23, 4466–
4478. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2023.281 (2023).
2. Wang, S. et al. Coordinated analysis and evaluation of water–energy–food coupling: A case study of the yellow river basin in
Shandong province, China. Ecol. Indic. 148, 110138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110138 (2023).
3. Biggs, E. et al. Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy. 54,
389–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002 (2015).
4. Zarei, S., Bozorg-Haddad, O., Kheirinejad, S. & Loáiciga, H. A. Environmental sustainability: A review of the water–energy–food
nexus. AQUA Water Infrastruct. Ecosyst. Soc. 70, 138–154. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2020.058 (2021).
5. Correa-Porcel, V., Piedra-Muñoz, L. & Galdeano-Gómez, E. Water–energy–food nexus in the agri-food sector: research trends
and innovating practices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 18, 12966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412966 (2021).
6. Hamidov, A. et al. Operationalizing water-energy-food nexus research for sustainable development in social-ecological systems:
An interdisciplinary learning case in central Asia. Ecol. Soc. 27, 270112. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12891-270112 (2022).
7. Ioannou, A. E. & Laspidou, C. S. Resilience analysis framework for a water–energy–food nexus system under climate change.
Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 820125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.820125 (2022).
8. Kellner, E. Identifying leverage points for shiing water-energy-food nexus cases towards sustainability through the networks of
action situations approach combined with systems thinking. Sustain. Sci. 18, 135–152. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 1 6 2 5 - 0 2 2 - 0 1 1 7
0 - 7 (2023).
9. Liu, S. et al. Evaluation of water-energy-food-ecology system development in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region from a symbiotic
perspective and analysis of inuencing factors. Sustainability. 15, 5138. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065138 (2023).
10. Lucca, E. et al. A review of water-energy-food-ecosystems nexus research in the Mediterranean: evolution, gaps and applications.
Environ. Res. Lett. 18 (2023).
11. D’Odorico, P. et al. e global food-energywater nexus. Rev. Geo. 56, 456–531. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000591 (2018).
12. Fernández-Ríos, A. et al. Towards a water-energy-food (wef) nexus index: a review of nutrient prole models as a fundamental
pillar of food and nutrition security. Sci. Total Environ. 789, 147936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147936 (2021).
13. GlobalHungerIndex. Global Hunger Index 2023: e power of youth in shaping food systems. (2023). https://globalhungerindex.org
14. USDA. Data products from USDA Economic Research Service (2019). http://www.ers.usda.gov
15. Steen, A. D. e countries most at risk from climate change (2020). h t t p s : / / w w w . i n t e l l i g e n t l i v i n g . c o / m a p s - c o u n t r i e s - s u r v i v e - c l i m
a t e - c h a n g e
16. Mpandeli, S. et al. Climate change adaptation through the water-energy-food nexus in southern Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public.
Health. 15, 2306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102306 (2018).
17. Wakdok, S. S. & Bleischwitz, R. Climate change, security, and the resource nexus: case study of northern Nigeria and lake Chad.
Sustainability. 13, 10734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910734 (2021).
18. Salmoral, G., Schaap, N. C., Walschebauer, J. & Alhajaj, A. Water diplomacy and nexus governance in a transboundary context:
In the search for complementarities. Sci. Total Environ. 690, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.513 (2019).
19. Urbinatti, A. M., Fontana, D., Stirling, M., Giatti, L. L. & A. & Opening up’the governance of water-energy-food nexus: towards a
science-policy-society interface based on hybridity and humility. Sci. Total Environ. 744, 140945. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . s c i t o t
e n v . 2 0 2 0 . 1 4 0 9 4 5 (2020).
20. Zhang, C., Chen, X., Li, Y., Ding, W. & Fu, G. Water-energy-food nexus: concepts, questions and methodologies. J. Clean. Prod.
195, 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.194 (2018).
21. Liu, J. et al. Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy–food nexus. Hydrol. Sci. J. 62, 1714–1720. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0
2 6 2 6 6 6 7 . 2 0 1 7 . 1 3 5 3 6 9 5 (2017).
22. Saaty, T. L. of referencing in eory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benets, opportunities,
costs, and risksRWS publications, (2005).
23. Shari Moghadam, E., Sadeghi, S., Zarghami, M. & Delavar, M. Water-energy-food nexus as a new approach for watershed
resources management: A review. Environ. Resour. Res. 7, 129–135. https://doi.org/10.22069/ijerr.2019.4820 (2019).
24. Endo, A. et al. Dynamics of water–energy–food nexus methodology, methods, and tools. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health. 13,
46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.10.004 (2020).
25. Radmehr, R., Ghorbani, M. & Ziaei, A. N. Quantifying and managing the water-energy-food nexus in dry regions food insecurity:
New methods and evidence. Agric. Water Manage. 245, 106588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106588 (2021).
26. Abulibdeh, A. & Zaidan, E. Managing the water-energy-food nexus on an integrated geographical scale. Environ. Dev. 33, 100498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100498 (2020).
