Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods

Sustainable

development

and

the

water–energy–food

nexus:

A

perspective

on

livelihoods

Eloise

M.

Biggs

*

,

Eleanor

Bruce

,

Bryan

Boruff

,

John

M.A.

Duncan

,

Julia

Horsley

,

Natasha

Pauli

_,

_Kellie

_McNeill

_,

_Andreas

_Neef

_,

_Floris

_Van

_Ogtrop

_,

_Jayne

_Curnow

_,

Billy

Haworth

,

Stephanie

Duce

,

Yukihiro

Imanari

GeographyandEnvironment,UniversityofSouthampton,UniversityRoad,SouthamptonSO171BJ,UK

b

GeocoastalResearchGroup,SchoolofGeosciences,UniversityofSydney,MadsenBuilding,EasternAvenue,Sydney2006,NSW,Australia

c

SchoolofEarthandEnvironment,UniversityofWesternAustralia,35StirlingHighway,Perth6009,WA,Australia

d

SchoolofSocialSciences,UniversityofAuckland,PrivateBag92019,Auckland1142,NewZealand

e

DepartmentofEnvironmentalSciences,UniversityofSydney,Suite401,BiomedicalBuilding,1CentralAvenue,AustralianTechnologyPark,Eveleigh,Sydney 2015,NSW,Australia

f_{InternationalWaterManagementInstitute,127SunilMawatha,Pelawatte,Battaramulla,POBox2075,Colombo,SriLanka} g

Asia-PacificNetworkforGlobalChangeResearch,EastBuilding4F,1-5-2WakinohamaKaiganDori,Chuo-ku,Kobe651-0073,Japan

1. Introduction

Recentlytherehasbeenrenewedinterestinthelongstanding definitionalambiguitiesoftheterm‘sustainabledevelopment’and thedevelopmentofframeworksforitseffectiveapplicationinlocal andglobalcontexts.Thisdebatehasbeenreignitedinanticipation ofthepost-2015targetsforsustainabledevelopment,assetoutin the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the pending expiration of the timeframe for the targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)1_{. The United Nations is pushing}

forwardanewsetofgoalsandtargetsforthepost-2015agenda whichaimstoachievethelong-termsustainabledevelopmentof human society as a whole2_{. The SDGs commit subscribing}

countries to newaction targetsaimed atachieving sustainable water use, energy use and agricultural practices, as well as promotingmoreinclusiveeconomicdevelopment(UnitedNations, 2014). The water–energy–food nexus has become central to discussionsregardingthedevelopmentandsubsequent monitor-ingoftheSDGs.However,whilealloftheproposed17SDGsalso resonate withthe concept of sustainable livelihoods, the term ‘livelihoods’isnotmentionedanywhereincurrentdocumentation

EnvironmentalScience&Policy54(2015)389–397

ARTICLE INFO

Articlehistory:

Received20February2015 Receivedinrevisedform20July2015 Accepted3August2015

Availableonline24August2015

Keywords: Water–energy–foodsecurity Livelihoods Nexus ELS Sustainabledevelopment ABSTRACT

The water–energy–food nexus is beingpromoted as a conceptual tool for achieving sustainable development.Frameworks forimplementing nexusthinking, however,have failedto explicitly or adequately incorporate sustainable livelihoods perspectives. This is counterintuitive given that livelihoodsarekeytoachievingsustainabledevelopment.Inthispaperwepresentacriticalreview ofnexusapproachesandidentifypotentiallinkageswithsustainablelivelihoodstheoryandpractice,to deepenourunderstandingoftheinterrelateddynamicsbetweenhumanpopulationsandthenatural environment.Buildinguponthisreview,weexploretheconceptof‘environmentallivelihoodsecurity’– whichencompassesabalancebetweennaturalresourcesupplyandhumandemandontheenvironment topromotesustainability–anddevelopanintegratednexus-livelihoodsframeworkforexaminingthe environmentallivelihood security of asystem. Theoutcome isanintegrated framework withthe capacitytomeasureandmonitorenvironmentallivelihoodsecurityofwholesystemsbyaccountingfor thewater,energyandfoodrequisitesforlivelihoodsatmultiplespatialscalesandinstitutionallevels. Weanticipatethisholisticapproachwillnotonlyprovideasignificantcontributiontoachievingnational andregionalsustainabledevelopmenttargets,butwillalsobeeffectiveforpromotingequityamongst individualsandcommunitiesinlocalandglobaldevelopmentagendas.

ß2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+442380599655. E-mailaddress:Eloise.Biggs@soton.ac.uk(E.M.Biggs).

1

www.un.org/millenniumgoals

2_{AnoutcomeoftheRio+20UnitedNationsConferenceonSustainable}

Develop-mentresultedintheFutureWeWantreport(UnitedNations,2012).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Environmental

Science

&

Policy

j our na l h ome p a ge : w ww . e l se v i e r. co m/ l oc a te / e nv sci

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002

1462-9011/ß2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/ 4.0/).

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

(seeUnitedNations,2014).Thisiscounterintuitivegiventhat,as wearguemorefullyinthispaper,livelihoodsarekeytoachieving sustainabledevelopment.

This paper briefly summarisesthe historical and theoretical development of sustainable livelihoods and nexus approaches, identifyingsynergiesbetweenthesetwoapproacheswhichhave resultedinwhatBiggsetal.(2014)havetermed‘Environmental LivelihoodSecurity’(ELS).Basedonanextensivereviewofrelevant literatureandtheoreticalparadigmssetoutbyBiggsetal.(2014), ELSwasdefinedasaconceptthatseeksbalancebetweennatural resourcesupplyandhumandemandontheenvironmentinorder topromotesustainability.Accordingly,arobustintegrated nexus-livelihoods framework for examining the ELS of a system is necessaryforpracticalapplicationoftheconcept.Inthispaperwe present such a framework and propose this as a solution for ensuringlivelihoodsareexplicitlyaccountedforwithinthewater– energy–foodnexus.ToensureaccuratemonitoringofSDGprogress and enable sub-national accounting for spatial disparities in meetingSDGtargets–acharacteristicthattheMDGshavebeen critiquedasdeficientin(BlackandWhite,2004;vonDachetal., 2006)–wepresentaframeworkwhichisadaptabletoarangeof spatial scales and institutional levels. Finally, we seek to demonstrate how our framework has the potential for many practicalcross-sectoralapplicationswhich,weargue,willmakea constructivecontributiontoadvancetheagendaon sustainable development.

