Understanding barriers to decision making in the UK energy-food-water nexus: The added value of interdisciplinary approaches

Understanding

barriers

to

decision

making

in

the

UK

energy-food

-water

nexus:

The

added

value

of

interdisciplinary

approaches

Candice

Howarth

a,

*,

Irene

Monasterolo

b

a

GlobalSustainabilityInstitute,AngliaRuskinUniversity,CambridgeCB11PT,UK

b

FrederickS.PardeeCenterfortheStudyoftheLonger-RangeFuture,BostonUniversity,Boston,MA02215,USA

ARTICLE INFO Articlehistory: Received11March2016

Receivedinrevisedform23March2016 Accepted24March2016

Availableonline5April2016 Keywords: Water-energy-foodnexus Shocks Barriers Decisionmaking Climatechange ABSTRACT

Thenexus representsamulti-dimensionalmeansofscientificenquirywhichseekstodescribethe complex and non-linear interactions betweenwater, energy, food, with the climate, and further understandwiderimplicationsforsociety.Theseresourcesarefundamentalforhumanlifebut are negativelyaffectedbyshockssuchasclimatechangeandcharacterizesomeofthemainchallengesfor global sustainable development.Given themultidimensional and complex nature of thenexus, a transdisciplinaryapproachtoknowledgedevelopmentthroughco-productionisneededtotimelyand effectivelyinformthedecisionmakingprocessestobuildsocietalresiliencetotheseshocksgoingbeyond thesectoralityofcurrentresearchpractice.Thepaperpresentsfindingsfromfivethemedworkshops (shocksandhazards,infrastructure,localeconomy,governanceandgovernments,financeandinsurance) with80stakeholdersfromacademia,governmentandindustryintheUKtoexploretheimpactofclimate andweathershocksacrosstheenergy-food-waternexusandbarrierstorelatedresponses.Theresearch identifiedkey stakeholders’concerns, opportunitiesand barrierstobetter informdecisionmaking centred on four themes: communication and collaboration,decisionmaking processes, social and culturaldimensions,andthenatureofresponsestonexusshocks.Wediscussimplicationsofthese barriersandhowaddressingthesecanbetterfacilitateconstructivedialogueandmoreefficient decision-makinginresponsetonexusshocks.

ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1.Introduction

Globalsustainabledevelopmentchallengesthattheworldfaces suchasclimatechange,financialandmacroeconomicinstability, green growth,growing urbanization andincome inequality,are deeplyconnectedwithenergy,foodandwaterresources,orthe so-calledenergy-food-waternexus(WEF,2011;Smajglet al.,2016; Biggsetal.,2015).Theseresourcesarelimitedyetfundamentalfor coupledhuman-naturalsystemsandaredepletingataratefaster thantheplanetcanreplenish(FAO,2012).Humanactivitieshave devastating impacts on ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,2005)andcontributetoglobalscalechallengessuch as climate change (Smith et al., 2014) with growing evidence demonstratingnegativeimpactsonsocio-economicdevelopment affecting years of progress in tackling global poverty and vulnerability (World Bank, 2013). The year 2015 reached an importantmilestoneofaverageglobaltemperaturesreaching1C abovepre-industrialtimes(MetOffice,2015)andthelastdecade

wascharacterisedbymorefrequentanddisruptiveweatherevents (e.g.typhoonHaiyan,thePhilippinesandhurricaneKatrina,USA), representing94%ofinsuranceclaimsfor2015andcostingover$27 billion(MunichRe,2016).Inaddition,increasinguncertaintyover energysecurityandsignificantvolatilityinfoodandenergyprices ledtoincreasedriskofcivilunrestandpoliticalinstability(Hsiang etal.,2011;Kelleyetal.,2015).Thesehaveinturnincreasedsocial andeconomicrisksofcostsofnexus‘shocks’suchasfloodevents, energy blackouts or breadbasket failures (Munich Re, 2012; Hallegatteetal.,2016).

Thesecomplexsustainabilitychallengescallformajor innova-tion(Elyetal.,2013;Leachetal.,2012)andreflexive transforma-tion (Stirling, 2014).Asa concept, thenexusis supportedbya rapidlygrowingevidencebaseandacommunityofpractitioners andpolicymakers,providingapowerfulbutlargelydisconnected knowledge baseto understandthe relationships and trade-offs betweenthedifferentsectorsand disciplinescharacterisingthe nexus(Harris and Lyon,2013;Allan etal., 2015;Stirling, 2015; Kurianetal.,2016;Azapagic,2015).Thesehave,untilrecentlybeen viewed as separate and distinct. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers workingin andacrossthenexus havesoughtto

* Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](C.Howarth).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.014

