4.7 Review

Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food nexus

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 574, 期 -, 页码 1131-1139

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.046

关键词

WEF nexus; Integrative approaches; Sustainability paradigm; Resource security; Integrated management; Environmental policy

资金

  1. Nexus Research Focus of the TH Koln - University of Applied Sciences - Germany
  2. Minister for Innovation, Science and Research of the State of North Rhine Westphalia [321-8.03.04.02-2012/07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The water, energy and food nexus (WEF nexus) is currently quite popular in environmental management. The concept found a fertile ground in science and policymaking, but there is no consistent view on the meaning of integration within the nexus. Here, a wealth of publications is reviewed in an endeavour to: (1) reveal the lines of justification for the need of the WEF nexus debate and (2) identify the range of tools for analysing the interdependent resource issues of the nexus using an integrated framework of science and policy. There are three drivers behind the emergence of the nexus thinking. These are a) increasing resource interlinks due to growing scarcities, b) recent resource supply crises, and c) failures of sector-driven management strategies. Evaluation of the WEF nexus integrative debate can be carried out using four key criteria, namely ability to change current policy debates, issue and thinking novelty, practicability and measurability, and clearness and implementation roadmap. It is clear that, although the nexus has been quite successful in changing policy debates, issue prioritization is missing and seems to be left to specific case studies and policymakers' choices. There is a high need for 'incorporation' and 'cross-linking' of issues between the three resources. In this regard, nexus governance is the missing link in the nexus debate. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights.reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据