27. Bakhshianlamouki, E., Masia, S., Karimi, P., van der Zaag, P. & Sušnik, J. A system dynamics model to quantify the impacts of
restoration measures on the water-energy-food nexus in the Urmia lake basin, Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 708, 134874. h t t p s : / / d o i . o
r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . s c i t o t e n v . 2 0 1 9 . 1 3 4 8 7 4 (2020).
28. Boluwade, A. Impacts of climatic change and database information design on the water-energy-food nexus in water-scarce
regions. Water Energy Nexus. 4, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2021.03.002 (2021).
29. Chen, C. F., Feng, K. L. & Ma, H. W. Uncover the interdependent environmental impacts associated with the water-energy-food
nexus under resource management strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 160, 10409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104909
(2020).
30. Sharinejad, A., Zahraie, B., Majed, V., Ravar, Z. & Hassani, Y. Economic analysis of water-food-energy nexus in Gavkhuni basin
in Iran. J. Hydro-environ Res. 31, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2020.03.001 (2020).
31. Wang, X. C. et al. Extended water-energy nexus contribution to environmentally-related sustainable development goals. Renew.
Sustainable Energy Rev. 150, 111485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111485 (2021a).
32. Yu, L. et al. A copula-based fuzzy interval-random programming approach for planning water-energy nexus system under
uncertainty. Energy. 196, 117063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117063 (2020).
33. Yue, Q. & Guo, P. Managing agricultural water-energy-food-environment nexus considering water footprint and carbon footprint
under uncertainty. Agric. Water Manage. 252, 106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106899 (2021).
34. Abdel-Aal, M., Haltas, I. & Varga, L. Modeling the diusion and operation of anaerobic digestions in Great Britain under future
scenarios within the scope of water-energy-food nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119897
(2020).
35. Anser, M. K. et al. Management of water, energy, and food resources: Go for green policies. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119662. h t t p s : / / d
o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j c l e p r o . 2 0 1 9 . 1 1 9 6 6 2 (2020).
36. Chai, J., Shi, H., Lu, Q. & Hu, Y. Quantifying and predicting the water-energy-food-economy-society-environment nexus based
on bayesian networks: A case study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120266 (2020).
37. Cheng, Y., Wang, J. & Shu, K. e coupling and coordination assessment of food-water-energy systems in China based on
sustainable development goals. Sustainable Prod. Consum. 35, 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.011 (2023).
38. Correa-Cano, M. et al. A novel modelling toolkit for unpacking the water-energy-food-environment (wefe) nexus of agricultural
development. Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 159, 112182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112182 (2022).
39. Fabiani, S., Vanino, S., Napoli, R. & Nino, P. Water energy food nexus approach for sustainability assessment at farm level: An
experience from an intensive agricultural area in central Italy. Environ. Sci. Policy. 104, 1–12. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . e n v s c i . 2 0 1
9 . 1 0 . 0 0 8 (2020).
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 21
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
40. Lawford, R. et al. Basin perspectives on the water–energy–food security nexus. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 607–616. h t t p s : / /
d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . c o s u s t . 2 0 1 3 . 1 1 . 0 0 5 (2013).
41. Mannan, M., Al-Ansari, T., Mackey, H. R. & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. Quantifying the energy, water and food nexus: A review of the
latest developments based on life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 193, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.050
(2018).
42. Naghavi, S., Mirzaei, A., Sardoei, M. A. & Azarm, H. Evaluating the synergy between water-energy-food nexus and decoupling
pollution-agricultural growth for sustainable production in the agricultural sector. Res. Square. 10, 21203. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 1 2
0 3 / r s . 3 . r s - 2 0 2 4 3 6 8 / v 1 (2022).
43. Ngarava, S. Long term relationship between food, energy and water ination in South Africa. Water-Energy Nexus. 4, 123–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2021.07.002 (2021).
44. Nhamo, L. & Ndlela, B. Nexus planning as a pathway towards sustainable environmental and human health post covid-19.
Environ. Res. 192, 110376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110376 (2021).
45. Niu, S., Lyu, X. & Gu, G. A new framework of green transition of cultivated land-use for the coordination among the water-land-
food-carbon nexus in China. Land. 11, 933. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060933 (2022).
46. Qian, X. Y. & Liang, Q. M. Sustainability evaluation of the provincial water-energy-food nexus in China: Evolutions, obstacles,
and response strategies. Sustainable Cities Soc. 75, 103332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103332 (2021).
47. Saladini, F. et al. Linking the water-energy-food nexus and sustainable development indicators for the Mediterranean region.
Ecol. Indic. 91, 689–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.035 (2018).
48. Wang, Q., Li, S., He, G., Li, R. & Wang, X. Evaluating sustainability of water-energy-food (wef ) nexus using an improved matter-
element extension model: A case study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.213
(2018).
49. Wu, L., Elshorbagy, A., Pande, S. & Zhuo, L. Trade-os and synergies in the water-energy-food nexus: e case of Saskatchewan,
Canada. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105192 (2021).