1462-9011/ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Environmental

Science

&

Policy

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a te / en v s c i

characterize, understandand eliminate trade-offs and tensions acrossandbetweenthesesectors(Rasul,2015;RasulandSharma, 2015),whilstsimultaneouslyhighlightingopportunities,synergies andcommongoals(e.g.theUK’sEPSRCSandpitwater-energy-food nexusprojectandtheEU’sHorizon2020ResearchandInnovation ActionsonSocietalChallenges).Thereasonforthisisthattheuse ofenergy,foodandwater,andtheirmanagement,isattheheartof humandevelopmentandeconomicactivity(Hoff,2011).Therisks associated with the mis-management of these resources has createdasubstantialsocialdebateunderavarietyofframessuchas sustainabledevelopment,sustainability,greeneconomy, natural capital, environmental governanceand ecosystem services.The nexusis thelatestframingaround theseissues and provides a naturalframeforrethinkingsustainabilityasacomplexadaptive system foranalysing problems which can beapproached more effectively when considered holistically (Yumkella and Yillia, 2015).Inthisregard,thenexuscontributestothediscussionabout theidentificationofmoreeffectivemeasuresofeconomicsuccess todesignresilientbusinessstrategies(Reynoldsetal.,2014),and thus the need to go beyond GDP as an indicatorof economic activity(Stiglitzet al., 2010)to account for negativeand time dependantexternalitiesofhumanactionsonecosystems.

Weconsidernexusshocksaslowprobability,lowfrequencybut highimpactevents(intermsofphysicalandeconomiclosses)that spanenergy,waterandfoodsystems(Endoetal.,2015;Howarth, 2016). They impact multiple actors within and across country boundariesatscalesthatmakethemcomplextounderstandandto addresswith implications for integration into decision making processes(HusseyandPittock,2012).Moreover,theinterlinked natureofthenexuswithfinance,theeconomy,policygovernance anddemographicsimplies avarietyofsources ofshockstothe nexus.Thesecanbeeitherendogenous(e.g.theeffectsofclimate change risk on GDP, demographic trends and migration) and exogenous(e.g.financialinstabilityand marketbubbles),where

correlation of shocks occurring in the same and/or in several dimensionssimultaneouslyincreasestheriskofstrandedassets for both private and public investors and uncertainty about investors’portfolioallocation(MonasteroloandBattiston,2015). Themostrecentcatastrophiceventsandtheircostsintermsof GDPandhumanlives(e.g.HurricaneKatrina)showthatnosector isimmunefromtheseshocks.Inanextremelyglobalizedworld, singleeventsmayinducesystemic,cascadingeffectswhich can impact several sectors, processes, resources instrumental and fundamentalforhumandevelopment.Thus,addressingthisnexus challengemeansensuringtimelyaccesstokeyresourcessuchas water,foodandenergytoaglobalpopulationexpectedtoreach 9billionin2050,whichitselfhaschangingconsumptionpatterns and will reside predominantly in urban areas (UNDP, 2014). Similarly,amethodologicalframeworktoanalysethenexusinits multidimensionalityaccountingforfeedbackloopsandcascading effects is missing despite recent attempts to go beyond the sectorality of research. Therefore, in this paperwe explore the applicationofourfindingsofanewlydevelopedmethodologyto studynexusshocksandderiveimplicationsforpolicymaking. 2.Insidethewater-energy-foodnexus

Thenexusisdefinedbyanumberofelements(Table1)andcan bedescribedasboth(i)adescriptiveaccountofinteractionsand interdependenciesbetweentheelementsthatdefineit,aswellas (ii)aprocessthatenablesandsupportstransitionand transfor-mationacrosssectors and stakeholders.Thenexusallows fora more holistic understanding of (un)intended consequences of policies,technologiesand practiceswhilst highlightingareasof opportunityforfurtherexploration.Nexusthinkingrepresentsa multi-dimensional means of scientific enquiry which seeks to describethecomplexandnon-linearinteractionsbetweenwater, energy and food systems, with the climate, to support

Table1

Keyelementsthatdefinetheenergy-food-waternexus. Theme Characteristics

Uncertainty Uncertaintyaboutmutualimpacts

Policyuncertaintyintermsofbuildingresilience

Uncertaintyaroundsocietalchangesthatinfluencethenexus Connectivity Interconnectionandnetworkofrelations

Timeandpathdependencyofresponses Interlinkages

Risk Complexity

Potentialsystemiceffect

Potentialcascadingeffect(throughsocietyoracrossthenexus)

Impacts Cascading,amplifying,nullifyingimpactscombiningdiscretebutdefinedsectors

Nonlinearity Asimplesystemisaprocesswhereitscomponents,theirinteractionsandoutcomesareknownandcanbedefined(forexamplewherethe processstarts,howitworksandwhereitends).

Complexsystemsconsistofmultipleinteractingcomponents,wheretherelationshipsbetweenthedifferentvariablesisnotlinear.Theyare usuallycharacterisedby“alargenumberofuncoordinatedinteractionsbetween[its]elements”(Ladymanetal.,2013)whichcontribute determiningemergingbehavioursamongheterogeneousagents.Theorderinwhichtheseinteractionsoccurisneithercompletelycasual (random)norfollowsasetschedule(Holland,1995,1998).

Feedbacks Afeedbackcanbedefinedasthereactionfromacomponentorvariableofthesystemthatfollowsanactionfromadifferentcomponentofthe samesystem.

Negativefeedbackshaveabalancingeffectbetweentwovariablesorcomponentsofthesystemandusuallyrepresentaninverserelationship betweenthem(theactionandthereactionmoveinoppositedirections).

Positivefeedbackshaveareinforcing,amplifyingeffectbetweentwovariablesorcomponentsofthesystemandusuallyrepresentapositive relationshipbetweenthem(Forrester,1961;Sterman,2000;Mollona,2008).