2. Sustainablelivelihoodsapproaches

Broadlyspeaking,approachestosustainabledevelopmenthave focusedon‘top-down’quantitativeindicatorsbasedonscientific expertiseand haveatendencytomeasureprogressatnational, regional and global scales. Conversely, sustainable livelihood approaches have tended towards more ‘bottom-up’ qualitative analyses of data obtained at household, community and local levels.Sustainablelivelihoodapproacheshaveevolvedfromshifts inperspectivesonpoverty,participationandsustainable develop-ment(Sen,1981;ChambersandConway,1992)andin1987,the WorldCommissionon EnvironmentandDevelopmentused the term‘sustainablelivelihoods’forthefirsttimeindiscussionson resource ownership, basic needs, and rural livelihood security (WCED,1987;ConroyandLitvinoff,1988).The1992UN Confer-ence on Environment and Development positioned sustainable livelihoodsasameansoflinkingsocioeconomicand environmen-talconcerns(Brocklesbyand Fisher,2003).Bothinstances were importantfor moving international concern regarding environ-mentalproblemstowardsafocusonpeopleandtheirlivelihood activities,andplacingtheseconcernswithinapolicyframework forsustainabledevelopment(Biggsetal.,2014).Inthelivelihoods context at the local level, the question of environmental sustainabilityisfocusedonwhetherlivelihoodactivitiesmaintain andenhance,ordepleteanddegrade,thenaturalresourcebase. Livelihoodactivitiesmaycontributetodesertification, deforesta-tion,soilerosion,decliningwatertablesandsalinisation( Cham-bers and Conway, 1992); but conversely they may benefit environmentalconservationthroughclimate-compatibleactivities suchasreforestationandagro-biodiversity(Tompkinsetal.,2013). Atthegloballevel,thequestioniswhetherlivelihoodactivities make a net positive or negative contribution to long-term environmentalsustainability, and thereforetoother livelihoods (ChambersandConway,1992).

TheSustainableLivelihoodsApproach(SLA)providesameansof linkingsocioeconomicandenvironmentalconcerns(Brocklesbyand Fisher,2003).Itcanbeusedasananalyticaltoolforunderstanding the factors that influence a community’s ability to enhance livelihoods and eradicate poverty (FAO, 2002). Central to the

sustainablelivelihoodsparadigmisrecognitionthatpeopledraw uponarangeofassetstorealisetheirlivelihoodobjectives(DfID, 2001;Biggsetal.,2014).Theseassetsaregroupedintocapitals– financial, natural, human, physical, political and social (refer to

Scoones,1998;Bebbington,1999;FAO,2008)–wherebycapitals serveasinputsand/oroutcomesforlivelihoods,withthesecurityof livelihoodcapitalsvulnerabletoexternalfactorsincluding environ-mentalandmarketstresses(Morseetal.,2009).Variouslyconstrued asasetofprinciples,ananalyticalframeworkandadevelopment objective (Farrington,2001; Morseet al.,2009), the sustainable livelihoodsapproachhastheflexibilityandcapacitytobecombined withotherparadigmssuchasthenexusapproachdiscussedbelow. Critiques of the SLA were largely summarised by Scoones (2009)whoidentifiedfourrecurrentfailingswithintheapproach: (i)aninabilitytodealwithbigshiftsinthestateofglobalmarkets and politics; (ii) a lack of focus in linking livelihoods and governance debates to development; (iii) a lack of rigour in accountingforlong-termlarge-scaleenvironmentalchange;and (iv)afailuretoadequatelyrelateagrarianchangeswithlong-term shiftsinruraleconomies(Biggsetal.,2014;Horsleyetal.,2015). Additionally, although the SLA recognises in theory that the vulnerabilitycontextoflivelihoodassetsincludesenvironmental conditions,applications oftheSLA have notgenerally included soundscientificanalysisofshort-andlong-termclimaticandother environmentaleventsaffectinglivelihoodresilience,norexpressed recognitionofthedynamicsofthewater–food–energynexusand theimpactsoftheseoneachofthelivelihoodcapitals.Although some researchhas addressed elements of theseshortcomings3 current research only implicitly incorporates the fundamental componentsofachievingsustainablelivelihoodsfroman environ-mental perspective. We argue that these weaknesses can be adequatelycompensatedforbyexplicitlycombiningelementsof theSLAframeworkwithelements fromthewater–energy–food nexusframeworktoinformamoreholisticmodel.

3. Water–energy–foodnexusapproaches

‘Nexusthinking’wasfirstconceived bytheWorldEconomic Forum(2011)topromotetheinseparablelinksbetweentheuseof resourcestoprovidebasicanduniversalrightstofood,waterand energy security. Whilst the World Economic Forum (2011)

presented the nexus framework from a securities perspective (water–energy–foodsecurity),subsequentversionshavetakenon various facets with alternative components, such as water resourcesasacentralcomponent(Hoff, 2011), landuse–water– energy(Howellsetal.,2013)andfoodasacorecomponentwith land–water–energylinkages(Ringleretal.,2013).Nexusthinking isadvocated asanadvanceon currentandoftensector-specific governanceofnaturalresourceuse.

Current nexus framings are often focused on macro-level driversofresourceconsumptionpatterns(seeTable1).However, ‘largerscale’extractionandconsumptionofnaturalresourcesmay leadtodepletionofnaturalcapitalstocksandincreasedclimate risk without an equitable share of the benefits (Hoff, 2011; Rockstro¨metal.,2009).Anexampleofthisexistsinnorth–west India,whereintensiveagriculturehasbeendrivenbygovernment policies to support national food welfare. Unfortunately, these policieshave degraded ecosystemswithoutincreasinglevels of foodsecurity(Aggarwaletal.,2004;Pritchardetal.,2013).With regardtothesustainabledevelopmentgoals,Griggsetal.(2013)

arguesfor a more unified environmental andsocial framework

3

SeeforexampleTurneretal.(2003)whoconsideredhuman-environment interactionswherevulnerabilityisinfluencedbytheassetbase(conversetothe SLA);orDonohueandBiggs(2015)whoadoptofamultidimensionalapproachto monitoringlivelihoodswherebynaturalcapitalisquantitativelyassessed.

withmeasurabletargets.Weproposethatthiscanbeachievedby incorporating an explicit focus on livelihoods and livelihood dynamicswithinnexusframingstocapturebottom-upapproaches andlocalopportunitiesforsustainabledevelopment.

Nexusframingsconsiderkeyissuesinfood,waterandenergy security through a sustainability lens in order to predict and protect against potential risksof future insecurity. Contrary to framingswherethefocusisonenvironmentalvulnerability(e.g.

Turner et al., 2003), research which enables monitoring of livelihood security from an environmental perspective hasyet toevolve.Todate,nexusframingsandapplicationsofthenexus approachhavetendedtowardstechnicalassessmentstoenhance productivity, optimise synergies and identify trade-offs across nexus sectors to inform natural resource governance (Howells etal.,2013).However,‘security’isnotsolelydrivenbyavailability ofresourcesbutalsobyaccesstoresources,thecapacitytoutilise resourcesaswellasdynamicsofsocialpower relationsandthe strengthofinstitutions(Sen,1999;Ericksen,2008;Pritchardetal., 2013). Encompassing the more holistic concept of ‘livelihoods’ withinexistingnexusframingswouldintegratetheotherfactors

thatdeterminesecuritywiththedriversofresourceavailability. Suchanapproachwouldalsobuilduponandcomplementprior applications of the SLA in the sectors of water (Nicol, 2000), forestry (Warner, 2000), natural resource management (Pound etal.,2003),agriculture(Carswell,1997),riverbasinmanagement (CleaverandFranks,2005),andfisheries(AllisonandEllis,2001). 4. Integratingsustainablelivelihoodsandnexusapproaches

ThereareclearsynergiesbetweentheSLAandnexusapproaches regardingsustainabledevelopment.Bothconsidersocio-ecological pressures,governance,theenvironment(intermsofresourceaccess throughnaturalcapitalintheSLA)andsecurity(environmentaland economicsecurityinthenexus;livelihoodsecurityintheSLA)(e.g.

