# Water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus: how to frame and how to govern

Caro Eline Mooren, Stefania Munaretto, Isabelle La Jeunesse, Eva Sievers, Dries Leonardus Theodora Hegger, Petrus Paulus Joseph Driessen, Frank Hüesker, Claudia Cirelli, Ingrid Canovas, Kaoutar Mounir, et al.

► To cite this version:

Caro Eline Mooren, Stefania Munaretto, Isabelle La Jeunesse, Eva Sievers, Dries Leonardus Theodora Hegger, et al.. Water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus: how to frame and how to govern. Sustainability Science, 2025, 20, pp.2313-2334. 10.1007/s11625-025-01691-x. hal-05232376

HAL Id: hal-05232376

https://imt-mines-ales.hal.science/hal-05232376v1

Submitted on 9 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
OVERVIEW ARTICLE

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus: how to frame
and how to govern

Caro Eline Mooren<sup>1,2</sup> · Stefania Munaretto<sup>1,2</sup> · Isabelle La Jeunesse<sup>3,4</sup> · Eva Sievers<sup>5</sup> ·

Dries Leonardus Theodora Hegger¹ · Petrus Paulus Joseph Driessen¹ · Frank Hüesker⁶ · Claudia Cirelli³ ·

Ingrid Canovas<sup>3,7</sup> · Kaoutar Mounir<sup>3</sup> · Jonatan Godinez Madrigal<sup>8</sup>

Received: 17 June 2024 / Accepted: 29 April 2025 / Published online: 28 May 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

Abstract

The food, energy, and water domains are strongly interrelated. The body of literature investigating these interlinkages developed into water–energy–food and, more recently, ecosystem (WEFE) nexus thinking. The W+E+F E XUS is concerned with cross-sectoral resource management requiring dedicated W+E+F governance approaches. Among the existing W+E+F E XUS conceptualizations, the one that places the ecosystem at the center emphasizes the importance of ecosystem services for human well-being and as the basis for the functioning of the water, energy, and food domains. Such conceptualization, however, lacks clear definition and explanation of implications for W+E+F E XUS governance as well as practical tools for implementation. Accordingly, based on an in-depth analysis of W+E+F E XUS interlinkages, associated governance challenges, and practical experience, we propose the W+E+F Nexus Governance Approach as an operationalization of the ecosystem-centric W+E+F E XUS conceptual framework. This approach takes policy coherence and stakeholder co-creation at its core, integrated with quantitative modeling of W+E+F E XUS interlinkages, and is organized in four steps: problem identification; formulation of substantive ambitions through stakeholder dialogue; embedding of ambitions and action into a stakeholder agreement; and implementation of actions. The approach is oriented to practical application and can be implemented by any actor (e.g., research institutes, governments, non-governmental organizations) having the ambition to initiate a stakeholders co-creation process toward E XUS governance in a specific context. Furthermore, it can be applied to different scales and
nexus domains depending on the identified nexus problems, while accounting for the vital role of ecosystem services. The approach’s applicability and needs for future research are discussed.

**Graphical abstract**

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Keywords** Water–energy–food–ecosystem nexus · Water–energy–food–ecosystem nexus governance · Governance challenges

**Introduction**

In the past decades, human development has made tremendous progress in various areas. However, large parts of the global population still lack food security and have limited access to energy, sanitation, and safe drinking water (Hoff 2011; UN 2021; UNICEF 2021). Simultaneously, many planetary boundaries are crossed leading to diminishing and degraded ecosystem services, while the demand for natural resources is increasing (Hoff 2011; Kacyira 2012; Rockström et al. 2024; Steffen et al. 2015). The food, energy, and water domains and the ecosystem domain (hereafter the ecosystem) are strongly interrelated. Ecosystem services are used for energy production and provide fertile land and fresh water (Laspidou et al. 2017; Sušnik et al. 2021; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). The provision of energy, agricultural products, and fresh water for both industrial and domestic purposes may harm the ecosystem and its ability to provide these services (Laspidou et al. 2017). This calls for new approaches to manage biophysical systems more efficiently and sustainably (Rockström et al. 2024).

An increasing body of literature investigating the interlinkages between the water, food, and energy domains resulted in the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus research field (Benson et al. 2015; De Grenade et al. 2016). The WEF nexus provides a structure for cross-sectoral

governance and knowledge production based on the principle that all domains have equal importance and progress in one domain should not penalize the others (van den Heuvel et al. 2020). The fundamental principle of the nexus is that these domains are interdependent, with actions in one domain directly influencing the others (Avellán et al. 2017; Benson et al. 2015; Papadopoulou et al. 2020; Urbinatti et al. 2020). By understanding this interconnectedness and acknowledging equal importance of the domains, decision-makers and researchers can identify synergies and manage trade-offs to sustainably meet human demand for natural resources (Bizikova 2019; Hoff 2011).

Early WEF nexus debate revolved around water, energy, and food security (Hoff 2011). More recently, natural resource management and efficiency have been included (Cairns and Krzywoszynska 2016; Papadopoulou et al. 2020; Shannak et al. 2018). As a result, new conceptualizations of the nexus have emerged, and scholars started to include the ecosystem as a new dimension, forming the water–energy–food–ecosystem (WEFE) nexus (De Strasser et al. 2016; Malagó et al. 2021; Roidt and de Strasser 2018). In early WEF nexus conceptualizations, water was considered the connector of all domains (Hoff 2011; Pahl-Wostl 2019). Including the ecosystem in the nexus has raised scholarly debate. While there is no consensus yet on its place with respect to the other domains, scholars deem

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
it important to reflect on the role of ecosystem services in the nexus context (Lucca et al. 2025; Sušnik and Staddon 2021). On this point, while the ecosystem can exist independently from humans (De Grenade et al. 2016), most ecosystems are man-altered, requiring human intervention to guarantee ecosystem service provision. Furthermore, defining the ecosystem and its boundaries in relation to the WEF nexus domains is necessary to operationalize the WEFE nexus, as water, climate, and land may also be viewed as part of the ecosystem. Accordingly, we start by defining the WEFE domains (see Table 1). These definitions are based on the understanding that the boundary between nexus domains is placed where human activities start to exploit ecosystem services. Having defined the WEFE nexus domains, an important next step is to understand what they entail for nexus governance.

Much WEF(E) nexus research has focused on understanding the bio-geophysical interactions between nexus domains. The systematic literature review of Urbinatti et al. (2020) shows that nexus governance research is still underdeveloped, focusing mostly on technical and administrative aspects. However, there is an increased focus on nexus governance (e.g., González-Rosell et al. 2023; Hoolohan et al. 2018; Jones-Crank 2024; Kimengsi et al. 2022; Kurian and Ardakanian 2015; Kurian et al. 2018; Lebel et al. 2020; Pahl-Wostl 2019). These scholars tend to agree that an important aspect of nexus governance is to focus on cross-domain collaboration and coordination between multi-level stakeholders and on coherence of policies (Jones and White 2021; Scott et al. 2011). Policy coherence, in particular, is a core aspect of the WEFE nexus governance (Roidt and Avellán 2019). Current policies often target single domains and parts of specific problems, leading to increased resource management vulnerability (Briassoulis 2004; Rasul and Sharma 2016). Nexus governance literature shows the tendency to overlook governance challenges, including insufficient attention to: political and cognitive factors influencing policy change; cross-sectoral collaboration and coordination conditions needed for policy coherence (institutional-, and actor- related challenges) (Urbinatti et al. 2020; Weitz et al. 2017); scalar fit between bio-geophysical problems and administrative/political institutions that address them

(scale challenge) (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021); managing power asymmetries and related stakeholder negotiations and balancing different perspectives on resource use (goal- and resource-related challenges) (Purwanto et al. 2019; Salmoral et al. 2019; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). Accordingly, we understand WEFE nexus governance as the entirety of societal decision-making processes that tackle goal-, actor-, scale-, institutional-, and resource-related challenges for the management of the WEFE nexus (Mooren et al. 2024) after (Benson et al. 2015; Pahl-Wostl 2019; Stein and Jaspersen 2019; Urbinatti et al. 2020).

Another important aspect for nexus governance is that nexus issues are cross-sectoral resource management issues. Common approaches attempting to foster cross-sectoral integration include integrated water resource management, integrated natural resource management, and integrated solid waste management (Avellán et al. 2017; Benson et al. 2015; La Jeunesse and Quevauviller 2016; Roidt and Avellán 2019). These typically sectoral governance approaches (De Strasser et al. 2016; Roidt and Avellán 2019) have not yet lived up to the expectations, as integration is often limited and lacks tangible results (de Andrade Guerra et al. 2021; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021). This underperformance can be explained by insufficient attention to existing local formal and informal institutional structures (Al-Saidi 2017), and the fact that these approaches typically originate from and are strongly influenced by natural sciences (Fritsch and Benson 2019; McDonnell 2008). This results in integration often occurring from a natural science perspective (e.g., integrated modeling), while the institutions involved in these domains are not necessarily domain/sector specific. These approaches, despite their limitations, are first steps toward a more comprehensive, integrated WEF(E) nexus governance approach (Scott et al. 2018).

Several WEF(E) nexus governance approaches exist in the literature (see e.g., Harwood 2018; De Strasser et al. 2016; Halbe et al. 2015; Hoff et al. 2019; Mohtar and Daher 2016; González-Rosell et al. 2023; Daher and Mohtar 2015; Pereira Ramos et al. 2022). These approaches share elements such as a focus on policy trade-offs and synergies, and broad stakeholder engagement for mapping and assessing nexus issues and discussing integrated solutions. However, they

<table><caption>**Table 1** Proposed definitions of the WEFE nexus domains</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Water domain</td><td>The chain of water management activities for human water use including water extraction, drinking water, (waste) water treatment, water allocation, and water security (in line with Morseletto et al. (2022))</td></tr><tr><td>Energy domain</td><td>The energy production chain from extraction/harvesting of resources to distribution to end users (in line with IPCC (Brucker et al. 2014))</td></tr><tr><td>Food domain</td><td>The food production chain from production to consumption including food loss and waste (in line with IPCC (Mbow et al. 2019))</td></tr><tr><td>Ecosystem domain</td><td>The natural system that can exist without human interference and that provides ecosystem services (ecosystem aspects used for human benefit (Fisher et al. 2009)) to the other domains</td></tr></tbody></table>
lack a clear definition of nexus governance, do not address the governance implications of including the ecosystem in the WEF nexus, and do not propose specific WEFE nexus governance instruments for more effective cross-sectoral collaboration and better policy coherence. This research addresses these knowledge gaps, building on the suggestion of Sušnik and Staddon (2021) to combine stakeholder engagement, social science, and quantitative modeling to increase the effectiveness of nexus governance approaches. Specifically, we believe nexus governance research and practice can benefit from approaches that help better understand the performance and potential of governance systems to shift toward WEFE nexus governance as well as governance mechanisms fostering the design and implementation of more coherent WEFE policies. Furthermore, we posit that WEFE nexus governance can benefit from a more explicit and centrally placed role of ecosystem in the WEFE nexus along with a clear conceptualization accounting for the specific governance challenges that arise from such framing.