Robustnessand flexibility

Incomplexsystems,theorderissaidtoberobust,evenifthesystemisperturbedbyendogenousforces,itstillremainsstableduetoitsfixed structure.Acentrallycontrolledsystemismoreexposedtointernalperturbations.

Emergence Emergentpatternsarecharacteristicsorbehavioursresultingfromacomplexsystemthatcouldnotbecapturedbymerelystudyingitssingle componentsinisolation(Holland,1995,1998).

Hierarchical organisation

Acomplexsystemisusuallyformedbyseveraldifferentsub-systemsandcomponentsallinteractingonewiththeothers. Theseareorganisedinahierarchicalstructurewherethecomplexsystemisatthetopandthesubsystemsareatthebottom. Independentsystem Thenexusexistsinitsownselfwithouttheneedforhumanintervention.Infact,humanintervention(social)hasdestabilisedcomplex

relationshipsamongdifferentvariablesinthenexuswithsocialresponsesaimingtostabiliseit

understandingoftheirwiderimplicationsforsociety(Smajgletal., 2016). The concept of the energy-food-water nexus captures interconnections,dependenciesandlinkagesbetweenproduction anduseofenergy,foodandwaterresources.Agricultureprovidesa usefulexampleofthis,accordingtotheFAO(2014),70%oftotal globalfreshwaterwithdrawalscomefromagricultureandareused for(i)foodproduction,(ii)forestry,(iii)fisheries,and(iv)energy production.However,asignificantamountofwateriswastedin agriculture, due to outdated irrigation systems, farmers’ low understandingofwater-savingtechnologiesandwaterintensive cropsgrowninwaterstressedareas(e.g.almonds inCalifornia, cottonandsugarbeetintheCaribbean).Simultaneously,thefood supplychainusescloseto30%oftotalenergyconsumedglobally, and energy represents 30–40% of production costs for farms throughfertilizers,machinery,fooddistributionsystemsand in ordertoextractandpumpwaterfromaquifersinwaterstressed areas.

In terms of understanding causality and impacts, decision makers have a tendency to focus on short term and sectoral boundedproblems/benefitsplacingless emphasisonlong term implications for the system as a whole (Sterman, 2012). Consequently,sector-bounddecisionslackingdiverseparticipation mechanisms(IlinandVarga,2015)areoften‘compartmentalised’ (Sharminaetal.,2016)andtakenwithlittleconsiderationforthe effects of those decisions onother sectors leading torebound, cascading or other negative effects, mainly due to the mutual interdependenceof these(Sterman,2006)withimplicationsfor consistenciesofdecisionmakingprocesses(Howellsetal.,2015). Thisraisesquestionsontheeffectivenessofthoseworkingatthe science-policyinterface(Sutherlandetal.,2012)andcanresultin undesiredperformancepatternsbothforindividualsectorsaswell asthehuman-naturalsystem,eventuallyleadingtotheemergence ofsystemicriskanditsspreadalongthesystem.

Thenexusischaracterisedbyhighlevelsofinterconnectivity anduncertaintyand consequentlybenefitsfromitsunbounded definition whilst being guided by its scope of approach and applicationwhenconsidering aspecific situationortopic. The wayinwhichtoorganizeitsgovernanceremainsanopenissue, particularly whenconsidering complexitiesaround the variety andformsofdatausedtoinformnexusrelateddecisionmaking (Gilbert and Bullock,2014).Questions onhow tostructure its governance remain unanswered but constructive research on toolstocompareapproaches(Mannschatzetal.,2016)andhow regional and local challenges can be better addressed when consideredfromlargerorbroaderperspectives(Scottetal.,2011) provide encouraging momentum into how to better inform decision making around nexus challenges. Stein et al. (2014) definea strategicactionperspectivetobuildthefoundationof nexusgovernance,acknowledgingthat(i)nexuschallengesare intrinsicallyrelatedtotheperceptions,interests,andpracticesof actorsassociatedwithanexus,(ii)thereistheneedtounderstand nexusgovernancebylookingattherelationshipsbetweenactors/ issuesandtheirnetworksacrossmultipledomains,and(iii)the needforunderstandingtheexistinggovernancearrangementsin whichthe nexus approach willbe introduced.Stirling (2015)

exploresthisand discusses theslowchange thatcharacterizes decisionmakingdynamicsandtheformationofevidencebased policies,movingfroma‘vertical’modelofexpert-drivenanalysis implementedbyorderlytop-downprocedurestomore horizon-tallydistributed formsimplementedthrough bottom-upaction throughsocialmobilisation.