World Economic Forum, 2011; Hoff, 2011). To date, the nexus literature has not explicitly identified how water–energy–food securities are interlinked with livelihoods to enhance water– energy–food security at the livelihood level. Table1 providesa critical review of four main nexus frameworks used by policy-shaping organisations and identifies their commonalities and

Table1

Acriticalreviewoftheprincipalnexusframeworksusedbygovernmentsandmultilaterals;identifyingthepotentiallinkagesandlimitationsoftheseframeworksfroma ‘sustainablelivelihoods’perspective.

Nexusframework Potentiallinkagesto‘sustainablelivelihoods’ Limitationsfroma‘sustainablelivelihoods’perspective Thewater,energy,food

securitynexus StockholmEnvironment

Institute:Hoff(2011)

Acknowledgesinequitableoutcomesofbenefitsgained fromnaturalresourceuse

Recognitionoftheneedforalterationstogovernance structuresandinstitutionsareabstractandfocussedon resourceuse/extraction

Advocatesapro-poornexusapproachtonaturalresource usereducingthevulnerabilityofthepoorestand safeguardinghumanrightstofood-water-energysecurity

Factorsmediatingaccesstoandutilisationofresources suchassocietalandculturalstructuresandnorms,whichare keydeterminantsof‘security’,aregivenlessconsideration Recognisesthethreatofforeigndirectinvestmenttothe

livelihoodsofthepoor

Nexusapproachtomanagecomplexityandmulti-scalar issues,butdiscussionfocusesonmacro-driversandomits complexityatthelivelihoods(local–individual)scale(e.g. genderedaccesstofood,agencyandchoice)

Awarenessofmacro-leveldriversofvulnerability(e.g. urbanisation,climatechange,globalisation)

Inthesection‘Knowledgegapsinthenexus’livelihoods relatedissues,ordynamicsofresourceusewhichmay enhancelivelihoods,arenotconsidered

Acknowledgesneedforadaptationincurrentinstitutions, governancestructuresandpolicies

Recognisestheneedtoaccountforexternalitiesinpolicy andmanagementtoensuresustainabilityandequityforall peopleandecosystems

Recognisestheimportanceofecosystemfunctioningand servicestohumanwell-being,andstronglinksbetween ecosystemsandthelivelihoodsofpoorest

TheWater-Energy-Food Nexus

FAO(2014)

Situatesanexusapproachtonaturalresourceusewithin thecontextofsocialneedsandeconomicdevelopment, specificallyinthecontextofreducingpoverty,sustainable agricultureandecosystemsandfoodsecurity

Proposedstakeholderdialoguedoesnotexplicitlyengage poorestandmostvulnerable

Highlightsthattakinganexusapproachcanengagearange ofstakeholders

Outlinesmonitoringandevaluationofanexusassessment approachwhichonlyaddressesoutcomesonresourceuse andproductivityasopposedtohumanwellbeing Multi-ScaleIntegratedAnalysis

ofSocietalandEcosystem Metabolism(MuSIASEM)

Giampietroetal.(2013)

Allowsforcontext-specificflexibilityinconstructing multi-levelsocio-economicstructureswhichcaninpart,constrain orenablelivelihoods

Modellingfocusondistribution,flowsanduseofresources acrossvarioussocio-economicsectorsdoesnotaddressother factorswhichdeterminethecapabilitiesofthesocietal sectorstoenhancelivelihoodsorwell-being

Doesnotaddressfactorswhichdetermineequitableor inequitablesharingofresourceswithinsectors

Exploresthesustainabilityofresourceuseatasociety-level andwithinsociety,butnothowsustainableresourceusecan leadtoenhancinglivelihoods

Climate,land-use,energyand waterstrategies(CLEWS)

Howellsetal.(2013)

Acknowledgesthatresourceuseislinkedtodevelopment challenges(inintroductorysection)

Modellingframeworkexploresfeedbacksbetweenresource productivitypolicy/managementdecisionsinenergy,water andland-usesectorsunderdifferentclimatescenarios.Does notaddressmechanismsforhowchangesinresourceusecan enhancelivelihoods

Doesnotexplorehowchangesinresourceusecanenhance therangeofchoicespeoplehaveorhowchangesinresource usecanmakelivelihoodsmoreresilienttoshocksand stresses

oversightswithreferencetosustainablelivelihoods.Theseexamples were selected as many subsequent applications undertaken by policy-makersdrawupontheseframeworks.Forexample,themost recentUnitedNationsWaterdevelopmentreport(WWAP,2015) framesnexusissueswithwaterasacentralcomponent,drawing uponHoff(2011)’sframework.Whileeachoffersdifferingsetsof precedents,andthey varyin their epistemologicaland sectoral/ applicationcontexts,togethertheyhighlightcommonstrengthsand limitationsofthenexusapproachmoregenerally.Strengthsinclude indicatorstoquantifythecomplexitiesofdynamicsystemswhile criticallimitationsincludeanemphasisonmacro-scaleaimswith inconsistent,andfrequentlyinadequate,attentiontothecomplex varietyofresource-userperspectivesatlocalscales.

Although livelihoodsare not explicitly accountedfor within nexus frameworks, a small but growing body of research has highlightedthevalue ofnexus-basedapproaches forevaluating the effects of development on livelihoods and for promoting sustainablelivelihoodpractices(e.g.Granitetal.,2012;Bouapao, 2012; Rasul, 2014). Likewise, some applications of the nexus approach have begun to recognise the benefit of participatory approaches, though generally still at macro rather than micro scales.For example,thescenariothinkingapproachadoptedby FAOfacilitatedaparticipatorydebateaboutthecomplexstructure ofthewater–energy–agriculturenexusinCentralAsiafornational economiesdependent on theAral Seabasin(FAO, 2012,2014). Regional analyses from a nexus perspective, such as those undertakenbyRasul(2014)fortheHinduKushHimalayanregion and Granit et al. (2012) for the five ex-Soviet Central Asian republics,have underscored the positive effects on livelihoods fromstrongerregionalintegrationacrossthewater,energyand foodsectors,particularlyintransboundarybasins.Inthegreater MekongRiverregion,Bouapao (2012)hastakenthistheoretical approachfurtherbyusingprimaryandsecondarydatatomodel the cumulative effect on livelihoods resulting from impending developmentdecisions designedto improvefood, waterand/or energysecurity.More than halfof thepopulation in thelower Mekongregioncouldexperiencechangesinhouseholdfoodand incomefromthesedevelopmentdecisions,resultingfromimpacts onfish,crops,vegetables,wetlandsandnon-timberforestproducts (Bouapao, 2012). In Myanmar, foreign investment to intensify production fromthe agricultural and energy sectors may have deleteriouseffectsonruralpopulationswhorelyonsharedland and water resources but have insecure access (Kattelus et al., 2014). Examples of how sustainable rural livelihoods can be promoted in harmony with the nexus framework come from severalsustainabledevelopmentinitiativesinNicaragua,suchas rainwaterharvesting systemsforsmallholdersusingsmall-scale watercapture and storagesystems. Theseprovidepotentialfor increasing the consumption of underutilised but abundant breadfruitforfoodandflouraswellasproducingbioenergyfrom sugarcanebagasse(Gourdjietal.,2014).Gourdjietal.(2014)argue thatprojectssuchasthesearestrategicallypositionedwithinthe climate–land–energy–waternexus.