50. Xu, S. et al. Coupling and coordination degrees of the core water–energy–food nexus in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health.
16, 1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16091648 (2019).
51. Yi, J. et al. Sustainability assessment of the water-energy-food nexus in Jiangsu province, China. Habitat Int. 95, 102094. h t t p s : / / d
o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . h a b i t a t i n t . 2 0 1 9 . 1 0 2 0 9 4 (2020).
52. Zhang, P. et al. Water-energy-foo d system in typical cities of the world and China under zero-waste: commonalities and asynchronous
experiences support sustainable development. Ecol. Indic. 132, 108221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108221 (2021b).
53. Zhang, P. et al. Assessment of the water-energy-food nexus under spatial and social complexities: A case study of Guangdong-
HongKong-Macao. J. Environ. Manage. 299, 113664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113664 (2021c).
54. Akinsete, E. et al. Sustainable wef nexus management: a conceptual framework to integrate models of social, economic, policy,
and institutional developments. Front. Water. 4, 727772. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.727772 (2022).
55. Bazzana, D., Gilioli, G., Simane, B. & Zaitchik, B. Analyzing constraints in the water-energy-food nexus: e case of eucalyptus
plantation in Ethiopia. Ecol. Econ. 180, 106875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106875 (2021).
56. Caputo, S. et al. Applying the food-energy-water nexus approach to urban agriculture: From few to fewp (food-energy-water-
people). Urban Urban Green. 58, 126934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126934 (2021).
57. Daher, B. et al. Towards bridging the water gap in Texas: A water-energy-food nexus approach. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 449–463.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.398 (2019).
58. Huang, D., Li, G., Sun, C. & Liu, Q. Exploring interactions in the local water-energy-food nexus (wef-nexus) using a simultaneous
equations model. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 135034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135034 (2020).
59. Kedir, Y., Berhanu, B. & Alamirew, T. Analysis of water–energy–crop nexus indicators in irrigated sugarcane of Awash basin,
Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 11, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-022-00263-7 (2022).
60. Ledari, M. B., Saboohi, Y. & Azamian, S. Water-food-energy-ecosystem nexus model development: Resource scarcity and regional
development. Energy Nexus. 10, 100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100207 (2023).
61. Li, J. et al. Valuing the synergy in the water-energy-food nexus for cropping systems: A case in the north China plain. Ecol. Indic.
127, 107741 (2021).
62. Sadeghi, S. H., Moghadam, E. S., Delavar, M. & Zarghami, M. Application of water-energy-food nexus approach for designating
optimal agricultural management pattern at a watershed scale. Agric. Water Manage. 233, 106071. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . a g w a
t . 2 0 2 0 . 1 0 6 0 7 1 (2020).
63. Shahbaz, P. et al. Food, energy, and water nexus at household level: Do sustainable household consumption practices promote
cleaner environment? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 19, 12945. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912945 (2022).
64. Tan, A. H. P., Yap, E. H. & Abakr, Y. A. A complex systems analysis of the water-energy nexus in Malaysia. Systems. 8, 8020019.
https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8020019 (2020).
65. Wa’el, A., Memon, H., Savic, D. A. & F. A. & An integrated model to evaluate water-energy-food nexus at a household scale.
Environ. l Model. Sow. 93, 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envso.2017.03.034 (2017).
66. Zhang, X. & Vesselinov, V. V. Integrated modeling approach for optimal management of water, energy and food security nexus.
Adv. Water Resour. 101, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.12.017 (2017).
67. Almulla, Y., Ramirez, C., Joyce, B., Huber-Lee, A. & Fuso-Nerini, F. From participatory process to robust decision-making: an
agriculture-water-energy nexus analysis for the Souss-Massa basin in Morocco. Energy Sustainable Dev. 70, 314–338. h t t p s : / / d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . e s d . 2 0 2 2 . 0 8 . 0 0 9 (2022).
68. Alzaabi, M. S. A. & Mezher, T. Analyzing existing UAE national water, energy and food nexus related strategies. Renew. Sustainable
Energy Rev. 144, 111031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111031 (2021).
69. Daher, B. T. & Mohtar, R. H. of referencing in Water–energy–food (wef) nexus tool 2.0: guiding integrative resource planning and
decision-making (ed. Bhaduri, A., Ringler. C., Dombrowsky, I., Mohtar, R. H & Scheumann, W.) 748–771; 10.4324/9781315408828
(Routledge, 2015).
70. Enayati, M., Bozorg-Haddad, O., Fallah-Mehdipour, E., Zolghadr-Asli, B. & Chu, X. A robust multiple-objective decision-making
paradigm based on the water–energy–food security nexus under changing climate uncertainties. Sci. Rep. 11, 20927. h t t p s : / / d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 5 9 8 - 0 2 1 - 9 9 6 3 7 - 7 (2021).
71. Ghodsvali, M., Dane, G. & de Vries, B. e nexus social-ecological system framework (NexSESF): A conceptual and empirical
examination of transdisciplinary food-water-energ y nexus. Environ. Sci. Policy. 130, 16–24. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . e n v s c i . 2 0 2 2
. 0 1 . 0 1 0 (2022).