Theimpactofclimatechangeonaccesstonexusresourcesinthe nextdecadeislikelytobepredominantlynegative(US Environmen-talProtectionAgency,2010;Smithetal.,2014;Lloyds,2015)witha rangeofpossibleissueslikelytooccur(e.g.ecosystemsandhuman systemsunderstress,accesstokeyresourcesandwellbeing:Asian

Development Bank (2013),Monasterolo and Battiston (2015)). Increasing difficultyto access nexus resourceshas multiple and multidimensionalconsequencessuchasuncertaintywithregardsto futureeconomicgrowth,spreadofriskonfinancialmarketsasa consequence of stranded assets,volatility of commodity prices, increasinginequalityandworseninglivingconditions,foodsecurity invulnerableregions(WorldBank,2012),andinternationalpolitical instability(e.g.theArabSpring:Lagietal.,2012;Nomura,2012). Adoptinganexuslensenablesaflexibleapproachthroughwhichthe system’sefficiencyandproductivityareconsideredasopposedto individualsector’sproductivityinisolation.Itiscomplex,andliesin theinterconnectionof differentsectors/subjects/resources them-selves characterised by complex behaviours because of the interconnectedness between their parts. Asa dynamic complex system,it has boundaries andis driven andframedby its non-linearity,feedbacksystem,spontaneity,robustness(Waldrop,1992; Ladymanetal.,2013).

Academic research attempts to constrain sustainability re-searchwithinspecificandwell-definedresearchareas,adopting existing area-specific approaches which have historically mis-aligned with decision maker’s needsand processes (Viner and Howarth,2014).Inaddition,athoroughcriticalassessmentofwhat atransdisciplinaryapproachis itscharacteristics,role, knowl-edge and tools needed for its implementation is missing alongsidea comprehensiveassessmentof howand whatit can contribute toresearchon decision making. Harris et al. (2014)

definedtherequirementsofatransdisciplinaryapproachfornexus analysisreviewingliterature(76publications)on trans-disciplin-aryresearchbutfocusingonlyonthechallengesto implementa-tion. In particular, they identified the associated theoretical (framing problems), methodological (different conceptions of proof) and practical challenges (communication, collaboration andtrustacrossgroupsofactorsbelongingtodifferentdisciplines) fornexusanalysis.Foracademia,theyfoundthatakeychallenge relates totheneedtoembracemultidimensionalknowledge,to adaptthemethodofinteractiontoaccountfortransdisciplinary teammembers(e.g.,defininganewlanguage,negotiate,acceptthe differentlogicsand values,redefinethepowerbalances among disciplines and among scientists and lay practitioners), an advantage to define the nexus. They found both common approachesandchallengestothecurrentbusiness-as-usual,sector basedscientificproductioninacademia.

Building on the findings and recommendations of recent literature, this paper attempts toaddress part of this gap and providesanoverviewofatransdisciplinaryapproachofanalysisfor understanding nexus shocks related to climate change risks, developingahow-toframeworkfortheanalysisoftheresource nexus.

3.Methodology

Drawing onfindingsfromanESRC-funded project(reference G1334-26) which brought together participants fromacademia, industry,policyandnon-governmentalorganisationsinfive work-shops, this paper innovatively addresses how to better inform decisionmakinginthecontextofshockstotheenergy-food-water nexus.Bybuildingontheresultsoftheworkshops(Howarthetal., 2015;HowarthandJones,2016)thispaperpresentsfindingsand discussestheroleoftransdisciplinaryapproachesinthecontextof thefollowingthemes:(i)assessingshockstotheenergy-food-water nexus and their interconnectedness with climate change, (ii) exploringbestpracticeandlessonslearnedintoprovideaccessible and relevant informationto policy makers, and (iii) identifying obstaclespreventing researchers and scholars fromdeveloping more transdisciplinaryapproachestoanalysenexusshocks.

A knowledge co-production approach was adopted where expertisefromacrossdisciplinesandfieldswasrepresentedbythe diversityofindividualsinvitedtotakepartintheworkshops.Using thisapproach,a preliminaryfocusgroupwasheld tore_finethe methodoftheworkshops,identifythekeythemestoexploreand assesssuitableparticipants(Howarthetal.,2015).Thepremisefor adopting models of co-production across sectors is useful for capturing different approaches to knowledge production by promoting stakeholders’ engagement and commitment. We adoptedacombinedtop-downandbottom-upapproachtoenable the co-design of knowledge and solutions to nexus risks by providingthespaceformultipleactorsinvolvedintheprocessto sharetheirsectorspecificexpertise,activelyengageandchallenge eachother_’sviews,culturesandcontributionstoparticipateina constructivedialogue.Eachworkshopcoveredonethefollowing themesasdefinedinthepreliminaryfocusgroup:(i)Predicting shocks and hazards (PSH), (ii) Transmission and mitigation of nexusrisksthoughinfrastructure(I),(iii)Localeconomyresponses toshocks(LE),(iv)Insuranceandfinanceforresilience(FI),and(v) Governance,governmentsand shocks(GG).Fivehalfday work-shopswereheldinLondon,UKbetweenSeptemberandOctober 2015withn=78individuals(Fig.1andTable2)fromthree pre-definedcategories:(i)academic,(ii)practitioner(directlyinvolved inimplementationofclimate-relatedsolutionsordecisionmaking processesontheground)and(iii)policycommunities(involvedin formulatingpoliciesanddecisionsonclimatechangeandnexus related issues). Participants were approached based on their knowledge, expertise and experience of decision-making on climatechangeand nexusrelated issues, forexample decision-making processes directly related to or with implications for energy,foodand/orwaterinteractions.Thesewereidentifiedusing an assessment of the literature and of UK institutions and individuals in positions that fit one of the aforementioned categories, approached via the project contacts and networks. Participantswereinvitedtooneormoreoftheworkshopswith sufficientnoticetomaximisethechancesoftheiravailability,on occasionswherespecificinviteeswereunabletoattend,theywere askedtosendasubstitutefromtheirorganisation.