‘Pre-nexus’ literature has also inadvertently explored nexus inter-linkages within the context of sustainable livelihoods. Pathways for reducing environmental footprints have been demonstratedby Khanet al. (2009)through empiricalanalysis ofwater-energytrade-offsinbroad-acre cropproductionin the southernMurrayDarlingbasin,Australia, thatreduceoperation costsand directlybenefit farmers. Kemp-Benedict etal. (2009)

conceptuallynotedtheassociationbetweenwateravailabilityand productivity(crop-water) inrelationtolivelihoodoutcomesfor assessingwater-relatedpoverty.Itisclearthatfurthersustainable solutions regarding natural resource supply to meet human demand could have been more effectively managed using a frameworkwhere livelihoodswereexplicitlyconsidered within

thenexus.Forexample,ataregionallevel,foodandenergycrop cultivation(includingoilpalm)inSoutheastAsiahasresultedin significantbiodiversitylossandpeatoxidation,leadingtosurface subsidenceandreversalofpeatlandsystemsfromcarbonsinksto carbon sourcescreatinga large‘‘biofuelcarbon debt’’ (Fargione etal.,2008;Verhoevenand Setter,2010).Verhoeven andSetter (2010)argue thatbenefitsto locallivelihoodswouldbeclearly demonstrablethroughmaintaininghealthyecosystemfunctions andserviceswhilstoptimisinglocalfoodproduction.Forexample, iffoodandcropproductionwasbasedonlessintensivelanduse practices,includingcombinationsoflocalcropping,fish produc-tionandgrazing,withoutreclamationandalterationof hydrologi-calprocesses.

Inaddressingthenexus-livelihoodsresearchgapwepresenta frameworkwhichinclusivelyaccountsforlivelihoodswithinthe water–energy–food nexus. The framework uses the concept of ‘environmentallivelihoodsecurity’tolinkthenexusand sustain-ablelivelihoodsapproaches.

5. Environmentallivelihoodsecurity

Environmentallivelihood security(ELS)wasfirst conceptua-lisedbyBiggsetal.(2014;p.1)as‘‘refer[ring]tothechallengesof maintainingglobalfoodsecurityanduniversalaccessto freshwa-ter and energy to sustain livelihoods and promote inclusive economicgrowth, whilstsustainingkey environmentalsystems functionality, particularlyundervariable climaticregimes’’. The term was theorised to address a lack of consideration of ‘livelihoods’withinnexusframeworks,whichisrequiredtoensure water, energy and food securities enable not only sustainable development,butalsosustainablelivelihoods.TheELSofasystem ismetwhenabalanceisachievedbetweenhumandemandonthe environmentand environmentalimpactson humans(Fig.1).In this way, the theoretical underpinning of ELS draws upon the

Fig. 1. The conceptual framework for investigating environmental livelihood security(ELS)combinesconceptsofthewater–energy–food–climatenexuswith thecapitalsofthesustainablelivelihoodsframeworktoachieveasustainable balancebetweennaturalsupplyandhumandemandtoensure‘environmental livelihoodsecurity’(Source:adaptedfromBiggsetal.,2014).

concepts of environmental security and human (livelihood) security (Biggs et al., 2014). In addition, thedesire to achieve sustainablesystemsplacestheconceptsofsustainable develop-mentandsustainablelivelihoodsatthecentreofELS.ELSis well-alignedwithongoingdiscussionsaboutdefiningasetofunified SDGs and also supports several recommendations of the Rio+20 meeting such as ‘‘[focus on] priority areas for the achievement of sustainable development’’ and ‘‘address and incorporateinabalancedwayallthreedimensionsofsustainable developmentandtheirinter-linkages’’(UnitedNations,2012,p47). ThispaperadvancestheconceptualgroundingofELStodevelopa frameworkwhich can beappliedtoa system;a systemwhere environment-livelihoodinteractionsareprevalentandtheELSof thatsystemcanbedeterminedtoidentifysustainablesolutionsfor futuredevelopment.

6. TheELSframework

Integrating sustainable livelihoods with the water–energy– foodnexusrequiresidentificationoftheinter-linkagesbetween thesesecurities,aswellastheassetsofhumanpopulationsandthe naturalenvironment.Anoverviewofourintegrated livelihoods-nexus framework, which illustratively conceptualises ELS is summarisedinFig.2.Theframeworkdepictstheinteractionsof water–energy–food systems (as illustrated in Fig. 3) with livelihoods. The utility of this framework includes expressly identifyingtheinteractionbetweencomponents,whichpreviously hadonlybeenconsideredseparatelyundereachofthenexusand SLAapproaches.Forexample,ourframeworkimplicitly acknowl-edgesthemutually dependent relationshipbetween water and livelihoods:(i)waterisneededtosupportlivelihoodactivitiessuch asfisheriesorirrigated agriculture;and (ii)livelihood activities and capitalsmaycontribute to(ordeplete) thepreservationof

water supplies and access [e.g.physical capital (infrastructure) may enablemore efficientwater extraction andtransportation, and financial capital (public or private funds) may assist in implementingmoresustainablepracticesinwateruseorpurchase accesstoalternativesupplies].Actingupon allinternallinkages within this system are external influencing factors, such as

Fig.2.ThenotionofEnvironmentalLivelihoodSecurity(ELS)conceptualisesthelinks betweenwater,energy,food andlivelihoodswhichneedbalancetoachievea sustainablesystem.Externalinfluencingfactorssuchasclimatechange,population growth,andgovernancecanallimpactuponattainingELS.

hazards.ToachieveELSinanyparticularsystem, theselinkages needtoremainbalancedandresilientunderexternalpressures/ stresses.The abilitytoassessthesecomponentsis presentedin furtherdetail in Fig.4,which identifies suggestedvariables for definingcomponentsofthenexus-livelihoodsframing(Fig.2)to informsubsequentindicatorderivationformeasuringELS.

TodeterminetheELSofasystem,firstlythesystemofinterest needstobeidentified inthecontext ofthewater–energy–food nexus(Fig.3).Thiswillprovideanindicationofwhichcomponents ofthenexusareapplicableandmostimportanttothesystem.For example,islandecosystemsofthePacificarefragileanduniqueas aconsequenceofremoteness,butenvironmentalissuesincluding wastedisposal,depletion ofnatural resourcesdue toeconomic development and the useof coastal environments for tourism activities, increase the vulnerability of island communities (Briguglio,1995,2004,2014;BriguglioandGalea,2003;Briguglio et al., 2006; Deacon, 2012). Such contexts highlight important systemcomponents and identify thefactors that will assist in managingtrade-offswithinELSoncethesystemisfullydescribed. Subsequenttodefiningthesystemofinterest,livelihoodswithin thesystemcanbetakenintoaccountandthefullELSframework (Fig.4)canbepopulatedbyidentifyingasetofindicatorswhich measure the framework component variables, such as the percentage of population with access to potable water supply (drinking); proportion of crops produced for food consumption

(crops); or amount of energy required to desalinate saltwater (desalination).

Identifyingindicatorsforexternalinfluencingfactorsmaybe morechallengingwhenquantifyingimpactsuponthesystem.For example,Pacificislandsareparticularlyvulnerabletocyclones,but theyalsohavetocontendwithearthquakes,landslidesandsealevel rise(Deacon,2012).Increasingly,theyfacewater,energyandfood securityissuesexacerbatedbyclimatechange.Thereforeexternal influencing factors that are climatological, meteorological and geophysicalinnatureareimportanttoidentifyforislandsystemsin thePacific(andbeyond),and thiscould potentiallybeachieved through quantitative hazard exposure assessments (Boruff and Cutter,2007;Forbesetal.,2013).Otherexternalinfluencingfactors suchasfuturewaterpricing,geopoliticalconflictandinternational trademayneedtobedescribedmorequalitatively.