72. Ho, H. et al. A nexus approach for the MENA region: From concept to knowledge to action. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 48. h t t p s : / / d
o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 8 9 / f e n v s . 2 0 1 9 . 0 0 0 4 8 (2019).
73. Li, G., Huang, D., Sun, C. & Li, Y. Developing interpretive structural modeling based on factor analysis for the water-energy-food
nexus conundrum. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.188 (2019a).
74. Li, G., Wang, Y. & Li, Y. Synergies within the water-energy-food nexus to support the integrated urban resources governance.
Water. 11, 2365. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112365 (2019b).
75. Mirzaei, A., Ashktorab, N. & Noshad, M. Evaluation of the policy options to adopt a water-energy-food nexus pattern by farmers:
application of optimization and agent-based models. Front. Environ. Sci. 11, 1139565. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1139565
(2023).
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 22
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
76. Momblanch, A. et al. Untangling the water-food-energy-environment nexus for global change adaptation in a complex himalayan
water resource system. Sci. Total Environ. 655, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.045 (2019).
77. Norouzi, N. & Kalantari, G. e food-water-energy nexus governance model: A case study for Iran. Water-Energy Nexus. 3, 72–80
(2020).
78. Purwanto, A., Sušnik, J., Suryadi, F. & de Fraiture, C. Quantitative simulation of the water-energy-food (wef ) security nexus in a
local planning context in Indonesia. Sustainable Prod. Consum. 25, 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.08.009 (2021).
79. Rahmani, M., Jahromi, S. H. M. & Darvishi, H. H. SD-DSS model of sustainable groundwater resources management using the
water-food-energy security Nexus in Alborz Province. Ain Shams Eng. J. 14, 101812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101812
(2023).
80. Rising, J. Decision-making and integrated assessment models of the water-energy-food nexus. Water Secur. 9, 100056. h t t p s : / / d o
i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . w a s e c . 2 0 1 9 . 1 0 0 0 5 6 (2020).
81. Simpson, G. B. et al. e water-energy-food nexus index: A tool to support integrated resource planning, management and
security. Front. Water. 4, 825854. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.825854 (2022).
82. Teitelbaum, Y., Yakirevich, A., Gross, A. & Sorek, S. Simulations of the water food energy nexus for policy driven intervention.
Heliyon. 6, e04767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04767 (2020).
83. Wu, N., Xu, Y., Liu, X., Wang, H. & Herrera-Viedma, E. Water–energy–food nexus evaluation with a social network group
decision making approach based on hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Appl. So Comput. 93, 106363. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j .
a s o c . 2 0 2 0 . 1 0 6 3 6 3 (2020).
84. Ali, M., Anjum, M. N., Shangguan, D. & Hussain, S. Water, energy, and food nexus in Pakistan: parametric and non-parametric
analysis. Sustainability. 14, 13784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113784 (2022).
85. El-Gafy, I. Water–food–energy nexus index: analysis of water–energy–food nexus of crop’s production system applying the
indicators approach. Appl. Water Sci. 7, 2857–2868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-017-0551-3 (2017).
86. G olfam, P., Ashoeh, P. S. & Loáiciga, H. A. Modeling adaptation policies to increase the synergies of the water-climate-agriculture
nexus under climate change. Environ. Dev. 37, 100612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100612 (2021).
87. Haltas, I., Suckling, J., Soutar, I., Druckman, A. & Varga, L. Anaerobic digestion: A prime solution for water, energy and food
nexus challenges. Energy Procedia. 123, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.280 (2017).
88. Ibrahim, M. D., Ferreira, D. C., Daneshvar, S. & Marques, R. C. Transnational resource generativity: Eciency analysis and target
setting of water, energy, land, and food nexus for OECD countries. Sci. Total Environ. 697, 134017. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . s c i t
o t e n v . 2 0 1 9 . 1 3 4 0 1 7 (2019).
89. Khattar, R. et al. Incorporating nitrogen in the water-energy-food nexus: An optimization approach. Clean. Circ. Bioecon. 4,
100036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2023.100036 (2023).
90. Lazaro, L. L. B., Giatti, L. L., Bermann, C., Giarolla, A. & Ometto, J. Policy and governance dynamics in the water-energy-food-
land nexus of biofuels: Proposing a qualitative analysis model. Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 149, 111384. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0
1 6 / j . r s e r . 2 0 2 1 . 1 1 1 3 8 4 (2021a).
91. Lehmann, S. Implementing the urban nexus approach for improved resource-eciency of developing cities in southeast Asia.
City Cult. Soc. 13, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.10.003 (2018).
92. Mahlknecht, J., González-Bravo, R. & Loge, F. J. Water-energy-food security : A nexus perspe ctive of the current situation in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Energy. 194, 116824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116824 (2020).
93. Namany, S., Al-Ansari, T. & Govindan, R. Optimisation of the energy, water, and food nexus for food security scenarios.