Theworkshopsexploredinthefirstinstancethereasonsand consequences of persisting sectorality of current scientific research, which fails to analyse the systemic and

multidimensional characteristics of risk linked to the nexus challenges,andin providingtimely,transparentand accessible results to non-academics and policy makers. Secondly, we explored therange of involvementof stakeholders in de_fining theissuesatstakefor buildingresiliencetonexusshocksboth at the sector and societal level, and identifying effective solutions. Finally, we assessed the limited understanding of the role of governance on policy implementation, and the multidimensional incentives involvedin the policy cycle.Each workshopadoptedasemi-structuredapproach,withastructure piloted and refined beforehand. Workshops lasted half a day eachwithdiscussionsrecordedinwrittenformatwithconsent from all participants. The workshops where conducted under Chatham House rule to encourage open constructive dialogue onthekey themesdiscussed.Discussions wereanalysedusing thematic analysis and were drafted as a workshop summary which was then shared with participants to review and comment onit as part of theinternal reviewprocess. 4.Resultsandfindings

Eachworkshopbeganwitharapidexercisetoassessanddiscuss participant’sexperienceofdecision-makingrelatedtonexusshocks. ParticipantsrepresentedUKorganisationssuchasSMEs,scientific organisations,non-governmentalorganisations,international con-sultancies, government departments, universities, privatesector organisations,thefinancesectorwithnexusrelatedshocksranging frominfrastructureresilience,emergencyserviceresponses,design andimplementationoflow-carbontechnologies,urban re-genera-tion,energytransitionsandwater-foodsupplyresilience.Whilethe samplesize(n=78)andgeographicrepresentationofthe partic-ipants(i.e.UnitedKingdom)necessitatescaveatswithregardstothe representation of our findings and suggests the role of further researchwithlargersamplesizesandrepresentationfromdifferent geographical andsectoral populations,findingsfromthee work-shopsnonethelessprovidevaluableinsightsintodecisionmaking undernexusshockscenarios.

Analysis of workshop discussions identified four dominant themesthatemergedasbarrierstodecision-makinginthecontext ofnexusshocks, acrosseach of theworkshops: communication andcollaboration,decisionmakingprocesses,socialandcultural dimensions,andthenatureofresponsestonexusshocks.Analysis anddiscussionofeachtheme,withreferencetoeachworkshop,1is presentedbelowandsummarisedinTable3.

4.1.Communicationandcollaboration

Communicationand collaborationareseenasvitaltoensure themostappropriateandrobustevidenceinformsdecisionmakers

1

The following codes are used to identifythe source of discussion: PSH: Predictingshocksandhazards;I:Infrastructure;LE:Localeconomy;FI:Financeand insurance;GG:Governanceandgovernments

Table2

Workshopparticipants.

Workshop Participanttype

Academic Practitioner Policy Total Predictingshocksandhazards(PSH) 7 4 4 15 Infrastructure(I) 6 6 3 15 Localeconomy(LE) 1 7 3 11 Financeandinsurance(FI) 4 14 2 20 Governanceandgovernments(GG) 7 5 5 17

Total 25 36 17 78

atalllevelswithinthecontextofanexusshock.Whilstwehave described above the inter-disciplinarity of the nexus and the complexities around decision making, issues related to communication arise as a result of its cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary nature. For example collaboration between actorsacrosssectorsimpactedbynexusshockscanleadtoclashes inlanguagesandlexiconsaswellasskillsetsandexpertisefurther exacerbating barriers that may emerge in the communication process (PSH). In addition, evidence productionwas a key sub themewhichemergedduetothevaryinglevelsofdataproduced andtheimplicationsthiscanhavesuchastunnel vision,biased decisionmaking,failuretoconsideralternativedataandformsof evidence(PSH).Evidenceproducedinthecontextofanexusshock isoftengeneratedinimmediateresponsetotheshocktakingplace leading to insufficient ‘foresight’ thinking on the immediate impacts of the shock, particularly when this is a gradual or cascading shock within a system. This then was discussed by participantsashavingimplicationsforbetterinformingresponses andhowthesecouldbeadequatelyusedbydecisionmakers(GG). The rangeof stakeholders participatingin theworkshopsshed lightontheconflictingsystemsandprocesseswhichexist,andthe implications of loss of historical memory of decision making processesasanexample.Thiswas discussedparticularlyin the contextofinfrastructureresilienceandsystemsinplacetorespond toshockswherelossofexpertiseaswellasgapsintrainingand skillsdevelopment,forexampleinpolicyorganisationswithhigh turnover,leadstoacycleofknowledgeproductionwithminimal considerationfor theimportanceof capturingthedevelopment andevolutionofthisknowledgeandlessonslearnt(I).