Linkagesacrosssystemswillneedconsideration,dependingon the level of detail required for assessing ELS, which will be reflective of systemscales (e.g.community through to region). Factorssuchastheexportandimportofcommoditiesmayhave scopebeyondthesystemofinterestandcanbeassociatedwithkey sustainabledevelopmentissues suchasvirtualwatertradeand reducing carbon footprints.For example,Kad and Weir (2008)

statethatcommunity-basedproductionofvirgincoconutoilinthe PacificIslandshasexportvalueandprovidesahealthierandmore viablesubstituteforcostlyimportedproducts.

Fig.4. Examplesoffundamentalinternal(livelihoods–water–energy–food)andexternal(influencing)factorswhichneedconsideration forattainingELS.Through quantifyingsuchfactorsthesystemcanbeusedtopromotesustainabledevelopmentbybalancingsustainableactivitieswithinlivelihoodsandtheenvironment.

Onceindicatorsfortheframeworkhavebeenestablished,the nextstageinvolvesidentifyingappropriatedataand methodologi-calrequirementstocollectinformationnecessarytopopulatethe framework.Identifyingindicator-relevantdata islargely depen-dentonthescaleofthesystembeinginvestigated.Nationalcensus statisticsdeterminingthehouseholdincomederivedfromenergy productionmaybeappropriateforexaminingatELSatthenational scale;however,ifacommunity-levelassessmentisrequiredthen aggregatedstatisticsmaymasklocalrealitiesandhousehold-level surveyscouldcomplementdata.Brownetal.(2014)providean example of conducting household surveys which returned informationonharvestingforesttimberforfirewoodandvirgin/ coconut oil production in the Pacific Islands. Alternative data acquisition techniques may also be required depending on indicators. For example, identifying the aerial extent of land dedicatedtocropproductioncanbedeterminedusing medium-resolution remotelysenseddata (e.g.using a vegetation index) such as Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery for an island-level assessment of ELS, or high resolution Worldview data for a community-level assessment. Many environmental factors can potentially be determined using remote sensing techniques dependingonthescaleofthesystemofinterest;thisraisesissues of spatiotemporal resolution which need to be adequately consideredtoaddressuncertainty.Applicationoftheframework isdesignedtobespecificenoughtoapplywithease,yetpermita selectionofcontext-specificindicatorsformeasuringELSindetail. Flexibilityisinherenttoallowforamultitudeofdataacquisition techniquestopopulateindicators;dependingonthecontextofthe application, this could include semi-structured interviews, in-depthnarrativeinterviews,lifehistories,focusgroupdiscussions, ranking exercises, participatory risk mapping, remote sensing techniques, hydrological modelling and scientific hazard maps (thisis by no meansan exhaustivelist). Full engagementwith stakeholders willbe crucial toidentify pressures/stresses from institutionsandpolicy.

Onceindicatorshave beenidentifiedtomeasure thewater– energy–foodnexuscomponentswithintheframework,an assess-ment canbe madeto quantify allother relevant ELSelements within the system holistically. This will involve assessing the relationshipbetweencertaincomponents(e.g.foodforlivelihoods andlivelihoodsforfood),complexcross-linkagesacross compo-nents(e.g.foodforlivelihoodsversusfoodforenergy),and/orthe systemasawholedependingonthepurposeoftheassessment. WhenELShasbeenestablishedforthesystemofinterest,itwill thenbepossible toassesseffectivenessof current practicesfor achievingbothenvironmentalandlivelihoodsustainability. Trade-offsandsynergiesforclimate-compatibledevelopmentcanalsobe evaluated through scenario analysis exploring complex cross-linkages.Forexample,inthecaseofPacificIslands,viable nexus-livelihoodssolutionsmightbeidentifiedsuchaspotentialclean energygeneration,forexample,utilisingtidalprocessesorbiofuel production(Cloin,2007)whichdirectlyenhancelivelihoodsina sustainablemanner.WithintheELSframework,itispossibleto identifytrade-offswithfoodandwaterforlivelihoods,toensure humandemand is balanced against natural supply in meeting sustainabledevelopmenttargets.

Theframeworkinherentlyaccountsforsystemdynamicsand, throughidentifyingsynergiesandtrade-offs,encapsulatessystem feedbackssuchasthedirectionandpacethatELSmaytransition acrossspatialandtemporalscales.Thismayassistintheprocessof identifyingwhethertheELSofanyparticularsystemisindynamic equilibrium,hasmultiple-equilibriums(suchasimpoverishedand environmentally degraded componentsas well as wealthy and environmentallysustainablecomponents)orislinearlyincreasing ordeclininginageneralsense.Whilethiscapacityresonateswith systemsthinking theory(seeEnfors, 2013;Tittonell, 2014), the

framework providesa moreintegrativeapproach tomonitoring and evaluatingsustainable development acrossmultiplespatial and temporal scales, while still ensuring that a people-centred livelihoodsfocusremainsatitscore.Inthisway,theapproachmay contributetoachievingmoregeneraltargetssuchastheSDGSina moreholisticand equitablemanner, andcanalsobeappliedat smallerscales.

7. ContributionsoftheELSframeworktopolicy

Insights derived from the ELS framework provide a readily accessiblestructureforanalysisandcomprehensiveassessmentof either new or adjusted policy instruments. As an example, retrospective application of the ELS framework to research conductedinCambodiabytheInternationalWaterManagement Institute(IWMI)(deSilva,2014; deSilvaetal., 2014;Johnston etal.,2014)providesasuitablepointofreferencetomeasureELS fortheTonleSaplakesystemandidentifysynergiesandtrade-offs betweennexus-livelihoodscomponents.Cambodiangovernment policy seeks to intensify rice production as a national poverty reduction measure, which has profound implications for this uniquesocio-ecohydrologicalsystem.Variableswhichdefinethe systemhavealreadybeenidentifiedbyvariousstudies(Johnston etal.,2013;deSilva,2014;deSilvaetal.,2014;Johnstonetal., 2014)andindicatorscouldbederivedtomeasurethesevariables within thecontextof theELSframework. Thiswould highlight implicationsforthesustainabilityoffisheriesinthecontextofrice intensification.IfthisproblemhadbeenstructuredusingtheELS framing, a range of policy measures could be investigated to safeguardandenhancefisheries.Thesecouldincluderegulationof pesticide quality, reduction in pesticide use through farmer educationandintegrated pestmanagementapproaches,in-field watermanagement,in-fieldfishrefuges,communityrefugeponds (artificialornatural)andreservoirandpondaquaculture.These effectively resonate with the livelihood outcomes as identified withinsustainablelivelihoodsframings(e.g.DfID,2001).However, throughapplicationoftheELSframeworktheunderlyingwater, energyandfoodsecuritiescanbeidentifiedinlinewithlivelihoods andtheoutcomeismoremeaningfulforensuringenvironmental securityisattained.