Computers Chem. Engin. 129, 106513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.106513 (2019).
94. Nie, Y. et al. A food-energy-water nexus approach for land use optimization. Sci. Total Environ. 659, 7–19. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1
6 / j . s c i t o t e n v . 2 0 1 8 . 1 2 . 2 4 2 (2019).
95. Shen, Q., Niu, J., Liu, Q., Liao, D. & Du, T. A resilience-based approach for water resources management over a typical agricultural
region in northwest China under water-energy-foo d nexus. Ecol. Indic. 144, 109562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109562
(2022).
96. Terrapon-Pfa, J., Ortiz, W., Dienst, C. & Gröne, M. C. Energising the wef nexus to enhance sustainable development at local
level. J. Environ. Manage. 223, 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.037 (2018).
97. Uen, T. S., Chang, F. J., Zhou, Y. & Tsai, W. P. Exploring synergistic benets of water-food-energy nexus through multi-objective
reservoir optimization schemes. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.172 (2018).
98. Zeng, Y. et al. Assessing the eects of water resources allocation on the uncertainty propagation in the water–energy–food–
society (wefs) nexus. Agric. Water Manage. 282, 108279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108279 (2023).
99. Zuo, Q., Wu, Q., Yu, L., Li, Y. & Fan, Y. Optimization of uncertain agricultural management considering the framework of water,
energy and food. Agric. Water Manage. 253, 106907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106907 (2021).
100. Babel, M. S., Rahman, M., Budhathoki, A. & Chapagain, K. Optimization of economic return from water using water-energy-food
nexus approach: A case of Karnafuli basin, Bangladesh. Energy Nexus. 10, 100186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100186
(2023).
101. Bazzana, D., Zaitchik, B. & Gilioli, G. Impact of water and energy infrastructure on local well-being: An agent-based analysis of
the water-energy-food nexus. Struc Change Econ. Dyn. 55, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2020.08.003 (2020).
102. Ghimire, U., Piman, T., Shrestha, M., Aryal, A. & Krittasudthacheewa, C. Assessment of climate change impacts on the water,
food, and energy sectors in sittaung river basin, Myanmar. Wat er. 14, 3434. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213434 (2022).
103. Lyu, H., Tian, F., Zhang, K. & Nan, Y. Water-energy-food nexus in the Yarlung Tsangpo-Brahmaputra river basin: Impact of
mainstream hydropower development. J. Hydrol. : Reg. Stud. 45, 101293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101293 (2023).
104. Mabhaudhi, T. et al. e water–energy–food nexus as a tool to transform rural livelihoods and well-being in southern Africa. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 16, 2970. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162970 (2019).
105. McNabola, A., Mérida García, A. & Rodríguez Díaz, J. A. e role of micro-hydropower energy recovery in the water-energy-
food nexus. Environ. Sci. Proceedings. 21, 27; (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2022021027
106. Nasrollahi, H., Shirazizadeh, R., Shirmohammadi, R., Pourali, O. & Amidpour, M. Unraveling the water-energy-food-
environment nexus for climate change adaptation in Iran: Urmia lake basin case study. Wat er. 13, 1282. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 /
w 1 3 0 9 1 2 8 2 (2021).
107. Niva, V., Cai, J., Taka, M., Kummu, M. & Varis, O. China’s sustainable water-energy-food nexus by 2030: Impacts of urbanization
on sectoral water demand. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119755 (2020).
108. Opoku, E. K. et al. Quantifying and analysing water trade-os in the water-energy-food nexus: e case of Ghana. Water-Energy
Nexus. 5, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2022.06.001 (2022).
109. Ouyang, Y., Cai, Y., Xie, Y., Yue, W. & Guo, H. Multi-scale simulation and dynamic coordination evaluation of water-energy-food
and economy for the Pearl River delta city cluster in China. Ecol. Indic. 130, 108155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108155
(2021).
110. Radini, S. et al. Urban water-energy-food-climate nexus in integrated wastewater and reuse systems: cyber-physical framework
and innovations. Appl. Energy. 298, 117268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117268 (2021).
111. Ravar, Z., Zahraie, B., Sharinejad, A., Gozini, H. & Jafari, S. System dynamics modeling for assessment of water–food–energy
resources security and nexus in Gavkhuni basin in Iran. Ecol. Indic. 108, 105682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105682
(2020).
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 23
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
112. Saray, M. H. et al. Optimization of water-energy-food nexus considering CO2 emissions from cropland: a case study in northwest
Iran. Appl. Energy. 307, 118236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118236 (2022).
113. Shu, Q., Scott, M., Todman, L. & McGrane, S. J. Development of a prototype composite index for resilience and security of water-
energy-food (wef) systems in industrialised nations. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 11, 100124. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . i n d i c . 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 0
1 2 4 (2021).
114. Spiegelberg, M. et al. Unfolding livelihood aspects of the water–energy–food nexus in the dampalit watershed, Philippines. J.