Concernsaround the complexities withcommunicating risk andlevelsofuncertaintyinevidenceemergedstrongly, particu-larlywhendecisionmakersarelookingforclearadviceasopposed toarangeofprobabilities(PSH)andtheythemselvescommunicate risksthroughtheirownestablishedprocesses(GG).Thiswasfeltto be the case for infrastructure where the complexities of how shocks impact the built environment are unpredictable. When combinedwithalackofunderstandingoffuturesocietalneedsand the uncertainty surrounding the resilience of infrastructure to theseshocks(I),communicationwasperceivedasanexacerbator ofnegativeimpactswithincreasedvulnerabilityofthesystemat the core (I). This mismatch between knowledge producers understanding of risk, uncertainty and complexity emerged particularlywhendiscussingthenational,internationalandlocal contexts.Themultiplevoicesandactorsthatinteractinresponse toa nexus shock, for exampleat the locallevel, can lead toa convolutedandconfusedunderstandingofrisksofnexusshocksin generalandtherisksofthislocally(LE).

The process through which communication channels are designedtoaiddecisionmakingprocessescanthemselvescreate complexities. For example the timing and accessibility of communicationisvitaltomanage_flowsofinformationtodifferent stakeholdersandspecifictimesandavoidsaturation(PSH).Lackof communication and transparency can lead to challenges in bringingtogetherappropriatestakeholderstoco-createdecisions with full consideration of implications on other sectors and stakeholders. This is further exacerbated by a self-reinforcing process by which this lack of communication affects trusted relationshipsandreducesconfidenceinjudgement-baseddecision making(GG).Awarenessoftheflowofinformationcanbeseverely affectedbydisruptiontocommunicationchannelsduringandafter ashockwhereasupportinfrastructurehighlydependentuponby stakeholdersandthepubliccanbeineffectiveorunusableduring and/or after a shock (PSH). This over-dependency can have unexpectedconsequencesgoingbeyondexpectedinfrastructure, resourceordecisionmakingprocesses.Whilstincreasinglyusedto communicatearoundarangeofissues,andemergingasusefulto

informdecisionmaking,socialmediatoolswerealsodiscussedby participantswithmixedviewsontheiruseastheywerefelttoat times over-complicate processes for managing responses and actorsinvolvedinthatresponse(GG).Similarlyitwasfeltthatthe abundanceofinformationdiscussedearlierisfurtherexacerbated bythemediumofcommunicationsuchassocialandconventional mediaprocesses leadingtodesensitisedaudiencesontheissue (LE).

A general misunderstanding of the knowledge needs of different audiences is particularly evidenced around the local levelwheregeneralisedmessagesonshockstailoredtoaregional, national or international context may be inadequate locally particularlyifitfailstofullyconsiderthiscontext(LE).Thiswas also the case in considering the financial dimensions of nexus shocks were low financial literacy and low understanding of societalcurrentandfutureneedsexacerbatedperceptionsofthe issue(FI).Thesaturationoftheinformationspacearoundoneissue was felttooftenleadtoreductionsintrustofdecision makers. Warinessofrepeatedmessagesaddedtothislackoftrusttowards decision-makers and those informing them (LE) which could potentiallyleadtoreputationalrisks(PSH)withimplicationsfor subsequent decisionmakingprocessesifaudienceareunableto trustthemessengerorthedecisionmaker.Thisissuearoundtrust wasfurtherconvolutedwithconfidentialityissueswhere,inthe privatesectorforexample,organisationsmaybereluctanttoshare data(FI),callingforbettermechanismstosecurelyshareimportant dataproducedandusedbystakeholdergroups.

4.2.Decisionmakingprocesses

Theroleofresponsibilityemergedstronglyintheworkshops withdiscussionsonwhoseresponsibilityitistotacklewholeor components of the decisionmaking process (GG) andleader’s willingnesstoacceptresponsibilityfordecisionsmade(ortobe made).Thisisparticularlytruewherethereisalackofclarityover whoownstheproblemorthedecision(LE)andactiontakencan haveimplicationsforthefutureandlocalactioncanhaveglobal impacts(PSH).Dependingonhowtheshockwillhaveimpacted differentstakeholders,awillingnesstoacceptandtake responsi-bilitywillvaryparticularlywhenasolutionandbenefitsofthis responsemaylieoutsideanassetordecisionowner(PSH).This wasparticularlyfeltintermsofdeterminingwhoseresponsibility it istopayfor thecostofresponseandbuildingresilience(FI) withautomaticassumptionsthattheinsuranceindustryshould takesignificantresponsibilitycombinedwithincreasingfocuson the politicalcommunity playan activerolein managing other costs.

Conflictingtimescales betweenresearchand policycombined with thesocialdimensions ofdecisionmakingandtheneedfor researchers to achieve consensus before they cancontribute to decision making canexacerbate responses to shocks and cause existing decisionmakingprocessestobecomeredundant(I).Therole oflessonslearntandageneralfailure(althoughthisisimproving)to capturelessonslearntfromnexusshocksandresponsesemerged strongly.Inparticular,concernsaroundimplicationsofnothaving systemsinplacetocapturetheselessonsduringandaftertheshock, howthis couldinformthinkingin futureshocks andhowthese lessonslearntcouldthenbetransferredandappliedtoothersectors and scales (GG). Framingof a risk, thelanguage used,levels of uncertaintyconsideredandthegeographicalimpactofashockaffect the typeof response,itsimplementation andvarious leadershiproles withinit(FI).Inthecontextofnexusshocks,responsesareoften reactiveratherthanproactive(PSH)leadingto increasedrisk of passive,panicorirrationalresponses(LE).However alow acceptance of ownership and benefits of the ‘victims’ of a shock, such as

infrastructure,canleadtoacollectionofresilientassetswhilsta weakresilientsystem(I).