Against this backdrop, in this paper, we conceptualize an ecosystem-centric “WEFE Nexus Governance Approach” built around literature and reflection on the central role of the ecosystem in the WEFE nexus and related nexus governance challenges. The approach takes policy coherence and stakeholders co-creation at its core and includes quantitative modeling of bio-geophysical nexus interlinkages, governance and policy assessment methods, stakeholder engagement approaches and governance mechanisms for co-creating coherent WEFE policies.

The “Methodology” illustrates our methodology. An overview of the main WEFE nexus interlinkages is presented in “WEFE interlinkages”. The overview of the governance challenges that arise from these interlinkages is found in “Nexus governance challenges”. “Toward a WEFE Nexus Governance Approach” presents the WEFE Nexus Governance Approach set out to address these challenges. The practical application of the approach is beyond the scope of this overview paper; however, “Discussion and conclusion”

offers some reflections on its initial application in 5 river basins. The WEFE Nexus Governance Approach was designed and is currently being tested within the European-funded NEXOGENESIS project.

## Methodology

The WEFE Nexus Governance Approach is based on an extensive literature review of well-established integrated and collaborative governance approaches and methods combined with experience of the authors. The approach was developed in four steps as illustrated in Fig. 1.

First, a review of the nexus literature yielded an overview of the main WEFE nexus interlinkages (step 1). Our goal was to capture the most important interlinkages, rather than providing a complete overview of all of them. To this purpose, we reviewed scientific and gray literature drawing on the bodies of literature on the WEF(E) nexus interlinkages, interdependencies and modeling collected through Google Scholar and Scopus (Annex 1 for search terms). Additionally, two nexus and nexus modeling experts reviewed and validated our analysis of the WEFE nexus interlinkages. The experts involved in validating the analysis have published 10+ scientific articles between 2019 and 2024 on the WEF nexus bio-geophysical interlinkages and related modeling.

Second, we conducted a narrative literature review of both governance and governance assessment literature, and nexus governance literature to identify key nexus governance challenges related to the identified WEFE nexus interlinkages (step 2). Specifically, we drew on the bodies of literature from WEF(E) nexus governance, policy coherence, environmental policy integration, policy change, Institutional change, policy design, and transboundary resource management (see Annex 2 for details). Narrative or semi-systematic literature reviews can be used to create an overview of a certain topic and require the research team to apply their own selection standards (Snyder 2019).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Outline of the research methodology</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
Accordingly, we formulated 33 search terms (see Annex 1) to collect relevant literature via Google Scholar and Scopus in a database. Per search term, we selected the ten most cited papers with no time limitation, and the ten most recently published articles until 2022, resulting in a manageable yet relevant sample of 200 articles. The authors made a further selection of the articles relevant for this study based on their abstract, resulting in a final set of 68 publications. These publications were investigated in detail using guiding questions (see Annex 1) to extract relevant information, which was manually collected into an Excel database. Adopting a snowballing approach while reading the articles, we complemented this initial set of papers with 26 additional ones. The review led to the identification of five types of governance challenges and an inventory of commonly used governance assessment methods and tools.

The WEFE Nexus Governance Approach was developed over three months of bi-weekly meetings and six dedicated workshops between January and March 2022. The bi-weekly meetings served as regular progress updates, where insights from the literature review database were shared, discussed, and an initial joint reflection upon the usefulness for the WEFE nexus governance approach. The workshops were dedicated sessions to critically evaluate the applicability and relevance of the various approaches and related components, based on literature insights and the authors’ practical experiences. The research team was an interdisciplinary team of nine researchers (all co-authoring this paper) with expertise

in water governance, political science, environmental governance, governance assessment, and experience in nexus research. Specifically, research team members reflected individually and collectively on the capacity of the identified WEF nexus governance approaches, and governance and policy assessment methods and tools (detailed in Annex 2) to address the identified nexus governance challenges (illustrated in “Nexus governance challenges”). Hence, the relevance to the WEFE nexus governance challenges was the determining factor for including or discarding elements of existing approaches. This analysis led to identify the four key building blocks of our approach. Finally, we briefly reflect on the initial application of the approach (step 4) in “Discussion and conclusion”.

## WEFE interlinkages

The WEFE nexus consists of complex interlinkages that must be untangled to better understand synergies and trade-offs (Hoff et al. 2019; Salmoral et al. 2020). Past studies (e.g., Purwanto et al. 2019, 2021; Sušnik et al. 2021) have provided a clear overview of interlinkages between the WEF nexus domains. Including the ecosystem in the nexus is, however, relatively new (Sušnik and Staddon 2021; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). Previous studies including the ecosystem in the nexus have not reflected on its role and place (e.g., Cristiano et al. 2021; De Roo et al. 2021). We argue, in line with De Strasser et al. (2016) and González-Rosell

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Ecosystem-centric conceptualization of the water-energy-food-ecosystem (WEFE) nexus based on: Van den Heuvel et al. (2020), Laspidou et al. (2017), Laspidou et al. (2020), Purwanto et al. (2019), Purwanto et al. (2021), and Sušnik et al. (2021) in line with De Strasser et al. (2016), González-Rosell et al. (2023), and Pahl-Wostl (2019)</figcaption></figure>
et al. (2023), that the ecosystem should be at the center of the nexus (Fig. 2). In this section, we illustrate the main WEFE nexus interlinkages and conclude with a reflection on the importance of placing the ecosystem at the center of the WEFE nexus.

## Ecosystem-energy interlinkages

The energy domain and ecosystem are strongly intertwined. The ecosystem provides services for the energy domain, such as land and water for crops for biofuel production, solar and wind power, and hydropower plants (Laspidou et al. 2017; Sušnik et al. 2021; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). Energy domain activities negatively impact the ecosystem through emission of hazardous substances as a side effect of mining, fracking and drilling of fossil fuels, energy infrastructure, and deforestation as a result of using firewood as energy source (Felix and Gheewala 2011; Laspidou et al. 2017; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). Especially, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels largely contribute to climate change, which is at increased risk of surpassing its planetary boundary (Scott et al. 2015; Steffen et al. 2015). The energy domain can also cause biodiversity loss due to land conversion (e.g., land use for infrastructure or flooding of land for water reservoirs) and deforestation (Hoff 2011). Moreover, construction of hydropower plants hinders fish migration and alters the hydromorphological system of rivers (Laspidou et al. 2017; van den Heuvel et al. 2020).

The ecosystem itself is not dependent on the energy domain, but is influenced by it. However, ecosystem protection regulations may directly affect activities in the energy domain. This interaction requires attention for coherence between ecosystem and energy policies (see institutional challenges). Although the ecosystem can exist independently of the energy domain, synergies can be created, such as green roofs that increase the energy efficiency of buildings, while simultaneously improving biodiversity (Benvenuti 2014).

## Ecosystem-food interlinkages

The relation between the food domain and the ecosystem is not based on equal dependency. The food domain depends on ecosystem services such as nutrient-rich soil and availability of arable land. Concurrently, food production can damage the ecosystem through land conversion (Winkler et al. 2021), resulting in deforestation and habitat loss, and soil compaction and erosion. In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus overload in freshwater bodies lead to algae blooms and eutrophication. The food domain is responsible for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions (Hua et al. 2020;

Laspidou et al. 2017; Purwanto et al. 2021; Sušnik et al. 2021; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). At present, emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus exceed planetary boundaries and, based on global population growth projections, are likely to increase by 250–270% by 2050 (Hua et al. 2020; Steffen et al. 2015). Simultaneously, land use change and the conversion of any type of land to cropland are at increased risk of exceeding their planetary boundary (Hua et al. 2020; Steffen et al. 2015; Zisopoulou et al. 2018). Moreover, overfishing and freshwater fish farms affect biodiversity and interactions between trophic levels (Laspidou et al. 2017; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). Finally, the planetary boundaries for biochemical flow and changes in the biosphere are also at critical risk (Kurian et al. 2019).

In contrast, the ecosystem itself does not rely on the food domain for its existence. Nevertheless, degrading ecosystem services impact the food domain by reducing the availability of fertile land with sufficient nutrient cycling. In general, synergies between the ecosystem and food domain exist through agricultural stewardship practices (Kay et al. 2009) and agroecology, a form of agriculture based on ecosystem services instead of external inputs, which fosters biodiversity and landscape diversity, and reduces adverse effects on the ecosystem (Runhaar 2021).

While the nexus assumes equality between all nexus domains, in practice, actors do not have the same influencing capacity, especially when one domain is economically dominant in a region (Purwanto et al. 2019). This is often the case with the food and ecosystem domains where food advocates have more lobby power on decisions about the use and preservation of ecosystem services (see actor-related challenges).

## Ecosystem-water interlinkages

The water domain and ecosystem are closely interlinked. The water domain is dependent on ecosystem services, for example groundwater and surface water serve as natural pollutant removers (Laspidou et al. 2017). Moreover, wetlands serve both as pollutant remover and water buffers. When groundwater or surface water sources are over-extracted, the water domain can negatively affect the ecosystem. Discharge or insufficient treatment of wastewater affects natural biochemical ecosystem cycles, especially in water bodies with little flow (Laspidou et al. 2017; Scott et al. 2015; van den Heuvel et al. 2020). Interventions to protect the ecosystem should match the bio-geophysical levels at which the water and ecosystem operate (see scale-related challenges) (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021). There are synergies between the water sector and the ecosystem. New sanitation developments such as water-conservation behavior and water-saving showers or

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
recirculation showers reduce water consumption, lowering the pressure on the ecosystem services used by the water sector (Bouziotas et al. 2019; Koop et al. 2019). However, realizing these synergies requires specialist knowledge and is often costly (e.g., requiring changes in the built environment and infrastructure, see resource-related challenges).

## Water-energy-food interlinkages

The “conventional” WEF interlinkages are typically characterized by mutual dependency. The energy domain needs a significant amount of water for the production of biofuels, cooling of power plants, mining, and hydropower generation (Bakhshianlamouki et al. 2020; Laspidou et al. 2017, 2020; Purwanto et al. 2019; Scott et al. 2015, 2018; Sušnik et al. 2021). The water used by the energy domain accounts for around 15% of the freshwater availability globally (Simpson and Jewitt 2019). The water domain on the other hand requires energy for potabilization and wastewater treatment (Laspidou et al. 2017, 2020; Purwanto et al. 2019). The water domain uses around 8% of the energy generated worldwide (Simpson and Jewitt 2019).