Hydrol. : Reg. Stud. 11, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.10.009 (2017).
115. Vaidya, B., Shrestha, S. & Ghimire, A. Water footprint assessment of food-water-energy systems at Kathmandu university, Nepal.
Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 3, 100044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100044 (2021).
116. Zeng, Y. et al. A system dynamic model to quantify the impacts of water resources allocation on water–energy–food–society
(wefs) nexus. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26, 3965–3988. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3965-2022 (2022).
117. Zhang, F., Cai, Y., Tan, Q., Engel, B. A. & Wang, X. An optimal modeling approach for reducing carbon footprint in agricultural
water-energy-food nexus system. J. Clean. Prod. 316, 128325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128325 (2021a).
118. Haghjoo, R., Choobchian, S., Morid, S. & Abbasi, E. Development and validation of management assessment tools considering
water, food, and energy security nexus at the farm level. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 16, 100206. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . i n d i c . 2 0 2 2 .
1 0 0 2 0 6 (2022).
119. Haghjoo, R., Choobchian, S., Morid, S. & Abbasi, E. Indicators of water, food and energy security nexus approach in agriculture:
application of content analysis. Iran. J. Agri Econ. Dev. Res. 54, 261–291. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijaedr.2022.342410.669145
(2023).
120. Harwood, S. A. In search of a (wef) nexus approach. Environ. Sci. Policy. 83, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.020
(2018).
121. Kaddoura, S. & El Khatib, S. Review of water-energy-food nexus tools to improve the nexus modelling approach for integrated
policy making. Environ. Sci. Policy. 77, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.007 (2017).
122. Karnib, A. Bridging science and policy in water-energ y-food nexus: using the Q-nexus model for informing policy making. Water
Resour. Manage. 32, 4895–4909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2059-5 (2018).
123. Lazaro, L. L. B., Bellezoni, R. A., Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., Jacobi, P. R. & Giatti, L. L. Ten years of research on the water-energy-
food nexus: an analysis of topics evolution. Front. Water. 4, 859891. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.859891 (2022).
124. Li, M. et al. An optimal modelling approach for managing agricultural water-energy-food nexus under uncertainty. Sci. Total
Environ. 651, 1416–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.291 (2019c).
125. Mannschatz, T., Wolf, T. & Hülsmann, S. Nexus tools platform: web-based comparison of modelling tools for analysis of water-
soil-waste nexus. Environ. Model. Sow. 76, 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envso.2015.10.031 (2016).
126. Martinez, P., Blanco, M. & Castro-Campos, B. e water–energy–food nexus: a fuzzy-cognitive mapping approach to support
nexus-compliant policies in Andalusia (Spain). Water. 10, 664. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050664 (2018).
127. Norouzi, N. Presenting a conceptual model of water-energy-food nexus in Iran. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 4, 100119. h t t p s : / / d o
i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . c r s u s t . 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 0 1 1 9 (2022).
128. Purwanto, A., Sušnik, J., Suryadi, F. & de Fraiture, C. Using group model building to develop a causal loop mapping of the water-
energy-food security nexus in Karawang regency, Indonesia. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118170. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j c l e p r o . 2 0 1 9 . 1
1 8 1 7 0 (2019).
129. Wicaksono, A. & Kang, D. Nationwide simulation of water, energy, and food nexus: case study in South Korea and Indonesia. J.
Hydro-environ Res. 22, 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2018.10.003 (2019).
130. Zarei, M. e water-energy-food nexus: a holistic approach for resource security in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Water-Energy Nexus.
3, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2020.05.004 (2020).
131. Song, S. et al. Indicator-based assessments of the coupling coordination degree and correlations of water-energy-food-ecology
nexus in Uzbekistan. J. Environ. Manage. 345, 118674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118674 (2023).
132. Rai, P. K. Lalawmpuii. Role of water-energy-food nexus in environmental management and climate action. Energy Nexus. 11,
100230; (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100230
133. Akbari Variani, H., Afshar, A., Vahabzadeh, M. & Molajou, A. A review on food subsystem simulation models for the water-food-
energy nexus: development perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. 30, 95197–95214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29149-6
(2023).
134. Laspidou, C. S., Mellios, N. K., Spyropoulou, A. E., Konas, D. T. & Papadopoulou, M. P. Systems thinking on the resource nexus:
modeling and visualisation tools to identify critical interlinkages for resilient and sustainable societies and institutions. Sci. Total
Environ. 717, 137264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137264 (2020).
135. Martinez-Hernandez, E., Leach, M. & Yang, A. Understanding water-energy-food and ecosystem interactions using the nexus
simulation tool NexSym. Appl. Energy. 206, 1009–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.022 (2017).
136. Vahabzadeh, M., Afshar, A., Molajou, A., Parnoon, K. & Ashra, S. M. A comprehensive energy simulation model for energy-
water-food nexus system analysis: a case study of the great Karun water resources system. J. Clean. Prod. 418, 137977. h t t p s : / / d o
i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j c l e p r o . 2 0 2 3 . 1 3 7 9 7 7 (2023).