4.3.Socialdimensionandculture

The complexities of the nexus mean its resources are interlinked, used and affected by different stakeholders across differentsectors,eachcharacterisedbydifferentcultures, behav-iours, priorities and processes (LE, PSH). Impacts from nexus shocksandthemeaningofresponseandresilienceissubjectto interpretation,canhavedifferentmeaningsindifferentcontexts and itselfis informed by failure(PSH). Aquestion emerged on whetherdecision makers (including thepublic)need to under-standthecomplexitiesoftheshock,itsinteractionwithsystems andrelatedrisks,howthisdiffersinurbanandruralsettings(LE)or whetherafairunderstandingofriskaloneisrequired(PSH).This conflictssomewhattoscientists’perceptionsoftheneedforend userstobetoldaboutmanyaspectsofthesciencetoinformtheir decision making. In a related manner the role of social representationsin decisionmakingprocessesis increasingwith thegrowingpresenceandroleofsocialmediainprovidingadirect routetodecisionmakers(GG)

Thenotionofjudgementbaseddecisionmakingemergedby whichdecisionmakersassesstheevidencepresented,oftenwitha preoccupationfor theirlegacy(GG),preference for onetype or sourceoveranother(LE)andwhere adichotomyofchoices(i.e. makeacertaindecisionversusnotmakingit)exists,restontheir judgementtoinformtheirdecisions (PSH).Thecostof inaction versusthepriceofadaptation(LE) thenemergeswithdecisions varying according to the evidence available, context, public supportand considerationsfor thevarying interestsand values ofstakeholders(GG).

Whilstnexusshockshavesignificantsocietalimpactstheseare attimesindirectandchallengingtoperceive.Forexamplethelack ofunderstandingofwhatinfrastructureprovidestosociety(i.e.a ‘social contract’) until it fails, means its services are under-estimated (e.g. uninterrupted provision of resources such as energyfoodwatertosociety)untilthesearedisruptedbyashock (I).Similarlyimpactsofshocksarefeltdifferentlyatthelocallevel comparedtothenational(andforexampletheurbanversusrural contexts)hencescalingup,transferabilityandsharedknowledge onresponsesandlessonslearntfacesunavoidablechallenges(LE). Theselayersofcomplexitiescandistractattentionawayfromroot causesoftheissueswheresymptomsandimpactsareaddressedas responsivepriorityratherthancreatingspaceforactive retrospec-tivereflectiononthewidersystemwithinwhicha nexusshock occursandit’sresultingcascadingeffects(GG).Consequentlyin additiontodemandsideresponsestonexusshocks,demandfor accesstoenergyfoodwaterresourcesandservicestheyprovide mustconsequentlybeadjusted(I).

4.4.Responsetoshock

Theproductionofscientificevidenceusedtoinformdecision makinginresponsetonexusshocksisimprecise,fraughtwith uncertaintiesandconstantlyevolving(PSH).Thismeansthatthe nexusshocksatthelocalscaleforexamplecanbegranularand location specific both in terms of impacts and exacerbating causesmeaningthatallocationofresourcescanbeuncertainand increasevulnerabilities(PSH).

Therearenumerouschallengesassociatedwithcostingthe bene_fits of resilienceto nexus shocks notably who pays for thecost(LE),theinterdependenciesbetweenassetsleadingto cascading effects (FI) and that those bearing the cost of resiliencetonotalwaystherealisethishasfortheshortand

long terms (I). Capacity and ability to adapt to impacts and differentlevelsofrisk cariesatallscales(FI)sothequestionof who pays for resilienceandat what stage is one whichoften remains uncertain (GG). This further enhances complexities aroundinsuranceinvulnerablecommunities(FI)andjustifying ownership of one or more risks when these are long term, distant and potentially costly(GG).

Shocks by their nature may require quick-thinking and the implementationofcreative and innovativeideashoweverstrict requirementsandguidelines,andchallengesofhavingdiscussions at the local level and global scale (GG), can create additional barriersandalackofclarityandavailabilityofresourcestohelp managetheseshocks(LE). Thereappearstobelimitedongoing discussionatthenational levelof what ultimatelywantstobe achieved(GG)and hencehowthis isaffectedbyshocks. When consideringhowclimatechangeasanexacerbatorofnexusshocks isincorporatedintoinsuranceonayearlybasis(andrenegotiated withinthattimescale),thisnarrowsthevisionforchangewithin thatsector(FI).Thismayconflictforexamplewithlocalornational government timescales, often reactive and influenced by the electorate(GG),forimplementationofsolutionsandinvestment into resilience programs. Complexities in different regulatory systemsand shortreturnsoninvestment (I)furtherexacerbate nexusshocksandresponsestothem.