The food domain is dependent on the energy domain for operations in all stages of the food chain, from producing and applying fertilizers and pesticides to irrigating fields and processing food and waste (Laspidou et al. 2017; Purwanto et al. 2019; Sušnik et al. 2021). The food domain uses around 30% of global energy production (Simpson and Jewitt 2019). Simultaneously, the food domain can be a source of energy when food residues or crops are used for biofuel production. The latter accounts for approximately 1% of the crops produced globally (Simpson and Jewitt 2019; Sušnik et al. 2021). Furthermore, the energy and food domains compete for land, primarily when biofuels represent an alternative to fossil fuels or achieve more energy independence (Laspidou et al. 2017). This competition increases the chance of conflicts (Zisopoulou et al. 2018). This implies trade-offs and negotiation between stakeholders of different domains to reach mutually beneficial arrangements (see goal-related challenges).

The interlinkages between the water and food domain differ slightly. The food domain relies on the water domain for crop irrigation, drinking water for farm animals and aquaculture activities, and uses around 71% of the available water (Bakhshianlamouki et al. 2020; Purwanto et al. 2019; Simpson and Jewitt 2019; Sušnik et al. 2021). Water quality and availability are therefore crucial to the food domain, but are also put at risk by agricultural practices. Examples

include deteriorating water quality from excessive nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide use, and reduced water availability due to increased irrigation and over-extraction (Bakhshianlamouki et al. 2020; Koop and van Leeuwen 2017; La Jeunesse and Elliott 2004; Laspidou et al. 2017; Lefrancq et al. 2017). At present, such agricultural practices have put the planetary boundary for freshwater use at critical risk (Kurian et al. 2019).

## Moving away from an anthropocentric view of the WEF nexus: placing the ecosystem at the center of the WEFE nexus

The WEFE interlinkages take on various forms. Some are based on competition (e.g., food-energy), others on mutual dependency (e.g., water-energy), and still others on unequal dependency (e.g., energy-ecosystem, food-ecosystem). All interlinkages are increasingly affected by climate change and population growth (e.g., water conflicts becomes more frequent due to increasing periods of droughts, while the total water demand increases due to population growth (La Jeunesse and Quevauviller 2016)). Different authors refer to the ecosystem as environment, earth system, or natural system (Lucca et al. 2025). We choose to keep the term ecosystem because it evokes a key aspect of ecosystems in relation to the other domains, namely the services provided to society. We argue that vital services provided by ecosystems represent the primary way through which the ecosystem interacts other with nexus domains. Ecosystems supply essential services that enable the functioning of the WEF domains, are affected by human-driven actions within those domains, yet can exist independently from humans. However, if humans want to continue exploit ecosystem services, proper management is essential to ensure that their capacity to support overall human well-being is not exceeded (De Grenade et al. 2016; Rockström et al. 2009; Scott et al. 2018; Steffen et al. 2015).

By placing the ecosystem at the center, we challenge the traditional anthropocentric perspective of the nexus that views ecosystems as supplying unlimited services to the WEF domains. This ecosystem-centric view highlights the interlinkages between the ecosystem and the WEF domains, making the finite capacity of ecosystems to support human activities explicit. In addition, this view of the WEFE nexus legitimizes the explicit integration of bio-geophysical indicators into policy frameworks, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of natural resource management policy and ultimately promoting more sustainable decision-making.
# Nexus governance challenges

The interlinkages between WEFE nexus domains raise five types of governance challenges: scale-related, institution-related, resource-related, goal-related, and actor-related challenges.

## Scale-related challenges

The WEFE nexus is a multi-scale resource system (Scott et al. 2011). Adopting an ecosystem-centric approach shifts the focus of policies and decision-making to the bio-geophysical characteristics of resource management issues, rather than prioritizing the interests of the water, energy, or food sectors. This calls for a scalar fit between the bio-geophysical scale of the resource systems and the political and administrative scales of the governance system that manages them. For this purpose, the governance system needs to be supra-sectoral, including horizontal (cross-sectoral) and vertical (across different levels of governance) coordination (Märker et al. 2018; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2018, 2021). To realize this, structural levels of the governance system that deal with the WEFE domains need to match the different bio-geophysical scales at which these domains operate (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021). Therefore, interlinkages between the domains should be addressed at the scale at which they occur. For instance, water quality measures for a river (bio-geophysical scale of the resource system) are more effective if implemented both upstream and downstream (Suttles et al. 2021). However, administrative boundaries and governance structures are often designed around (economic) sectors, leading to inefficiencies in resource management, and tensions that must be addressed.

## Institution-related challenges

Complex cross-sectoral management issues such as WEFE nexus issues can be effectively addressed via a governance architecture where different formal decision-making centers acknowledge and manage potential conflicts and strive for collaboration, known as polycentric governance (Ostrom 2010). Such architecture can help understand the relations and conditions underlying the types of interactions between different decision-making centers in the WEFE nexus (Srigiri and Dombrowsky 2022). However, in practice polycentric governance is prone to several institutional challenges that are particularly related to the above-mentioned scalar issues.

Institutions can be defined as formal and informal repetitive, structured, and multi-level rules of the game that influence social, economic and political interactions (North 1991; Ostrom 2008). Institutions are context dependent. They are influenced by (and influence) norms and rules of institutions with whom they interact. Their ability to effectively address resource management issues often depends on their ability to collaborate with other institutions (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021). For example, sectoral policies like farmer subsidies in the agriculture domain make it difficult for institutions in the ecosystem domain to exert influence on farmers in reducing surface water pollution, especially when pollution reduction measures are not jointly agreed upon by both domains. Such interaction between institutions is called institutional interplay (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021; Stein et al. 2014; Young 2002). The nexus governance challenge lies in understanding the institutional interplay across nexus domains and governance scales. This interplay is often the result of power negotiations among actors that operate within a given set of governance strategies and instruments (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021).

Most actors are part of larger organizations and align their agendas with their organizational goals, which can give rise to institutional challenges. A polycentric governance architecture implies various venues where WEFE actors can influence the resource management process and negotiate intended outcomes, leading to a scalar strategies challenge (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021). Actors might have motivations that cause them to strategically intervene at a particular scale to create benefits, while disadvantages can occur at a different scale.

The two challenges are embedded in informal rules, yet the formal rules also pose institutional challenges. Olawuyi (2020) identified several institutional challenges. First, the mismatch between sectoral regulatory models. Rules and regulations in respective nexus domains are applied differently due to the nature of the domains (e.g., the often privatized energy domain vs public water domain (Scott et al. 2018)). Moreover, the energy domain is typically characterized by long-term contracts compared to the other domains, complicating the design of overarching nexus policies that match all domains. This can be further complicated by institutional contexts characterized by high levels of bureaucracy (Mooren et al. 2024). Second, policies and legislations in one nexus domain do not necessarily refer to other nexus domains, creating legislative gaps and dispersed responsibilities. Third, institutions have limited institutional capacity to understand and act upon nexus interlinkages (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2023). Finally, successful polycentric governance not only requires institutional capacity, but also coordination (Carlisle and Gruby 2019), and managing of power imbalances (Carlisle and Gruby 2019).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
Lastly, adding the ecosystem to the nexus raises question of
what governmental institution represents it. Often, the ecosystem,
is not represented by a specific governmental institution.
In the Netherlands, for instance, there is no dedicated ministry
for the environment. Environment currently falls under the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food security and Nature,
and Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, and the
Ministry of Climate Policy and Green Growth. The environmental
personhood debate, assigning legal rights to nature to
protect it, ties into this representation question (Gordon 2018;
Łaszewska-Hellriegel 2023). Legal tools could be used to protect
the ecosystem, however, there are few cases demonstrating
their effectiveness (Łaszewska-Hellriegel 2023).

Resources-related challenges

Resources, including knowledge, financial, and human capi-
tal, are linked to institutional capacity. Fostering synergies
between nexus domains requires awareness and understand-
ing of the resources stakeholders have at their disposal to
address nexus issues, and a lack thereof poses a govern-
ance challenge (Koop et al. 2017; Salmoral et al. 2020; Scott
et al. 2018). For instance, fostering synergies between water,
ecosystem, and food domains through gray and black water
recycling in urban households requires large investments, as
the existing infrastructure is not designed for it, a challenge
common to many sustainability issues and potential solu-
tions (Abdalla et al. 2021). Moreover, resources are often
allocated to sectoral organizations with competing interests,
which are typically limited, or not designed for fostering
cross-sectoral interactions (Olawuyi 2020). Instead, there
should be a clear political ambition about which issues to
prioritize (Koop et al. 2017). If one is in place, enough finan-
cial resources must be allocated to implement appropriate
policies. Financial continuation should be assured to make
policies less influenced by political cycles (Koop et al. 2017;
Sievers et al. 2024). Furthermore, to ensure long-term com-
mitment, stakeholder participation should be enabled (Sal-
moral et al. 2020). Besides knowledge, commitment, and
budget, implementation of nexus policies requires human
capacity both in terms of staff and nexus expertise at all
scales (from national to local); this is often a problem at all
scales, but in particular at the local one.

Goal-related challenges

WEFE nexus interlinkages reveal cross-domain interde-
pendencies. This means that managing resources from one
domain perspective leads to unintended consequences to
one or more of the other domains. In particular, a lack of
coordination between domains and their policies often leads
to problem shifting. For instance, based on an assessment
of 125 cities, Koop et al. (2022) observed that improved

access to safe sanitation and sewer networks led to large-
scale water pollution, because the wastewater is efficiently
collected but not treated. Such a silo approach to resource
management often leads to conflicting policy goals across
WEFE domains, which can result in natural resource mis-
management and shifting or exacerbating of problems (La
Jeunesse 2019). Simultaneously, nexus interdependences
create opportunities for cross-sectoral synergies. A key
challenge for nexus governance is integrating policy goals
across domains both at policy level and in practice to ensure
policy coherence (de Andrade Guerra et al. 2021; Scott et al.
2018). Adopting an ecosystem-centric approach prevents
governance mistakes, as the ecosystem sets the boundaries
for human activities. However, there is a tendency to over-
look these boundaries in policymaking. For instance, the
Dutch nitrogen crisis illustrates how economic and political
interests of certain sectors led policy makers to overlook the
bio-geophysical limits of these nutrients. As a result, policies
that failed to adequately address the issue and Dutch rivers
did not meet water quality standards (Hoppe et al. 2016). A
nexus perspective that accounts for interlinkages between
domains is needed in decision-making for designing and
implementing resource management strategies.