AnotherexampleapplicationoftheELSframeworkwouldbeto exploitsynergiesinpolicyformulationwhenconsidering alterna-tiveadaptationoptionsinresponsetocoastalfloodinganderosion. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are often vulnerable to external economicshocks,natural disastereventsand changing climatic conditions (including sea level rise). In developing adaptation and mitigation strategies, theELS framework could provideausefultoolforselectingpolicymeasuresthatenhance socioecologicalresilienceofcoastalsystemsexposedtofrequent floodingevents.Forexample,arecentUnitedNationsEnvironment Programme(UNEP) vulnerabilityassessment in LamiTown,Fiji (Raoetal.,2013)demonstratedthatecosystem-basedadaptation strategies involvingrehabilitationofmangrovehabitatsallowed for improved water quality maintenance and food production. Ecosystemrestorationwasachievedthroughreestablishmentof nurserygroundsforsubsistenceand commerciallyvaluablefish species. Simultaneously, attempts were made to protect basic infrastructureandminimiselivelihooddisruptionregardingaccess to water and energy supplies. In circumstances such as these exampleswherelivelihood-environmentinteractionsare promi-nent,anexus-livelihoodsapproachcouldbeadoptedtoinvestigate systemtrade-offsandsynergies(suchasthroughapplyingtheELS framework),toprovideastrongerevidencebaseforpolicy-makers toensuresustainableuseofnatural resourcestoachievewater, energyandfoodsecurityforlivelihoods.

8. Concludingremarks

Poverty eradication is the overarching target of the United Nations (2014) SDGs with an overall commitment to ‘‘free humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency’’ (UnitedNations,2014;p.1).Sustainedpovertyeradicationisalsoa centralgoalofsustainablelivelihoodsapproachesinrecognition thatsustainableandfulfillinglivelihoodsarecriticaltobreaking the poverty cycle (FAO, 2002). It therefore seems crucial to consider livelihoods more explicitly when presenting a set of globaltargetstoachievefuturesustainabledevelopmentofsociety asawhole.Water,energyandfoodsecurityarekeyfocalelements forreducingpovertybyensuringadequateresourcesforsustaining and improving livelihoodsin equitableways. Concurrently, the preservationofecosystemsiscrucialforsustaininghealthynatural environmentsandecosystemsviaprovisioningservicestodirectly orindirectlyprovidefoundationsforlivelihoods(MEA,2005).

This paper’s development of an integrated framework to identifytheELS ofa systemallows livelihoodsto beexplicitly encapsulated within nexus thinking. This framework enables conceptual and practical examination of human demand and naturalresourcesupplywithinasystemtoensuresocio-ecological resilience and promote sustainable solutions for livelihoods throughidentifyingnexussynergiesandtrade-offs.Theframework presented here can be applied to real-world multi-scale case studies,providingavaluableconceptualmechanismfor monitor-ingsustainabledevelopmentprogress,balancingparallelagendas, informing policy and governance at all levels, aiding climate-compatible development and assisting in progression towards global poverty eradication; thereby contributing, as we have proposed in this paper, to the ultimate aim of securing the environmentandlivelihoodsofboth‘developed’and‘developing’ communities. In summary, the framework presented has the potentialto:

Assesstheenvironmentallivelihoodsecurityofasystem. Considerthelinkagesbetweenwater,energy,foodandlivelihood

securitieswithinasystem.

Identify trade-offsand synergieswithin the systemto better informdecision-makingregardingsustainabledevelopment. Assistinascertainingthebalancebetweenhumandemandand

naturalresourcesupplytoachievesustainability.

Account for external pressures and stresses acting upon the system.

Provideausefultoolformonitoringasystem’sprogresstowards achievingenvironmentallivelihoodsecurity.

Allow researchers to investigate systems in detail from an appliednexus-livelihoodscontext.

Enable policy-makerstouseresearchoutputsformorerobust decision-making.

Significancestatement

Thewater–energy–food nexushasbecomecentralto discus-sionsregardingthedevelopmentand subsequentmonitoringof the sustainable development goals (SDGs) for the post-2015 agenda.Ourresearchpresentsanovelframeworkforintegrating livelihoods dynamics into the water–energy–food nexus. The framework builds upon the strengths of nexus and livelihood approachestoexploreanddeveloptheconceptof‘environmental livelihood security’: an integrated and holistic approach to measuring and achieving sustainable development outcomes acrossmulti-scalesystemstobetter-informpolicyand develop-mentagendas.Applicationoftheframeworkwillenableabaseline formonitoring progressin meeting development targetsacross

multiple scales. Further, the framework we propose has the capacity to take the spatial heterogeneity of livelihoods and environmental resources into account, enhancing both the efficiencyandequityofdevelopmentoutcomes.

Acknowledgements

ThisresearchwasfundedbytheWorldUniversitiesNetwork andtheUniversitiesofSouthampton,WesternAustralia,Sydney andAuckland.TheauthorswouldliketothankDrEmmaTompkins for her helpful discussions, as well as the insights of two anonymousreviewerswhosecommentshavehelpedstrengthen thispaper.

References

Aggarwal,P.K.,Joshi,P.K.,Ingram,J.S.I.,Gupta,R.K.,2004.Adaptingfoodsystems oftheIndo-Gangeticplainstoglobalenvironmentalchange:keyinformation needstoimprovepolicyformulation.Environ.Sci.Policy7,487–498.

Allison,E.,Ellis,F.,2001.Thelivelihoodsapproachandmanagementof small-scalefisheries.Mar.Policy25,377–388.

Bebbington,A.,1999.Capitalandcapabilities:aframeworkforanalysing peasantviability,rurallivelihoodsandpoverty.WorldDev.27,2021–2044.

Biggs,E.M.,Boruff,B.,Bruce,E.,Duncan,J.M.A.,Duce,S.,Haworth,B.J.,Horsley,J., Curnow,J.,Neef,A.,McNeill,K.,Pauli,N.,VanOgtrop,F.,Imanari,Y.,2014.

EnvironmentalLivelihoodSecurityinSouth-EastAsiaandOceania:a nexus-livelihoodsapproachforspatiallyassessingchange.In:IWMI-CGIARWhite PaperInternationalWaterManagementInstitute,Colombo,SriLanka,Online at:hhttp://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/other-publication-types/ environmental-livelihood-security-south-east-asia-oceania/i(accessed October2014).

Black,R.,White,H.,2004.TargetingDevelopment:CriticalPerspectivesonthe MillenniumDevelopmentGoals.Routledge,London.

Boruff,B.J.,Cutter,S.L.,2007.TheenvironmentalvulnerabilityofCaribbean islandnations.Geog.Rev.97,24–45.

Bouapao,L.,2012.Livelihoodsandmigration.In:Smajgl,A.,Ward,J.(Eds.), TheWater–Food–EnergyNexusintheMekongRegion.Springer,NewYork, NY,Chapter5.

Briguglio,L.,1995.Small-IslandDevelopingStatesandtheirEconomic Vulnerabilities.WorldDev.23,1615–1632.

Briguglio,L.,2004.Economicvulnerabilityandresilience:conceptsand measurements.In:Briguglio,L.,Kisanga,E.J.(Eds.),Vulnerabilityand ResilienceofSmallStates.CommonwealthSecretariatandtheUniversityof Malta,Malta, pp.43–53.

Briguglio,L.,2014.AVulnerabilityandResilienceFrameworkforSmallStates. ReportpreparedfortheCommonwealthSecretariat.