137. Valencia-Marquez, D. et al. Multi-objective and machine learning strategies for addressing the water–energy–waste nexus in the
design of energy systems. Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 60, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103445 (2023).
138. Fox-Kämper, R. et al. e role of urban agriculture in food-energy-water nexus policies: insights from Europe and the US. Landsc.
Urban Plann. 239, 104848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104848 (2023).
139. Mondal, K., Chatterjee, C. & Singh, R. Examining the coupling and coordination of water-energy-food nexus at a sub-national
scale in India: insights from the perspective of sustainable development goals. Sustainable Prod. Consum. 43, 140–154. h t t p s : / / d o
i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . s p c . 2 0 2 3 . 1 0 . 0 2 0 (2023).
140. Mperejekumana, P. et al. Integrating climate change adaptation into water-energy-food-environment nexus for sustainable
development in east African community. J. Clean. Prod. 434, 140026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140026 (2024).
141. Adeola, O. M. et al. Review of publications on the water-energy-food nexus and climate change adaptation using bibliometric
analysis: a case study of Africa. Sustainability. 14, 13672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013672 (2022).
142. Ma, N., Zhang, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, W. & Li, X. Comprehensive review of food-energy-water nexus at the community scale. J.
Clean. Prod. 420, 138311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138311 (2023).
143. Vargas, D. C. M., Hoyos, C. P. Q. & Manrique, O. L. H. e water-energy-food nexus in biodiversity conservation: a systematic
review around sustainability transitions of agricultural systems. Heliyon. 9, e17016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17016
(2023).
144. Jin, X., Jiang, W., Fang, D., Wang, S. & Chen, B. Evaluation and driving force analysis of the water-energy–carbon nexus in
agricultural trade for RCEP countries. Appl. Energy. 353, 122143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122143 (2024).
145. Ramírez-Márquez, C. & Ponce-Ortega, J. M. Process systems engineering tools for the water–energy–food nexus: challenges and
opportunities. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 42, 100980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2023.100980 (2023).
146. Huan, S. & Liu, X. Network modeling and stability improvement of the water-energy-fertilizer-food nexus ows based on global
agricultural trade. Sustainable Prod. Consum. 39, 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.05.034 (2023).
147. Zhou, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Xu, X. & Li, M. A water-land-energy-carbon nexus evaluation of agricultural sustainability under
multiple uncertainties: the application of a multi-attribute group decision method determined by an interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy set. Expert Syst. Appl. 242, 122833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122833 (2024).
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 24
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
148. Wang, Y. et al. Supply-demand risk assessment and multi-scenario simulation of regional water-energy-food nexus: a case study
of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 174, 105799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105799
(2021b).
149. Lazaro, L. L. B., Giatti, L. L. & de Oliveira, J. A. P. Water-energy-food nexus approach at the core of businesses: how businesses in
the bioenergy sector in Brazil are responding to integrated challenges? J. Clean. Prod. 303, 127102. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j c l e p
r o . 2 0 2 1 . 1 2 7 1 0 2 (2021b).
150. Karami, S., Karami, E., Buys, L. & Drogemuller, R. System dynamic simulation: a new method in social impact assessment (sia).
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.009 (2017).
Author contributions
A: E.F.: Gathered and analyzed the primary data and wrote a dra of the manuscript. B: S.C.: Study design and
Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing.C: S.K.: Methodology, Review & Editing. All authors reviewed the
manuscript.
Declarations
Competing interests
e authors declare no competing interests.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.C.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional aliations.
Open Access is article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide
a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modied the licensed material. You do not have
permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. e images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence
and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o
n s . o r g / l i c e n s e s / b y - n c - n d / 4 . 0 / .
© e Author(s) 2024
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:27310 25
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79214-4
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
By constructing a regional water–energy–food interaction model, from the perspectives of supply and demand, this study has revealed both the coupling and synergistic effects of the three major elements of water–energy–food at the regional level and the interaction between internal and external resources in the region, and explored the sustainable development of the region under the association of the three major elements of water–energy–food. In this paper, the energy supply and demand measurement model and the optimal regional total cost measurement model were used to optimize the regional total cost measurement. This paper briefly introduces the concepts, application scope, and limitations of scenario analysis. Because the future development of society is very uncertain, it is a very useful tool for predicting and calculating the future scenario and sustainable development of the region. Agricultural water accounted for 55% of the total water resources, and industrial water accounted for 18%. This paper took the main grain-producing areas as an example and enriched the existing research on the water–energy–food relationship to a certain extent by analyzing the current situation and influencing factors of the synergistic development of water–energy–food systems, offering reference to the subsequent related research.