Actor-related challenges

Addressing goal-related challenges implies that not all
actors’ goals across domains can be met, making trade-
offs inevitable (Purwanto et al. 2019; van den Heuvel et al.
2020). It also means recognizing opportunities for syner-
gies and exploiting them. Managing trade-offs and syn-
ergies requires negotiations and collaborations between
actors across domains, grounded on mutual understanding
of nexus problems and opportunities, and on willingness to
collaborate and to compromise (Salmoral et al. 2020). This
leads to three types of actor challenges in nexus govern-
ance: managing power imbalances among actors and net-
works, managing different perspectives on problems and
solutions, an absence of trust and lack of communication.

Concerning power, there is a tension between the nexus
principle of equal importance of nexus domains and power
imbalances in practice (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021; Purwanto
et al. 2019; Salmoral et al. 2019). Adding the ecosystem
domain to the nexus further complicates power dynamics,
as it does not function as distinct economic sector, mak-
ing it unclear which type of actor should represent it. In
practice, it is often represented by NGOs and environmen-
tal agencies who have arguably less economic power than
actors represented by economic sectors. Consequently,
powerful actors and their interests need to be identified to
be managed, and less powerful actors should be identified
to make sure their voice is heard (La Jeunesse et al. 2015).
Power imbalances do not only exist between the actors of
nexus domains, but also between different scales. Local actors often have limited influence in countering decisions from the national level due to limited capacity and authority (Martín-López et al. 2019; Scott et al. 2011).

Concerning perspectives, nexus issues are highly context dependent, requiring awareness of local views on resources availability, use, and value to local communities (Purwanto et al. 2019). Often conflicts about resource management are rooted in political, cultural, and religious ideas and tend to depend on human values and perspectives (Link et al. 2016). For example, ecosystem services have traditionally strongly influenced the forming of social interactions (Kuslits et al. 2021). The multi-scale nature of the nexus further complicates this, as a difference in the chosen boundary between actors of the problem can result in conflicts over suitability of solutions (Hoolohan et al. 2018). Therefore, actor-related governance challenges of the nexus entail understanding, respecting, and connecting various views, and acknowledging power differences between different stakeholders across domains.

Cross-sectoral collaboration is frequently further complicated by a lack of trust and communication. In their WEFE nexus governance assessment, Mooren et al. (2024) showed that a history of distrust between sectors reduces willingness to collaborate and compromise, resulting in a vicious cycle, hampering collaboration and trustworthy relationships.

## Toward a WEFE nexus governance approach

The WEFE Nexus Governance Approach consists of four building blocks: (1) problem identification; (2) stakeholder dialogue; (3) governance mechanisms; and (4) implementation. See Fig. 3. While the building blocks may seem applicable to general governance approaches, the specific tools proposed in each of them are tailored to foster transformation from sector-driven governance to WEFE nexus governance (see Hüesker et al. 2022 for more details).

Our approach is rooted in stakeholder co-creation, with the entire process characterized by consistent exchanges among stakeholders as the foundation for knowledge generation (Kliskey et al. 2023). Aligned with the quadruple helix framework, we consider stakeholders to encompass representatives from government, academia, civil society, and industry, ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive process (Grundel and Dahlström 2016; Nguyen and Marques 2022). Including the ecosystem in the nexus ensures that stakeholders who might otherwise be excluded are involved and given a voice in decision-making processes, as demonstrated by Stein et al. (2014). The type of stakeholder engagement evolves across the building blocks of the WEFE Nexus Governance Approach. It begins with stakeholder consultation and involvement to ensure different perspectives are included. As the process progresses, it transitions to collaborative and empowering engagement, enabling stakeholders to actively participate in solution development and shared decision-making power (Kliskey

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3 Visual representation of the WEFE Nexus Governance Approach (adapted from S. Khan in Mooren et al. (forthcoming)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Definition of governance quality criteria in NXGAT source La Jeunesse et al. (forthcoming) inspired by Bressers et al. (2016), Pahl-Wostl et al. (2021), and Vatn and Vedeld (2012)</caption><thead><tr><td>Governance quality criteria</td><td>Definition of governance quality criteria</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Comprehensiveness</td><td>The degree to which the current governance system includes relevant WEFE nexus elements</td></tr><tr><td>Coherence</td><td>The degree to which the elements of the governance system are strengthening rather weakening each other</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>The capacity of the current governance system to provide different pathways toward the WEFE nexus governance</td></tr><tr><td>Intensity</td><td>The capacity of the current governance system to urge more WEFE nexus-oriented actions</td></tr><tr><td>Fit</td><td>The degree to which the current governance system matches ecosystems' properties and dynamics</td></tr></tbody></table>

et al. 2023). This dynamic and inclusive approach not only integrates diverse perspectives, but also fosters a shared understanding, which is essential for addressing complex resource management challenges within the WEFE nexus.

## Problem identification: mapping bio-geophysical interlinkages and assessing existing governance and policy systems

The problem identification consists of two parts: mapping the bio-geophysical interlinkages and assessing the related societal challenges along with the existing policies and governance arrangements to address them.

### Mapping bio-geophysical interlinkages

At the beginning of a stakeholder co-creation process for WEFE nexus governance, stakeholder engagement is combined with quantitative modeling as a strategy to identify the nexus problem to address. Tools to map bio-geophysical WEFE nexus interlinkages that we use in our approach include causal loop diagrams (CLDs), conceptual maps (CMs), and system dynamic modeling (SDM) (Halbe et al. 2015; Pereira Ramos et al. 2022). CLDs and CMs visually map and qualitatively model nexus interlinkages and are developed based on scientific and local stakeholder knowledge. CLD and CM are used as basis for developing SDM to quantitatively assess the trade-offs between domains of different actions on the WEFE nexus (Purwanto et al. 2019, 2021; Sušnik et al. 2021). Local stakeholders’ knowledge is crucial for mapping and quantifying nexus interlinkages since they are highly context dependent. Starting very broadly with mapping the WEFE nexus interlinkages allows to identify nexus problems, which in turn influence the definition of nexus governance boundaries. This analysis helps to address the goal- and scale-related nexus governance challenges.

### Governance assessment and policy coherence

Existing governance practices developed around the identified interlinkages and the degree of policy coherence are analyzed to identify barriers and drivers toward WEFE nexus governance. Similarly to De Strasser et al. (2016), we propose to conduct a governance assessment, albeit one tailored to the WEFE nexus and its governance challenges. To this purpose, a novel tool, the Nexus Governance Assessment Tool (NXGAT), was developed and can be used (publication forthcoming La Jeunesse et al.; for its implementation in practice see Mooren et al. (2024) and Sievers et al. (2025)). NXGAT builds upon the Governance Assessment Tool developed by Bressers et al. (2016) and is tailored to the WEFE nexus governance challenges identified in “Nexus governance challenges”. NXGAT is a qualitative assessment tool that analyzes the five governance dimensions identified by Bressers et al. (2016), namely levels and scales, actors and networks, problems perspectives and goal ambitions, strategies and instruments, and resources and responsibilities. These governance dimensions are assessed against five governance quality criteria (see Table 2). Extent, coherence, flexibility, and intensity are quality criteria for successful implementation in complex situations (Bressers et al. 2016). We added fit to account for the scale-related challenges and renamed extent to comprehensiveness for clarity. Coherence is specifically relevant for the nexus, as it takes into account the goal- and institutional-related challenges (de Andrade Guerra et al. 2021). NXGAT provides an understanding of how nexus governance challenges arising from WEFE nexus bio-geophysical interlinkages play out in practice; how the governance system performs in relation to these specific challenges; and what barriers, opportunities, and entry points for change toward WEFE nexus governance exist.

Policy coherence is a policy characteristic pursued by fostering synergies and reducing inconsistencies between (external) and within (internal) policy domains to develop jointly agreed-upon policy goals (Nilsson et al. 2012; Papadopoulou et al. 2020). Given that policy coherence is a key aspect of nexus governance (Giest and Mukherjee 2022; Roidt and Avellán 2019), NXGAT is complemented with
an analysis of the coherence among policy documents and in practice. The policy coherence approach investigates the presence and stringency of provisions within WEFE policy documents that aim to minimize trade-offs or exploit synergies across nexus domains, thereby addressing challenges associated with achieving multiple sectoral goals. The document analysis is complemented by stakeholders’ knowledge and experiences. Via focus groups, stakeholders provide insights into the coherence of policy implementation in practice. Combining this practical perspective with an analysis of coherence among policy documents allows for assessing alignment between policy design and its implementation in practice.

The policy coherence and nexus governance assessment establishes a foundation for developing a common vision, identifying shared goals and formulating desired policies, as well as ways to integrate them into the current context-specific governance system to make it more nexus oriented. In addition, by analyzing power distribution, these assessments guide the design of the stakeholder dialogue.

## Stakeholder dialogue on WEFE goals and policies

Participatory approaches proved effective in many situations with complex resource interdependencies by building consensus, human and social capital, and legitimacy of decisions (Carr 2015; Driessen et al. 2001). In our WEFE Nexus Governance Approach, the stakeholder dialogue entails a process whereby stakeholders negotiate cross-sectoral solutions to address jointly identified WEFE nexus problems (De Strasser et al. 2016).

In our approach, differently from De Strasser et al. (2016), the stakeholder dialogue is facilitated through a policy impact assessment tool including an artificial intelligence-powered decision support system (DSS) (Echeverria et al. 2022; Echeverria et al. 2024; Hüesker et al. 2022). The policy impact assessment tool allows the stakeholders to (virtually) apply a combination of policies and directly see the impact of these policies on the WEFE nexus domains, allowing them to explore and create understanding of the impact of sectoral policies on the nexus. The DSS can also recommend an optimal set of policies to achieve set goals, thus showing synergies among WEFE nexus domains that can be used to guide the stakeholder dialogue toward the feasibility of specific solutions.

Important aspects of the stakeholder dialogue phase are building trust and fostering shared understanding and learning; identifying and prioritizing WEFE nexus problems and related trade-offs and synergies; developing a collective vision, goals, and a strategy around WEFE nexus problems; negotiating integrated solutions including compensation measures for penalized stakeholders; defining an action plan for implementation of the agreed solutions; and securing

stakeholders’ commitment to the plan implementation (Taylor et al. 2013). These aspects help address the actor-, scale-, resource- and goal-related challenges.

Finally, for successful stakeholder dialogue, it is important to establish clear and agreed-upon decision-making rules for the stakeholder dialogue process. Moreover, it is crucial to understand stakeholders’ losses associated with different solutions, as a basis to identify compensation measures (Wehn et al. 2018). This requires well-considered facilitation for which many tools and methods exist such as presented in van den Ende et al. (2021) (Taylor et al. 2013). Despite clear rules, agreement on compensation measures, and good facilitation, stakeholder dialogue cannot be expected to fully overcome conflicting interests, and it can remain difficult to reach consensus. However, a well-structured and facilitated dialogue prepares stakeholders to better navigate these conflicts (Driessen et al. 2001). Furthermore, when there is consolidated practice of stakeholder engagement, it paves the way for gradually building consensus over time. Therefore, it is key to set up continuous dialogue structures (Sievers et al. 2024).