Briguglio,L.,Galea,W.,2003.Updatingandaugmentingtheeconomic vulnerabilityindex.In:OccasionalReportsonIslandsandSmallStates,No. 2004/4.IslandsandSmallStates,InstituteoftheUniversityofMalta,Malta.

Briguglio,L.,Cordina,G.,Farrugia,N.,Vella,S.,2006.Conceptualisingand measuringeconomicresilience.In:Briguglio,L.,Cordina,G.,Kisanga,E.E. (Eds.),BuildingtheEconomicResilienceofSmallStates.IslandsandSmall StatesInstituteincollaborationwiththeCommonwealthSecretariat,Malta, pp.265–288.

Brocklesby,M.,Fisher,E.,2003.Communitydevelopmentinsustainable livelihoodsapproaches—anintroduction.CommunityDev.J.38,185–198.

Brown,P.,Daigneault,A.,Gawith,D.,Aalbersberg,W.,Comley,J.,Fong,P., Morgan,F.,2014.EvaluatingEcosystem-BasedAdaptationforDisasterRisk ReductioninFiji.LandcareResearch,NewZealandOnlineathhttp:// www.landcareresearch.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/77341/ Fiji_disaster_risk_reduction.pdfi(accessedOctober2014).

Carswell,G.,1997.Agriculturalintensificationandruralsustainablelivelihoods. InstituteofDevelopmentStudies,BrightonIDSWorkingPaper64.

Chambers,R.,Conway,G.R.,1992.Sustainablerurallivelihoods:Practical conceptsforthe21stcentury.In:IDSDiscussionPaperNo.296.Instituteof DevelopmentStudies,Brighton.

Cleaver,F.,Franks,T.,2005.Howinstitutionseludedesign:riverbasin managementandsustainablelivelihoods.AlternativeWaterForum,Bradford CentreforInternationalDevelopment,Bradford.

Cloin,J.,2007.CoconutoilasafuelinthePacificIslands.Nat.Resour.Forum31, 119–127.

Conroy,C.,Litvinoff,M.(Eds.),1988. TheGreeningofAid:Sustainable LivelihoodsinPractice.Earthscan,London.

Deacon,C.,2012.SustainableLivelihoodsinthePacificIslands:TheCaseof Levuka,Fiji.OxfordBrookesUniversity,OxfordThesissubmittedforMA DegreeinDevelopmentandEmergencyPractice.

deSilva,S.,2014.InstitutionalprofilesfromtheTonleSapLakeregion:findings frominformantinterviews.In:ProgramReport:AAS-2014-44CGIAR ResearchProgramonAquaticAgriculturalSystems,Penang,Malaysia.

deSilva,S.,Johnston,R.,SenaratnaSellamuttu,S.,2014.Agriculture,irrigation andpovertyreductioninCambodia:policynarrativesandgroundrealities

compared.In:WorkingPaper:AAS-2014-13CGIARResearchProgramon AquaticAgriculturalSystems,Penang,Malaysia.

DfID(DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment),2001.SustainableLivelihoods GuidanceSheets.DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment,London.

Donohue,C.,Biggs,E.M.,2015.Monitoringsocio-environmentalchangefor sustainabledevelopment:developingamultidimensionallivelihoodsindex (MLI).Appl.Geogr.62,391–403.

Enfors,E.,2013.Social–ecologicaltrapsandtransformationsindryland agro-ecosystems:usingwatersysteminnovationstochangethetrajectoryof development.GlobalEnviron.Change23,51–60.

Ericksen,P.J.,2008.Conceptualizingfoodsystemsforglobalenvironmental changeresearch.GlobalEnviron.Change18,234–245.

FAO,2002.AnalyticalFramework:SustainableLivelihoods.FoodandAgriculture OrganisationoftheUnitedNationsAccessedathhttp://fao.org/docrep/007/ j2602e02.htmi(accessed17March2014).

FAO,2008.TheLivelihoodAssessmentTool-Kit:AnalysingandRespondingto theImpactofDisastersontheLivelihoodsofPeople.FoodandAgriculture OrganisationoftheUnitedNations,Rome.

FAO,2012.MutuallyAcceptableMechanismonIntegratedUseofWater ResourcesinCentralAsia:ApplicationoftheScenarioApproach.Foodand AgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,Rome.

FAO,2014.TheWater–Energy–FoodNexus:ANewApproachinSupportofFood SecurityandSustainableAgriculture.FoodandAgricultureOrganisationof theUnitedNations,Rome.

Fargione,J.,Hill,J.,Tilman,D.,Polasky,S.,Hawthorne,P.,2008.Landclearing andthebiofuelcarbondebt.Science319,1235–1238.

Farrington,J.,2001.Sustainablelivelihoods,rightsandthenewarchitectureof aid.In:NaturalResourcePerspectives69OverseasDevelopmentInstitute, London.

Forbes,D.L.,James,T.S.,Sutherland,M.,Nichols,S.E.,2013.Physicalbasisof coastaladaptationontropicalsmallislands.SustainabilitySci.8,327–344.

Giampietro,M.,Aspinall,R.J.,Bukkens,S.G.F.,CadilloBenalcazar,J.,Diaz-Maurin, F.,Flammini,A.,Gomiero,T.,Kovacic,Z.,Madrid,C.,Ramos-Martı´n,J., Serrano-Tovar,T.,2013.AninnovativeaccountingframeworkfortheFood– Energy–WaterNexus—applicationoftheMuSIASEMapproachtothreecase studies.In:EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesWorkingPaperNo.56.Food andAgricultureOrganisationoftheUnitedNations,Rome.

Gourdji,S.,Craig,M.,Shirley,R.,PoncedeLeonBarido,D.,Campos,E.,Giraldo, M.,Lopez,M.,PereiradeLucena,A.F.,Luger,M.,Kammen,D.M.,2014.

Sustainabledevelopmentopportunitiesattheclimate,land,energyand waternexusinNicaragua.In:CenterforLatinAmericanStudies,Working PaperNo.33.UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA.

Granit,J.,Ja¨gerskog,A.,Lindstro¨m,A.,Bjo¨rkland,G.,Bullock,A.,Lo¨fgren,R.,de Gooijer,G.,Pettigrew,S.,2012.Regionaloptionsforaddressingthewater, energyandfoodnexusinCentralAsiaandtheAralSeaBasin.Int.J.Water Resour.Dev.28,419–432.

Griggs,D.,Stafford-Smith,M.,Gaffney,O.,Rockstrom,J.,Ohman,M.C., Shyamsundar,P.,Steffan,W.,Glaser,G.,Kanie,N.,Noble,I.,2013.

Sustainabledevelopmentgoalsforpeopleandplanet.Nature495,305–307.

Hoff,H.,2011.UnderstandingtheNexus:BackgroundPaperfortheBonn 2011Conference:TheWater,EnergyandFoodSecurityNexus.Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute,Stockholm.

Horsley,J.,Prout,S.,Tonts,M.,Ali,S.H.,2015.Sustainablelivelihoodsand indicatorsforregionaldevelopmentinminingeconomies.Extr.Ind.Soc.2, 368–380.

Howells,M.,Hermann,S.,Welsch,M.,Bazilian,M.,Segerstro¨m,R.,Alfstad,R., Gielen,D.,Rogner,H.,Fischer,G.,vanVelthuizen,H.,Wiberg,D.,Young,C., Roehrl,A.,Mueller,A.,Steduto,P.,Ramma,I.,2013.Integratedanalysisof climatechange,land-use,energyandwaterstrategies.Nat.Clim.Change3, 621–626.