Article
Full-text available
Agricultural crops are the primary food source because livestock and poultry products also indirectly depend on crops. A significant obstacle to adopting the water, food, and energy (WFE) nexus is the lack of a comprehensive and easy-to-use simulation model for the food subsystem focusing on crops. By reviewing the articles in Scopus and Google Scholar databases, WFE nexus studies can be divided into two categories: simulation-based and conceptual-based studies of WFE nexus. Based on the developmental perspective on food subsystem modeling in the WFE nexus, the conceptual studies were excluded, and the modeling studies were reviewed. Two points of view can be used for WFE nexus modeling: 1. hard-link modeling and 2. soft-link modeling. Comparing these two types of modeling showed that hard-link modeling cannot model the interrelations of the food subsystem, and this shortcoming is of great importance. This study reviewed the crop growth models (CGMs) used in the WFE nexus system from the development perspective. The technical characteristics of the CGMs have been evaluated according to the requirements of the CGMs. Finally, a checklist based on the criteria defined for the nexus system has been provided, which can guide researchers in choosing the appropriate CGMs for the food subsystem with the nexus approach. The analysis revealed that none of the CGMs studied alone were sufficient to develop a simulation model for the food subsystem with the WFE nexus. However, the AquaCrop model met more criteria.
Article
The East African Community (EAC) region is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which pose significant challenges to water, energy, food, and environment systems. To address these challenges and promote sustainable development, it is essential to adopt an integrated approach that considers the complex interactions and trade-offs within the WEFE nexus. This research article focuses on the integration of climate change adaptation into the Water-Energy-Food-Environment (WEFE) nexus for sustainable development in EAC. In this study, the Panel Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) method was used for five proposed subsystems to assess both long and short-term influence of WEFE on economic development in EAC across the 1970 to 2021 period. The long-run results disclose that with an increase of 1% in agricultural production, renewable energy consumption, total emissions and total water withdraw increase economic development by 0.39%, 0.9%, 0.33%, 0.9%, respectively. The equilibrium of short-to long-run adjusted at the yearly rate of 0.18%. However, the challenges have seen in the light of climate change impacts including landslides, soil erosion, floods, and rise of the sea level which leads to environmental degradation and affect WEFE nexus and sustainable development. Therefore, the study argues that a fundamental strategy for overcoming these difficulties is to incorporate climate adaptation into the WEFE nexus. As such, it identifies the key drivers and pressures of climate change on the nexus, and proposes a framework for integrating climate change adaptation into WEFE nexus planning and management.
Article
The interplay of water, energy, and food resources, which are essential for human sustenance, symbolizes a complex challenge involving social, engineering, and environmental aspects. The water–energy–food (WEF) nexus, surpassing traditional process systems engineering (PSE), underscores the interconnectedness of resource decisions. Efficient WEF nexus management demands a comprehensive approach encompassing environmental, social, economic, and technical dimensions. PSE tools are vital in shaping this nexus, facilitating a deeper resource interaction and promoting sustainability. This opinion article introduces a novel classification for WEF-specific PSE, advocating for a holistic approach that acknowledges dynamic resource interdependencies. Innovative strategies addressing WEF challenges are proposed, leveraging advanced computational solutions that enhance the nexus models' realism. This trajectory promises insights into nexus intricacies and reflects a shared commitment to harmonize resource coexistence. As we explore the interrelation between water, energy, and food, a path emerges toward the alignment of human and environmental needs, offering a sustainable world trajectory.
Article
Grappling with the global ecological concern of the Aral Sea disaster, Uzbekistan exemplifies the urgent necessity of unravelling and addressing the complex Water-Energy-Food-Ecology (WEFE) nexus conflicts in arid regions, a critical task yet largely uncharted. Through the strategic process of 'Indicator Articulation - Weight Calibration - Nexus Coordination Quantification - Correlational Analysis', this work has developed a tailored framework that integrates a novel, context-specific indicator system, enabling an illumination of the intricate dynamics within the WEFE nexus in arid regions. During 2000-2018, the WEFE Nexus in Uzbekistan showed low-level coordination, indicating systemic imbalances. The Aral Sea crisis was the central disruptor, resulting in a moderately disordered ecological subsystem. Concurrently, disorder was observed in water resources, signaling inadequate management and potential overutilization. Furthermore, Coordination for energy and food were barely coordinated and under primary coordination respectively, underlining critical challenges in energy efficiency and food security. Over the last two decades, the WEFE Nexus has evolved towards a tighter interlinkage, yet the stability of this coupling coordination has experienced increased fluctuations, indicating that Uzbekistan's policies in the WEFE subsystems have been less stable in the last two decades and are in need of further adjustment and improvement. To address the challenges, we recommend a comprehensive approach that integrates technological, infrastructure, and policy solutions is needed. Specifically, promoting water-saving irrigation technology, renewing and maintaining outdated energy facilities, and raising public awareness of ecological protection are part of the essential measures. Furthermore, alleviating the contradiction between economic growth and ecological conservation remains a major challenge. Collectively, our constructed WEFE Nexus framework, with its extendable and context-specific indicators, holds significant potential for broad application in the analysis of multi-sectoral sustainability, particularly within arid regions globally, and forms a solid foundation for the formulation of effective, targeted policies and sustainable development strategies.