## Governance mechanisms: realizing WEFE goals and policies

Successful stakeholder dialogues, in which solutions are collaboratively agreed upon, should be formalized through clear commitments and well-defined implementation pathways to ensure stakeholder collaboration. Therefore, we propose governance roadmaps and stakeholder agreements.

In the literature, roadmap approaches are increasingly used as a way to plan and implement policies and achieving sustainability goals and transitions (McDowall 2012; Miedzinski et al. 2022). Specifically, policy or governance roadmaps should have a shared vision or goal to work toward, an action plan, including timelines and actions and collaborative efforts (Iida and Sakata 2019; Miedzinski et al. 2022). Since nexus thinking is often not translated into practice (Al-Saidi and Elagib 2017), governance roadmaps can promote its implementation by developing actionable frameworks.

There are different stakeholder agreements for natural resource management, including river contracts and agreements for nature management (e.g., Bocchi et al. 2012; La Jeunesse et al. 2003; Galassi et al. 2020; Taylor et al. 2013; Cialdea and Cacucci 2017; Polajnar Horvat and Smrekar 2021; Rosillon et al. 2005; Schulte 2012). These are typically formalized acts (though not into law) stemming from collaborative bottom-up, private and public initiatives, aimed at addressing local issues within the broader context of higher-level policy frameworks such as river basin management plans or wetlands conservation laws. These agreements are

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
meant not to compete with or replace existing formal poli-
cies, but to complement them, enhancing their implementa-
tion (Brun 2014; Galassi et al. 2020; Papadopoulou et al.
2020; Polajnar Horvat and Smrekar 2021).

Governance roadmaps and stakeholder agreements are powerful governance mechanisms for securing stakeholder commitment across WEFE nexus domains. By fostering collaboration in a structured way, these instruments can drive implementation of actions to address cross-sectoral WEFE nexus challenges effectively. However, to our knowledge, such instruments remain unused in current nexus governance approaches. We define stakeholder agreement for WEFE nexus governance as a voluntary, co-created, and negotiated commitment to jointly pursue pathways, outcomes, and/or actions outlined on an agreed-upon governance roadmap for the integrated management of WEFE nexus resources. Stakeholders take responsibility for implementing agreed-upon actions, each within their respective roles and competences. These actions may include capacity building and knowledge generation to support policy implementation, technical measures such as pilot projects, policy design and revision, participatory processes involving different stakeholder groups (social, economic and political), or blended financing from multiple sources (Hüesker et al. 2022). Ideally, the design and signing of a stakeholder agreement is the end product of a successful stakeholder dialogue effectively addressing the institutional and resource-related challenges.

Implementation: realizing WEFE policies in practice

Depending on the context, implementation pathways for stakeholder agreed solutions vary. The capacity of stakeholders to influence policy design and decision-making depends on multiple factors. For example, Edelenbos et al. (2017) show that it depends on the government's openness and responsiveness to stakeholder initiatives, the extent to which decision-makers are involved in co-creation processes, empowerment of stakeholders, and alignment of stakeholder initiatives with the timing of policymaking processes. In governance systems where local stakeholders have limited influence on policymaking, change can emerge from small, yet targeted stakeholder initiatives, such as riverbed cleanup days, citizen science projects, or crowd funding efforts, which collectively contribute to meaningful impact.

Successful implementation of the agreed-upon govern-
ance roadmap, whether through formal or informal actions,
depends on each committed stakeholder fulfilling their obli-
gations. Failure to do so risks making the agreement void,

undermining trust and jeopardizing collaboration. Gener-
ally, implementation challenges could emerge because of
delays in implementing actions due to technical, political,
or financial reasons, or stakeholders withdrawing from the
agreement. Moreover, implementation of the agreed-upon
actions may not lead to the expected results. Reasons for
this implementation gap may be unrealistic expectations,
(scalar) mismatches between ideas and policies and local
realities, and short-term political interest due to short policy
cycles (Hudson et al. 2019; Sievers et al. 2024). Literature
shows how to overcome this implementation gap. Good
understanding of (local) contexts is important (Hudson et al.
2019). Furthermore, the agreement should include realistic
financial, human, and organizational resources and mecha-
nisms for sustained commitment of all stakeholders involved
(see resource- and institutional-related challenges) (Berruti
and Moccia 2016; Gunton et al. 2010; Voghera 2016). Stake-
holders’ commitment is easier to maintain when there is a
sense of ownership of the agreement (Brun 2014; Pappalardo
et al. 2018). Ownership can be fostered through a transparent
and fair division of responsibilities and operational power,
aligning agreed-upon actions with each stakeholders’ capa-
bilities, expertise, and capacity (Molle and Closas 2020);
clear procedures, activities, and resources allocated for
monitoring and evaluation (Pappalardo et al. 2018); and a
coordinating body with agreed-upon representatives acting
as implementation support agency (Hessels 2013; Hudson
et al. 2019; Olawuyi 2020). Transparency allows the coor-
dinating body to hold the participating parties accountable
despite the voluntary process. Therefore, it is important that
stakeholders understand the interdependencies between the
domains and the need to collaborate to reach their respec-
tive goals (Driessen et al. 2001). In several cases, the use of
citizen science for environmental monitoring has contrib-
uted to maintaining commitment of involved stakeholders
(Brouwer and Hessels 2019; Metcalfe et al. 2022; Wehn
et al. 2018). Citizens’ support provides additional motiva-
tion for the signing parties, especially public authorities and
local businesses, to uphold their commitments, as it holds
them accountable for their promises and actions.

Discussion and conclusion

This research set out to fill a knowledge gap on the ecosystem's role within the nexus and to propose an ecosystem-centric WEFE Nexus Governance Approach that acknowledges the ecosystems constraints on human activities and the associated governance challenges. Unlike other WEF(E) nexus governance
approaches (e.g., De Strasser et al. 2016; González-Rosell et al. 2023), our approach places policy coherence and stakeholders co-creation at its core and integrates quantitative modeling of bio-geophysical nexus interlinkages, governance and policy assessment methods, stakeholder engagement approaches, and governance mechanisms such as governance roadmaps and stakeholder agreements for co-creating coherent WEFE policies. Moreover, an ecosystem-centric approach that acknowledges the boundaries for human activities set by the ecosystem could prevent governance mistakes. The WEFE Nexus Governance Approach provides building blocks that highlight key aspects of WEFE nexus governance. While we do recognize the importance of aspects commonly addressed in governance approaches, such as stakeholder selection processes, institutional provisions, equity, justice, and solidarity, we chose not to discuss them. Although relevant to the nexus governance process, in our approach we chose to focus on specific governance tools to foster transformative change.

The WEFE Nexus Governance Approach is based on an analysis of WEFE nexus interlinkages and related governance challenges. Dealing with goal-related challenges is about formulating coherent policies (de Andrade Guerra et al. 2021). While policy coherence is essential for avoiding negative cross-sectoral conflicts, it should be considered as a means not an end, as coherent policies are not necessarily sustainable (Yunita et al. 2022). Instead, it should drive transformation of toward WEFE nexus governance, with the ultimate goal of sustainable natural resource management. Actor-related challenges, such as power imbalances (Purwanto et al. 2019; Salmoral et al. 2019) and diverging perspectives (Link et al. 2016; Purwanto et al. 2019), are assessed in the problem identification building block and paid special attention to in the stakeholder dialogue building block. The scale-related challenges (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021) are assessed in the problem identification building block, setting the stage for actions at the appropriate scale. Institution-related challenges concerning the institutional interplay of different sectors (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021) are revealed in the problem identification building block, as well as the stakeholder dialogue and governance mechanism building block. Finally, the resource-related challenges are assessed during the problem identification, negotiated during the stakeholder dialogue and secured in both the governance mechanism and implementation building block.

We acknowledge that our methodological choices may have certain limitations. First, our proposed WEFE Nexus Governance Approach is based on an extensive literature review and the practical nexus experience of the authors. A literature review is subjected to the authors’ interpretation and could therefore introduce a bias to the results. We tried to limit this bias by having a rather large research team

consisting of researchers of various backgrounds to ensure a diversity of perspectives on the literature. Moreover, the transdisciplinary nature of the research team also accounts for the transdisciplinary nature of the nexus itself.

Second, while the approach, informed by insights from the literature, appears promising in bringing nexus governance from theory to practice, its relevance for practice remains to be proven as the entire approach is not yet implemented in practice. Therefore, any conclusions on its usefulness are preliminary. However, an initial implementation of the approach has started in 5 river basins in Europe and South Africa in the context of the NEXOGENISIS project. Conceptual maps for the five case studies were developed through the consultation and involvement of stakeholders (Laspidou et al. 2023). Co-creating the CM helped stakeholders to adopt a system-thinking approach and more easily identify nexus issues and a range of possible solutions together (Ibid.). Mooren et al. (2024) reported on the application of NXGAT and policy coherence assessment in the Lielupe and Mesta-Nestos river basin. Sievers et al. (2025) applied NXGAT in South Africa. Aside from yielding insights into the barriers and drivers toward WEFE nexus governance, the problem identification phase helped stakeholders to reflect and better understand the interdependencies between the WEFE nexus domains, creating stakeholder commitment and knowledge needed for the stakeholder dialogue building block.