Johnston,R.,deSilva,S.,Try,T.,2014.2014Investinginwatermanagementto improveproductivityofrice-basedfarmingsystemsinCambodia.In:Robins, L.(Ed.),APolicyDialogueonRiceFutures:Rice-BasedFarmingSystems ResearchintheMekongRegion,ACIARProceedingsNo142.Australian CentreforInternationalAgriculturalResearch,Canberra,Proceedingsofa dialogueheldinPhnomPenh,7–9May2014,Cambodia.

Johnston,R.,Roberts,M.,Try,T.,deSilva,S.,2013.GroundwaterforIrrigationin Cambodia,IssueBrief#3fromtheInvestinginWaterManagementto ImproveProductivityofRice-basedFarmingSystemsinCambodiaProject, June2013.IWMI-ACIAR,Colombo,SriLanka.

Kad,S.,Weir,T.,2008.Virgincoconutoilasatoolforsustainabledevelopment inouterislands.Pac.Econ.Bull.23,50–62.

Kattelus,M.,MizanurRahaman,M.,Varis,O.,2014.Myanmarunderreform: emergingpressuresonwater,energyandfoodsecurity.Nat.Resour.Forum 38,85–98.

Kemp-Benedict,E.,Bharwani,S.,delaRosa,E.,Krittasudthacheewa,C.,Matin,N., 2009.AssessingWater-relatedPovertyUsingtheSustainableLivelihoods Framework.StockholmEnvironmentInstitute,Stockholm.

Khan,S.,Khan,M.A.,Hanjra,M.A.,Mu,J.,2009.Pathwaystoreducethe environmentalfootprintsofwaterandenergyinputsinfoodproduction. FoodPolicy34,141–149.

MEA(MillenniumEcosystemAssessment),2005.EcosystemsandHuman Well-Being.WorldResourcesInstitute,Washington,DC.

Morse,S.,McNamara,N.,Acholo,M.,2009.Sustainablelivelihoodapproach:a criticalanalysisoftheoryandpractice.In:GeographicalPaperNo.189. UniversityofReading,Reading.

Nicol,A.,2000.Adoptingasustainablelivelihoodsapproachtowaterprojects: implicationsforpolicyandpractice.In:ODIWorkingPaper133Overseas DevelopmentInstitute,London.

Pound,B.,Snapp,S.,McDougall,C.,Braun,A.(Eds.),2003. Managingnatural resourcesforsustainablelivelihoods:unitingscienceandparticipation. Routledge,London.

Pritchard,B.,Rammohan,A.,Sekher,M.,Parasuramn,S.,Choithani,C.,2013.

FeedingIndia:Livelihoods,EntitlementsandCapabilities.Routledge,London.

Rasul,G.,2014.Food,waterandenergysecurityinSouthAsia:anexus perspectivefromtheHinduKushHimalayanregion.Environ.Sci.Policy39, 35–48.

Ringler,C.,Bhaduri,A.,Lawford,R.,2013.Thenexusacrosswater,energy,land andfood(WELF):potentialforimprovedresourceuseefficiency? Curr. Opin.Environ.Sustainability5,617–624.

Rao,N.S.,Carruthers,T.J.B.,Anderson,P.,Sivo,L.,Saxby,T.,Durbin,T.,Jungblut, V.,Hills,T.,Chape,S.,2013.In:Aneconomicanalysisofecosystem-based adaptationandengineeringoptionsforclimatechangeadaptationinLami Town,RepublicoftheFijiIslands. AtechnicalreportbytheSecretariatof thePacificRegionalEnvironmentProgramme,Apia,Samoa.

Rockstro¨m,J.,Steffen,W.,Noone,K.,Persson,A.,Chapin,F.S.,Lambin,E.F., Lenton,T.M.,Scheffer,M.,Folke,C.,Schellnhuber,H.J.,Nykvist,B.,deWit, C.A.,Hughes,T.,vanderLeeuw,S.,Rodhe,H.,So¨rlin,S.,Snyder,P.K., Costanza,R.,Svedin,U.,Falkenmark,M.,Karlberg,L.,Corell,R.,Fabry,V.J., Hansen,J.,Walker,B.,Liverman,D.,Richardson,K.,Crutzen,P.,Foley,J.A., 2009.aORb?.Planetaryboundaries:exploringthesafeoperatingspacefor humanity. Ecol.Soc.14,32.

Scoones,I.,1998.SustainableRuralLivelihoods:AFrameworkforAnalysis. WorkingPaper72.InstituteforDevelopmentStudies,Brighton,UK.

Scoones,I.,2009.Livelihoodsperspectivesandruraldevelopment.J.Peasant Stud.36,171–296.

Sen,A.K.,1981.PovertyandFamine:AnEssayonEntitlementandDeprivation. OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.

Sen,A.K.,1999.DevelopmentasFreedom.OxfordPaperbacks,Oxford.

Tittonell,P.,2014.Livelihoodstrategies,resilienceandtransformabilityinAfrica. Agric.Syst.126,3–14.

Tompkins,E.L.,Mensah,A.,King,L.,Long,T.K.,Lawson,E.T.,Hutton,C.W., Hoang,V.A.,Gordon,C.,Fish,M.,Dyer,J.,Bood,N.,2013.Aninvestigationof theevidenceofbenefitsfromclimatecompatibledevelopment.In: SustainabilityResearchInstitutePaper,44SustainabilityResearchInstitute, London.

Turner,B.L.,Kasperson,R.E.,Matson,P.A.,McCarthy,J.J.,Corell,R.W.,

Christensen,L.,Eckley,N.,Kasperson,J.X.,Luers,A.,Martello,M.L.,Polsky,C., Pulsipher,A.,Schiller,A.,2003.Aframeworkforvulnerabilityanalysisin sustainabilityscience.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.(PNAS)100,8074–8079.

UnitedNations,2012.Thefuturewewant.In:Resolution66/288. Rio+20UnitedNationsConferenceonSustainableDevelopment.UN GeneralAssembly,RiodeJaneiro,Brazil.

UnitedNations,2014.IntroductionandProposedGoalsandTargetson SustainableDevelopmentforthePost2015DevelopmentAgenda.United NationsOnlineathhttp://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/4528zerodraft12OWG.pdfi(accessedSeptember2014).

Verhoeven,J.T.A.,Setter,T.L.,2010.Agriculturaluseofwetlands:opportunities andlimitations.Ann.Bot.105,155–163.

vonDach,S.W.,Ott,C.,Klaey,A.,Stillhardt,B.,2006.Willinternationalpursuitof themillenniumdevelopmentgoalsalleviatepovertyinmountains? MT. Res.Dev.26,4–8.

Warner,K.,2000.Forestryandsustainablelivelihoods.Unasylva51,3–12.

WCED,1987.OurCommonFuture.WorldCommissiononEnvironmentand Development,Oxford.

WorldEconomicForum(WEF),2011.WaterSecurity:TheWater–Food–Energy– ClimateNexus.WorldEconomicForum,WashingtonDC.

WWAP(UnitedNationsWorldWaterAssessmentProgramme),2015.TheUnited NationsWorldWaterDevelopmentReport2015:WaterforaSustainable World.UNESCO,Paris.