Despite its promising initial application, the approach needs further testing and validation in practice. Anyone aiming to shift toward WEFE nexus governance in relation to specific issues could use it. The analysis of nexus interlinkages and related governance challenges is what should guide the definition of the boundaries of nexus-oriented actions (e.g., a river basin, an administrative region, a group of municipalities, etc.). Furthermore, we tailored the WEFE Nexus Governance Approach to the WEFE nexus. Depending on the nexus interlinkages and related governance challenges of a specific context, it can be useful to include other nexus domains. Operationalizing the WEFE Nexus Governance Approach in context-specific case studies may present challenges, as political contexts can affect the applicability of its tools and methods. To enhance versatility, we formulated these tools in a general manner; however, adapting them to local realities is crucial. For instance, Sievers et al. (2025) suggest including traditional leadership structures or informal governance systems in NXGAT to assess social inequalities in South Africa more effectively. Future research should refine the proposed tools to account for contextual specificities.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
## Appendix 1: Search terms and reading questions

<table><tr><td>(WEF) nexus governance</td><td>Transboundary river basin governance/management</td></tr><tr><td>(WEF) nexus transboundary governance</td><td>Integrated river basin governance/management</td></tr><tr><td>(WEF) nexus management</td><td>Water/climate risk governance</td></tr><tr><td>IWRM</td><td>Resource security (water, energy, food security)</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional change (nexus/water regime)</td><td>Power relations in resource management/governance</td></tr><tr><td>Water governance</td><td>Culture of resource management/governance</td></tr><tr><td>(WEF) nexus policy coherence</td><td>(WEF) nexus policy</td></tr><tr><td>(WEF) nexus policy integration</td><td>(WEF) nexus policy design</td></tr><tr><td>(WEF) nexus policy change</td><td>Nexus/water policy entrepreneurs/entrepreneurship</td></tr><tr><td>Transboundary river basin policy</td><td>Water policy</td></tr><tr><td>(WEF) nexus policy interaction</td><td>(WEF) nexus policy coordination</td></tr><tr><td>Water/nexus/WEF governance assessment frameworks/tools/ approaches</td><td>(WEF) nexus governance assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Water governance assessment</td><td>Transboundary/integrated river governance assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Policy assessment framework/ approaches</td><td>Transboundary policy assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Water policy assessment</td><td>Nexus policy assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Policy integration frameworks</td><td>Policy coordination frameworks</td></tr><tr><td>Policy coherence frameworks</td><td>WEF(E) links</td></tr><tr><td>WEF(E) interlinkages</td><td>WEF(E) interdependencies</td></tr><tr><td>WEF(E) connections</td><td>WEF(E) modeling</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Topic</th><th>Reading questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Nexus governance</td><td>What are key definitions?<br>What are key elements of nexus governance/policy?<br>How can nexus governance be developed?<br>What are the differences with other approaches, e.g., IWRM?<br>What are critiques to nexus approaches?<br>What are different perspectives on nexus governance and management?<br>What are the pre-conditions for nexus governance to be successful?</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Topic</th><th>Reading questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Governance assessment tools and co-creation frameworks</td><td>How can key elements of the WEFE nexus governance assessment framework be defined?<br>How are assessment methods defined?<br>What are the indicators used (e.g., qualitative scoring of indicators, matrix reporting scoring, graphs, etc.)?<br>What are data collection methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups, etc.)?<br>What are critiques to this approach?</td></tr><tr><td>Policy coherence assessments</td><td>How is policy integration/coherence/ coordination defined?<br>What are the key elements of the key elements of policy coherence/ integration, coordination?<br>Where have policy integration/coherence/coordination approaches been applied?<br>What was the purpose of the policy coherence/integration/ coordination approach?<br>Critiques to policy coherence/ integration/coordination approaches?<br>Pre-conditions for successful policy coherence/integration/ coordination?</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Appendix 2: Overview of reviewed nexus governance approaches

<table><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>What</th><th>Nexus domains</th><th>Scale</th><th>Elements</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>De Strasser et al. (2016)</td><td>TBRNA</td><td>Water, energy, food, eco-system</td><td>Trans-boundary river basin</td><td>Survey to gather Key actors and sectors Socio-economic context Desk study Analysis of sectors, resources, and governance analysis Questionnaire on intersectoral issues Nexus dialogue Report on nexus issues and solutions and benefits</td></tr><tr><td>Pereira Ramos et al. (2022)</td><td>SIM-4NEXUS approach</td><td>Water, energy, food, land, climate</td><td>Diverse: regional, national, trans-boundary, continental</td><td>A six steps approach Development of knowledge Preliminary nexus assessment Model development Science–policy interface Conclusions Recommendations</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>What</th><th>Nexus domains</th><th>Scale</th><th>Elements</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Olawuyi (2020)</td><td>Legal and governance aspects for implementing nexus</td><td>Water, energy, food</td><td>Local</td><td>Legal focus Creating policy coherence Creating a central institution for coordinating collaboration and knowledge exchange across domains Promotion of regional collaboration</td></tr><tr><td>Harwood (2018)</td><td>The cybernetic methodology</td><td>Water, energy, food</td><td>River basin</td><td>First, understanding the nexus issues Gathering insights from stakeholders Evaluation of governance context Agreement on governance context Modeling potential solutions Implementation of solutions</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>What</th><th>Nexus domains</th><th>Scale</th><th>Elements</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Halbe et al. (2015)</td><td>Methodological framework to assess strategies and innovations for transition toward sustainable development in the WEF nexus</td><td>Water, energy, food</td><td>National</td><td>Problem and stakeholder analysis in which causal loop diagrams (CLD) are built to visualize their nexus perspective<br>Individual modeling, in which the drivers and barriers for innovations are identified<br>Integrative assessment of the CLDs<br>Learning requirements for the implementation and wider uptake are identified based on the integrative assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Hoff et al. (2019)</td><td>A nexus approach for the MENA region—from concept to knowledge to action</td><td>Water, energy, food</td><td>MENA region</td><td>Framing the nexus<br>Identification of the nexus opportunities<br>Assessment of technical and economic nexus opportunities<br>Specification of stakeholders<br>Implementation of the approach and identification of relevant conditions<br>Monitoring and evaluation</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>What</th><th>Nexus domains</th><th>Scale</th><th>Elements</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mohtar and Daher (2016)</td><td>Water-energy-food nexus framework for facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogue</td><td>Water, energy, food</td><td>Region or other scale</td><td>Quantifications of nexus interlinkages and trade-off identification<br>Supply chain dialogue<br>Political economy dialogue</td></tr><tr><td>Daher and Mohtar (2015)</td><td>WEF Nexus Tool 2.0</td><td>Water, energy, food</td><td>National</td><td>Creating conceptual scenarios-based framework<br>Quantification of nexus interlinkages<br>Running of WEF Nexus Tool 2.0 to run scenarios<br>Scenarios can be used for decision-making</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Acknowledgements** The authors would like to thank J. Sušnik, S. Masai, J. Frijns, and S.H.A. Koop for their valuable and constructive feedback on the manuscript and S. Khan for the initial visualisation of the WEFE nexus governance approach in NEXOGENESIS in Fig. 3

**Funding** This research took place in the context of NEXOGENESIS, a research project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101003881.

**Data availability** No data was used for the research described in the article.

## Declarations

**Conflict of interest** The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. The 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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
## References

Abdalla H, Rahmat-Ullah Z, Abdallah M, Alsmadi S, Elashwah N (2021) Eco-efficiency analysis of integrated grey and black water management systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 172:105681

Al-Saidi M (2017) Conflicts and security in integrated water resources management. Environ Sci Policy 73:38–44

Al-Saidi M, Elagib NA (2017) Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food nexus. Sci Total Environ 574:1131–1139

Avellán T, Roidt M, Emmer A, Von Koerber J, Schneider P, Raber W (2017) Making the water-soil-waste nexus work: framing the boundaries of resource flows. Sustainability 9(10):1881

Bakhshianlamouki E, Masia S, Karimi P, van der Zaag P, Sušnik J (2020) 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

Benson D, Gain AK, Rouillard JJ (2015) Water governance in a comparative perspective: From IWRM to a ‘nexus’ approach? Water Altern 8(1):756–773

Benvenuti S (2014) Wildflower green roofs for urban landscaping, ecological sustainability and biodiversity. Landsc Urban Plan 124:151–161

Berruti G, Moccia FD (2016) Planning knowledge and process for strategies of participatory river contracts. Topics and methods for urban and landscape design. Springer, Cham, pp 99–126

Bizikova L (2019) Integrating the water-energy-food nexus into policy and decision-making: opportunities and challenges. Policy and governance in the water-energy-food nexus. Routledge, London, pp 31–47

Bocchi S, La Rosa D, Pileri P (2012) Agro-ecological analysis for the EU water framework directive: an applied case study for the river contract of the Seveso Basin (Italy). Environ Manag 50(4):514–529

Bouziotas D, van Duuren D, van Alphen H-J, Frijns J, Nikolopoulos D, Makropoulos C (2019) Towards circular water neighborhoods: simulation-based decision support for integrated decentralized urban water systems. Water 11(6):1227

Bressers H, Bressers N, Kuks S, Larrue C (2016) The governance assessment tool and its use. Governance for drought resilience. Springer, Cham, pp 45–65

Briassoulis H (2004) Policy integration for complex policy problems: what, why and how. In: Greening of policies: interlinkages and policy integration, Berlin, pp 3–4

Brouwer S, Hessels LK (2019) Increasing research impact with citizen science: The influence of recruitment strategies on sample diversity. Public Underst Sci 28(5):606–621

Bruckner T, Bashmakov IA, Mulugetta Y, Chum H, De la Vega Navarro A et al (2014) Energy systems. In: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Brun A (2014) France’s water policy: the interest and limits of river contracts. Globalized water. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 139–147

Cairns R, Krzywoszynska A (2016) Anatomy of a buzzword: the emergence of ‘the water-energy-food nexus’ in UK natural resource debates. Environ Sci Policy 64:164–170

Carlisle K, Gruby RL (2019) Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons. Policy Stud J 47(4):927–952

Carr G (2015) Stakeholder and public participation in river basin management—an introduction. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 2(4):393–405

Cialdea D, Cacucci S (2017) The river’s contract: an opportunity for new landscape planning activities. Int J des Nat Ecodyn 12(3):314–323

Cristiano E, Deidda R, Viola F (2021) The role of green roofs in urban water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus: a review. Sci Total Environ 756:143876

Daher BT, Mohtar RH (2015) Water-energy-food (WEF) Nexus Tool 2.0: guiding integrative resource planning and decision-making. Water Int 40(5–6):748–771

de Andrade Guerra JBSO, Berchin II, Garcia J, da Silva Neiva S, Jonck AV, Faraco RA et al (2021) A literature-based study on the water-energy-food nexus for sustainable development. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 35(1):95–116

De Grenade R, House-Peters L, Scott C, Thapa B, Mills-Novoa M, Gerlak A, Verbist K (2016) The nexus: reconsidering environmental security and adaptive capacity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 21:15–21

De Roo A, Trichakis I, Bisselink B, Gelati E, Pistocchi A, Gawlik B (2021) The water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus in the Mediterranean: current issues and future challenges. Front Clim 3:782553

De Strasser L, Lipponen A, Howells M, Stec S, Bréthaut C (2016) A methodology to assess the water energy food ecosystems nexus in transboundary river basins. Water 8(2):59

Driessen PP, Glasbergen P, Verdaas C (2001) Interactive policy-making—a model of management for public works. Eur J Oper Res 128(2):322–337

Echeverria L, Nievas, N & Pijuan J (2022) D1.4 Self-learning nexus engine specifications and technical design, Retrieved from: https://nexogenesis.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/D4.1.-Self-learning-nexus-engine-specifications-and-technical-design.pdf

Echeverria L, Dkouk C, Nievas N (2024) D4.4 Core Module of the self-learning nexus engine. Retrieved from: https://nexogenesis.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/D4.4-Core-module-of-the-NEPAT.pdf

Edelenbos J, Van Buuren A, Roth D, Winnubst M (2017) Stakeholder initiatives in flood risk management: exploring the role and impact of bottom-up initiatives in three ‘Room for the River’ projects in the Netherlands. J Environ Plann Manag 60(1):47–66

Felix M, Gheewala SH (2011) A review of biomass energy dependency in Tanzania. Energy Procedia 9:338–343

Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653

Fritsch O, Benson D (2019) Mutual learning and policy transfer in integrated water resources management: a research agenda. Water 12(1):72

Galassi A, Cattaruzza ME, Clerici L, Innocenzi T, Valorani C (2020) The River Contract of the Tiber from Castel Giubileo to the Foce: an innovative practice for a relationship between Tiber and Rome. Ital J Plann Pract 10(1):49–79

Giest S, Mukherjee I (2022) Evidence integration for coherent nexus policy design: a Mediterranean perspective on managing water-energy interactions. J Environ Policy Plann 24:1–15

González-Rosell A, Arfa I, Blanco M (2023) Introducing GoNEXUS SEF: a solutions evaluation framework for the joint governance of water, energy, and food resources. Sustain Sci 18:1–21

Gordon GJ (2018) Environmental personhood. Colum J Environ Law 43:49

Grundel I, Dahlström M (2016) A quadruple and quintuple helix approach to regional innovation systems in the transformation to a forestry-based bioeconomy. J Knowl Econ 7:963–983

Gunton T, Rutherford M, Dickinson M (2010) Stakeholder analysis in marine planning. Environ J Interdiscip Stud 37(3):95–110
Halbe J, Pahl-Wostl C, Lange MA, Velonis C (2015) Governance of transitions towards sustainable development—the water-energy-food nexus in Cyprus. Water Int 40(5–6):877–894

Harwood SA (2018) In search of a (WEF) nexus approach. Environ Sci Policy 83:79–85

Hessels LK (2013) Coordination in the science system: theoretical framework and a case study of an intermediary organization. Minerva 51(3):317–339

Hoff H (2011) Understanding the nexus: background paper for the Bonn2011 Nexus Conference. In: SEI

Hoff H, Alrahaife SA, El Hajj R, Lohr K, Mengoub FE, Farajalla N et al (2019) A nexus approach for the MENA region—from concept to knowledge to action. Front Environ Sci 7:48

Hoolohan C, Larkin A, Mclachlan C, Falconer R, Soutar I, Suckling J et al (2018) Engaging stakeholders in research to address water-energy-food (WEF) nexus challenges. Sustain Sci 13:1415–1426

Hoppe T, Kuokkanen A, Mikkilä M, Kahiluoto H, Kuisma M, Arentsen M, Linnanen L (2016) System merits or failures? Policies for transition to sustainable P and N systems in the Netherlands and Finland. Sustainability 8(5):463

Hua T, Zhao W, Wang S, Fu B, Pereira P (2020) Identifying priority biophysical indicators for promoting food-energy-water nexus within planetary boundaries. Resour Conserv Recycl 163:105102

Hudson B, Hunter D, Peckham S (2019) Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy des Pract 2(1):1–14

Hüesker F, Sievers E, Mooren CE, Munaretto S, Canovas I, La Jeunesse I et al (2022) Stakeholders’ co-creation approach for WEFE nexus Governance. Leipzig, Germany

Iida S, Sakata K (2019) Hydrogen technologies and developments in Japan. Clean Energy 3(2):105–113

La Jeunesse I, Quevauviller P (2016) Changement climatique et cycle de l'eau. Impacts, adaptation, législation et avancées scientifiques. Lavoisier Tec&Doc, 325

Jones JL, White DD (2021) A social network analysis of collaborative governance for the food-energy-water nexus in Phoenix, AZ, USA. J Environ Stud Sci 11:671–681

Jones-Crank JL (2024) A multi-case institutional analysis of water-energy-food nexus governance. Sustain Sci 19:1–15

Kacyira AK (2012) Addressing the sustainable urbanization challenge. UN Chron 49(2):58–60

Kay P, Edwards AC, Foulger M (2009) A review of the efficacy of contemporary agricultural stewardship measures for ameliorating water pollution problems of key concern to the UK water industry. Agric Syst 99(2–3):67–75

Kimengsi JN, Owusu R, Balgah RA (2022) Nexus approach and environmental resource governance in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Sustain Sci 17(3):1091–1108

Kliskey AA, Williams P, Trammell EJ, Cronan D, Griffith D, Alessa L et al (2023) Building trust, building futures: knowledge co-production as relationship, design, and process in transdisciplinary science. Front Environ Sci 11:1007105

Koop SH, van Leeuwen CJ (2017) The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environ Dev Sustain 19(2):385–418

Koop S, Koetsier L, Doornhof A, Reinstra O, Van Leeuwen C, Brouwer S et al (2017) Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste, and climate change. Water Resour Manag 31(11):3427–3443

Koop S, Van Dorssen A, Brouwer S (2019) Enhancing domestic water conservation behaviour: a review of empirical studies on influencing tactics. J Environ Manag 247:867–876

Koop S, Grison C, Eisenreich SJ, Hofman J, van Leeuwen K (2022) Integrated water resources management in cities in the world: global solutions. Sustain Cities Soc 86:104137

Kurian M, Ardakanian R (2015) Governing the Nexus: water, soil and waste resources considering global change

Kurian M, Portney KE, Rappold G, Hannibal B, Gebrechorkos SH (2018) Governance of water-energy-food nexus: a social network analysis approach to understanding agency behaviour. Managing water, soil and waste resources to achieve sustainable development goals: monitoring and implementation of integrated resources management. Springer, Cham, pp 125–147

Kurian M, Scott C, Reddy VR, Alabaster G, Nardocci A, Portney K et al (2019) One swallow does not make a summer: siloes, trade-offs and synergies in the water-energy-food nexus. Front Environ Sci 7:32

Kuslits B, Vári Á, Tanács E, Aszalós R, Drasovean A, Buchriegler R et al (2021) Ecosystem services becoming political: how ecological processes shape local resource-management networks. Front Ecol Evol 9:125

La Jeunesse I (2019) Awareness of drought impacts in Europe: the cause or the consequence of the level of goal ambitions? Facing hydrometeorological extreme events: a governance issue. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 189–202

La Jeunesse I, Rounsevell M, Vancooster M (2003) Delivering a decision support system tool to a river contract: a way to implement the participatory approach principle at the catchment scale? Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 28(12–13):547–554

La Jeunesse I, Elliott M (2004) Anthropogenic regulation of the phosphorus balance in the Thau catchment-coastal lagoon system (Mediterranean Sea, France) over 24 years. Mar Pollut Bull 48(7–8):679–687

La Jeunesse I, Cirelli C, Sellami H, Aubin D, Deidda R, Baghdadi N (2015) Is the governance of the Thau coastal lagoon ready to face climate change impacts? Ocean Coast Manag 118:234–246

Laspidou C, Ganoulis JJ, Pokorny J, Teutschbein C, Conradt T, Davis Ellison EP et al (2017). D1.1: Scientific inventory of the nexus

Laspidou CS, Mellios NK, Spyropoulou AE, Kofinas DT, Papadopoulou MP (2020) 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

Laspidou C, Susnik J, Masia S, Amorocho Daza H, Spyropoulou A, Kofinas D, Mellios N, Ziliaskopoulos K, Papadopoulou M, Papadopoulou C-A, Indriksone D, Bremere I, Nanu F, Terzi S, Cocuczioni S, Sambo S, Carnelli F, Simpson G, Kristensen D, & B Haupt (2023) Deliverable 3.1. conceptual models completed for all the case studies. Retrieved from: https://nexogenesis.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NEXOGENESIS-D3.1-v2-Final.pdf

Łaszewska-Hellriegel M (2023) Environmental personhood as a tool to protect nature. Philosophia 51(3):1369–1384

Lebel L, Haefner A, Pahl-Wostl C, Baduri A (2020) Governance of the water-energy-food nexus: insights from four infrastructure projects in the Lower Mekong Basin. Sustain Sci 15:1–16

Lefrancq M, Jadas-Hécart A, La Jeunesse I, Landry D, Payraudeau S (2017) High frequency monitoring of pesticides in runoff water to improve understanding of their transport and environmental impacts. Sci Total Environ 587:75–86

Link PM, Scheffran J, Ide T (2016) Conflict and cooperation in the water-security nexus: a global comparative analysis of river basins under climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 3(4):495–515

Lucca E, Kofinas D, Avellán T, Kleemann J, Mooren CE, Blicharska M et al (2025) Integrating “nature” in the water-energy-food Nexus: current perspectives and future directions. Sci Total Environ 966:178600

Malagó A, Comero S, Bouraoui F, Kazezyılmaz-Alhan CM, Gawlik BM, Easton P, Laspidou C (2021) An analytical framework
to assess SDG targets within the context of WEFE nexus in the Mediterranean region. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105205

Märker C, Venghaus S, Hake J-F (2018) Integrated governance for the food–energy–water nexus—the scope of action for institutional change. *Renew Sustain Energy Rev* 97:290–300

Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Norström A, Peterson G, Plieninger T et al (2019) A novel telecoupling framework to assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research. *J Environ Manag* 241:251–263

Mbow C, Rosenzweig C, Barioni LG, Benton TG, Herrero M, Krishnapillai M et al (2019). Food security. In: Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems

McDonnell RA (2008) Challenges for integrated water resources management: how do we provide the knowledge to support truly integrated thinking? *Int J Water Resour Dev* 24(1):131–143

McDowall W (2012) Technology roadmaps for transition management: the case of hydrogen energy. *Technol Forecast Soc Chang* 79(3):530–542

Metcalfe AN, Kennedy TA, Mendez GA, Muehlbauer JD (2022) Applied citizen science in freshwater research. *Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water* 9(2):e1578

Miedzinski M, McDowall W, Fahnestock J, Rataj O, Papachristos G (2022) Paving the pathways towards sustainable future? A critical assessment of STI policy roadmaps as policy instruments for sustainability transitions. *Futures* 142:103015

Mohtar RH, Daher B (2016) Water–energy–food nexus framework for facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogue. *Water Int* 41(5):655–661

Molle F, Closas A (2020) Comanagement of groundwater: a review. *Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water* 7(1):e1394

Mooren CE, Munaretto S, Hegger DL, Driessen PP, La Jeunesse I (2024) Towards transboundary water–energy–food–ecosystem nexus governance: a comparative governance assessment of the Lielupe and Mesta-Nestos river basins. *J Environ Policy Plann* 26:1–20

Mooren CE, Munaretto S, Khan S (forthcoming) Governance roadmap and building blocks for a river contract in CS. *KWR Water Research Institute* [Unpublished Manuscript]

Morseletto P, Mooren CE, Munaretto S (2022) Circular economy of water: definition, strategies and challenges. *Circ Econ Sustain* 2:1–15

Nguyen HT, Marques P (2022) The promise of living labs to the Quadruple Helix stakeholders: exploring the sources of (dis) satisfaction. *Eur Plan Stud 30*(6):1124–1143

Nilsson M, Zamparutti T, Petersen JE, Nykvist B, Rudberg P, McGuinn J (2012) Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector–environment policy interactions in the EU. *Environ Policy Gov* 22(6):395–423

North DC (1991) Institutions. *J Econ Perspect* 5(1):97–112

Olawuyi D (2020) Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: Legal challenges and emerging solutions. *Environ Sci Policy* 103:1–9

Ostrom E (2008) Institutions and the environment. *Econ Aff* 28(3):24–31

Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. *Glob Environ Chang* 20(4):550–557

Pahl-Wostl C (2019) Governance of the water–energy–food security nexus: a multi-level coordination challenge. *Environ Sci Policy* 92:356–367

Pahl-Wostl C, Bhaduri A, Bruns A (2018) Editorial special issue: the nexus of water, energy and food–an environmental governance perspective. *Environ Sci Policy* 90:161–163

Pahl-Wostl C, Gorris P, Jager N, Koch L, Lebel L, Stein C et al (2021) Scale-related governance challenges in the water–energy–food nexus: toward a diagnostic approach. *Sustain Sci* 16(2):615–629

Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C (2023) Pathways towards improved water governance: The role of polycentric governance systems and vertical and horizontal coordination. *Environ Sci Policy* 144:151–161

Papadopoulou C-A, Papadopoulou MP, Laspidou C, Munaretto S, Brouwer F (2020) Towards a low-carbon economy: a nexus-oriented policy coherence analysis in Greece. *Sustainability* 12(1):373

Pappalardo G, Gravagno F, Ferrigno M (2018) Building common knowledge for co-designing and implementing river contracts: the landscape units of the Simeto River Agreement. *UPLanD J Urban Plann Landsc Environ des* 3(1):129–140

Pereira Ramos E, Kofinas D, Sundin C, Brouwer F, Laspidou C (2022) Operationalizing the Nexus approach: insights from the SIM-4NEXUS project

Polajnar Horvat K, Smrekar A (2021) The wetland contract as a tool for successful wetland governance: A case study of Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park, Slovenia. *Sustainability* 13(1):425

Purwanto A, Sušnik J, Suryadi F, de Fraiture C (2019) Using group model building to develop a causal loop mapping of the water–energy–food security nexus in Karawang Regency. *Indones J Clean Prod* 240:118170

Purwanto A, Sušnik J, Suryadi FX, de Fraiture C (2021) Quantitative simulation of the water-energy-food (WEF) security nexus in a local planning context in Indonesia. *Sustain Prod Consumption* 25:198–216

Rasul G, Sharma B (2016) The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: an option for adaptation to climate change. *Clim Policy* 16(6):682–702

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. *Ecol Soc*. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232

Rockström J, Kotzé L, Milutinović S, Biermann F, Brovkin V, Donges J et al (2024) The planetary commons: a new paradigm for safeguarding Earth-regulating systems in the Anthropocene. *Proc Natl Acad Sci* 121(5):e2301531121

Roidt M, de Strasser L (2018) Methodology for assessing the water–food–energy–ecosystem nexus in transboundary basins and experiences from its application: synthesis. *UN*

Roidt M, Avellán T (2019) Learning from integrated management approaches to implement the Nexus. *J Environ Manag* 237:609–616

Rosillon F, Borghet PV, Sama HB (2005) River contract in Wallonia (Belgium) and its application for water management in the Sourou valley (Burkina Faso). *Water Sci Technol* 52(9):85–93

Runhaar H (2021) Four critical conditions for agroecological transitions in Europe. *Int J Agric Sustain* 19(3–4):227–233

Salmoral G, Schaap NC, Walschebauer J, Alhajaj A (2019) Water diplomacy and nexus governance in a transboundary context: in the search for complementarities. *Sci Total Environ* 690:85–96

Salmoral G, Zegarra E, Vázquez-Rowe I, González F, Del Castillo L, Saravia GR et al (2020) Water-related challenges in nexus governance for sustainable development: Insights from the city of Arequipa, Peru. *Sci Total Environ* 747:141114

Schulte P (2012) The great lakes water agreements. In: The World’s water. *Springer*, pp 165–170

Scott CA, Pierce SA, Pasqualetti MJ, Jones AL, Montz BE, Hoover JH (2011) Policy and institutional dimensions of the water–energy nexus. *Energy Policy* 39(10):6622–6630

Scott CA, Kurian M, Wescoat JL (2015) The water–energy–food nexus: enhancing adaptive capacity to complex global challenges. *Governmenting the nexus*. Springer, Cham, pp 15–38
Scott CA, Albrecht TR, De Grenade R, Zuniga-Teran A, Varady RG, Thapa B (2018) Water security and the pursuit of food, energy, and earth systems resilience. Water Int 43(8):1055–1074

Shannak S, Mabrey D, Vittorio M (2018) Moving from theory to practice in the water–energy–food nexus: an evaluation of existing models and frameworks. Water Energy Nexus 1(1):17–25

Sievers E, Spierenburg M, Jhagroe SS, van Oudenhoven AP (2024) Place-based knowledge transfer in a local-to-global and knowledgeable-to-action context: key steps and facilitative factors. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15024-290308

Sievers E, Canovas I, Kristensen D, Hüesker F (2025) Assessing to act: a water–energy–food–ecosystem (WEFE) nexus governance assessment for the Inkomati-Usuthu river basin in South Africa. Environ Sci Policy 164:103986

Simpson GB, Jewitt GP (2019) The water–energy–food nexus in the anthropocene: moving from ‘nexus thinking’ to ‘nexus action.’ Curr Opin Environ Sustain 40:117–123

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339

Srigiri SR, Dombrowsky I (2022) Analysing the water–energy–food Nexus from a polycentric governance perspective: conceptual and methodological framework. Front Environ Sci 10:15

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855

Stein C, Jaspersen LJ (2019) A relational framework for investigating
nexus governance. Geogr J 185(4):377–390

Stein C, Barron J, Nigussie L, Gedif B, Amsalu T, Langan SJ (2014) Advancing the water–energy–food nexus: social networks and institutional interplay in the Blue Nile. WLE research for development (R4D) learning series

Sušnik J, Staddon C (2021) Evaluation of water–energy–food (WEF) nexus research: perspectives, challenges, and directions for future research. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 58:1189–1198

Sušnik J, Masia S, Indriksone D, Brēmere I, Vamvakeridou-Lydoudia L (2021) System dynamics modelling to explore the impacts of policies on the water–energy–food–land–climate nexus in Latvia. Sci Total Environ 775:145827

Suttles KM, Eagle AJ, McLellan EL (2021) Upstream solutions to downstream problems: investing in rural natural infrastructure for water quality improvement and flood risk mitigation. Water 13(24):3579

Taylor B, de Loë RC, Bjornlund H (2013) Evaluating knowledge production in collaborative water governance. Water Altern 6(1):42–66

UN (2021) Summary progress update 2021: SDG 6—water and sanitation for all. Switzerland, Geneva

UNICEF (2021) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021

Urbinatti AM, Benites-Lazaro LL, Carvalho CMD, Giatti LL (2020) The conceptual basis of water–energy–food nexus governance: systematic literature review using network and discourse analysis. J Integr Environ Sci 17(2):21–43

van den Ende M, Wardekker J, Mees H, Hegger D, Vervoort J (2021) Towards a climate-resilient future together. A toolbox with participatory foresight methods, tools and examples from climate and food governance

van den Heuvel L, Blicharska M, Masia S, Sušnik J, Teutschbein C (2020) Ecosystem services in the Swedish water–energy–food–land–climate nexus: anthropogenic pressures and physical interactions. Ecosyst Serv 44:101141

Vatn A, Vedeld P (2012) Fit, interplay, and scale: a diagnosis. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05022-170412

Voghera A (2016) Approaches, tools, methods and experiences for territorial and landscape design. Topics and methods for urban and landscape design. Springer, Cham, pp 13–34

Wehn U, Collins K, Anema K, Basco-Carrera L, Lerebours A (2018) Stakeholder engagement in water governance as social learning: lessons from practice. Water Int 43(1):34–59

Weitz N, Strambo C, Kemp-Benedict E, Nilsson M (2017) Closing the governance gaps in the water–energy–food nexus: insights from integrative governance. Glob Environ Chang 45:165–173

Winkler K, Fuchs R, Rounsevell M, Herold M (2021) Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated. Nat Commun 12(1):1–10

Young OR (2002) Institutional interplay: the environmental consequences of cross-scale interactions. Drama Commons 1:263–291

Yunita A, Biermann F, Kim RE, Vijge MJ (2022) The (anti-) politics of policy coherence for sustainable development in the Netherlands: logic, method, effects. Geoforum 128:92–102

Zisopoulou K, Karalis S, Koulouri M-E, Pouliasis G, Korres E, Karousis A et al (2018) Recasting of the WEF Nexus as an actor with a new economic platform and management model. Energy Policy 119:123–139

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Authors and Affiliations

Caro Eline Mooren¹,² Ⓓ · Stefania Munaretto¹,² · Isabelle La Jeunesse³,⁴ · Eva Sievers⁵ ·

Dries Leonardus Theodora Hegger¹ · Petrus Paulus Joseph Driessen¹ · Frank Hüesker⁶ · Claudia Cirelli³ ·

Ingrid Canovas³,⁷ · Kaoutar Mounir³ · Jonatan Godinez Madrigal⁸

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Caro Eline Mooren

Caro.mooren@kwrwater.nl

Stefania Munaretto

stefania.munaretto@kwrwater.nl

Isabelle La Jeunesse

isabelle.lajeunesse@univ-tours.fr

Eva Sievers

e.m.sievers@cml.leidenuniv.nl

Dries Leonardus Theodora Hegger

d.l.t.hegger@uu.nl

Petrus Paulus Joseph Driessen

p.driessen@uu.nl
Frank Hüesker
frank.hueesker@ufz.de

Claudia Cirelli
claudia.cirelli@univ-tours.fr

Ingrid Canovas
ingrid.canovas@mines-ales.fr

Kaoutar Mounir
kaoutar.mounir@univ-tours.fr

Jonatan Godinez Madrigal
j.godinezmadrigal@un-ihe.org

¹ Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

² KWR Water Research Institute, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

³ University of Tours, CITERES-CNRS, Tours, France

⁴ University Côte d'Azur, IMREDD, Laboratoire CNRS 7300 ESPACE, Nice, France

5 Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

⁶ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany

⁷ IMT Mines Alès Ecole Mines-Télécom, Laboratoire des Sciences des Risques, Alès, France

⁸ IHE Delft, Delft, The Netherlands