4.5.Discussion

Table3categorisesthemainbarrierstodecisionmakinginthe energy-water-food nexusidentified in the workshops. Building dialogueamongdifferentsectorsisconsideredfundamental,with informationandcommunicationemergingbothasabarrierandan opportunitytobuildresiliencetonexusshocks.Thelackoftiming andaccesstotransparentandtargetedinformationprevents cross-sectoral collaboration, as well as not accounting for different languagesandstakeholderappetites,whichisconsidered funda-mentaltobuildtrustamongstakeholders.Facingcommunication challengesisrequiredtominimisemiscommunication,andbetter understand future societal needs whilst consulting historical experience.Thiswouldcontributetoovercomingseveralcurrent barriers such as the lack of community understanding of risk, people’sdesensitisationbyinformationnetworks,andlackoftrust in decision makers and those informing them. The barriers to accesssectorspecificinformationpreventboththegeneralpublic andsectorspecialistsfromunderstandingspecificconceptslinked to nexus shocks, calling for a greater role of education to sustainabilityandresilience.

Table3

Summaryofworkshopfindingsbytheme.

Theme Subtheme

Communicationandcollaboration Evidenceproduction Process

Communication Audienceneeds Trust

Conventionalandsocialmedia Decisionmakingprocesses Response

Responsibility Informingandlessons Socialandculturaldimensions Culture

Judgementversusevidence Disconnectionfromtheissue Natureofresponsestoshocks Uncertaintyofscience

Costofresilience Complexitiesofprocesses

Accesstoandunderstandingofinformationisheavilymediated bythesocialandculturaldimensionofdecisionmakingprocesses, withalackofstakeholders’awarenessunderminingcommunity trust and creating bottlenecks in nexus shocks responses. Inclusion, intended both as physical (rural-urban integration) and societal (engagement of civil society) emerges both as an opportunity and barrier, with the need to consider different interests and values of all stakeholders. Framing nexus risks requiresaccountingfortheeffectofdifferentgeography,language andtime,identifyingkeysocialinfrastructurestobereinforcedfor buildingresiliencebylearningfromthepreviouslessons across sectorsandfrominternationalexperiences.

The need to movefrom the current reactive to a proactive decision making process emerges strongly, with a necessity to embrace a foreseeing attitude to future nexus shocks and understand the importance of local action for global impacts. Thelack ofa holistic viewand identification ofownership (i.e. whoseresponsibilityitistorespondtodifferentshocks)andthe presenceofconflictingtimescalesofresearch,businessactivityand politicspresent a barrier toeffectivedecision makingto nexus shocks.Inthelongterm,coordinatedpolicyprogramsconsistent withlocalgoalsplayanimportantroleintheidentificationofkey social infrastructures toreinforce resilience buildingthrough a participative approach to decision making. These elements influencethenatureofresponsestoshocksamongstakeholders groups and determine imbalances,with those bearing costs of resilience not always realising its long termvalue. Finally, the negative impacts of beaurocratisation constitute a barrier to creative and innovative thinking, increasing the timing of responses and creating confusion in regards to who pays and whobenefitsfromtheresponse.

The four themes allowed us to compartmentalize nexus knowledge,discussthebarriers thatemerged andcompare the resultsobtainedintheworkshops.Whilsttheresearchpresented in thispaper is basedonworkshopsconducted inthe UK,and consequently findings are more applicableto this context, this exercise proved effectiveto identifybest practices and lessons learned providing a useful basis to explore transferability and scalability of results to other contexts (E.g. different scales, differentcontexts).

5.Discussionandconclusion

Thewater-energy-foodnexusdisplaysanumberof complexi-ties, opportunities and challenges which are inter-disciplinary, cross-cuttingandmulti-sectoral.Thesecomplexitiesarenotsolely limited toone sector,which areintrinsically linkeddue tothe dependenciesbetweenenergy,food,waterresourcestoprovide basicresourcestofurtherhumanandeconomic growth. Conse-quently,interactions and shocks toone of theseresourceswill inevitable impactone or more othersector. A nexus approach enablesthecapitalisationofknowledgeandthesharingofskills andexpertisetobuildinnovativesolutionstocomplexinterlinked nexuschallenges.

Thispaperprovidesaninnovativeapproachtotheanalysisofa keyissueofdecisionmakinginresponsetoshockstothe energy-food-waternexus.Inparticular,weshowedwhyunderstandingthe characteristicsofthenexusisimportanttodevelopmeasuresable tobuildresiliencetonexusshocksthus tacklingrisk. Giventhe complexity, non-linearity, space and time dependency of the shockswhichmaygenerateinoneareaofthenexusandtrickle downwitha cascade effect onthe others, eventually affecting otherlinkeddimensionssuchasfinanceandrealeconomy,thereis a needto moveawayfromcurrent sector-based approaches to knowledge development and solution creation and develop a transdisciplinaryapproachofanalysis.

We presented analysis of data fromworkshops held theUK obtained applying a participatory, bottom up interdisciplinary approach to knowledge creation developed by working with differentstakeholders in thefieldofbusinessandfinance,knowledge production and policy making. We have identified important barrierstothedevelopmentandapplicationofatransdisciplinary approach,asexpressedbystakeholdersfrommultiplesectors,to understand nexusshocksandsupport policy responses.In particular, whathasemergedisthatatransdisciplinaryapproachofassessment and analysis requires active engagement of stakeholders from differentsectorsin allthephasesofknowledge developmentto acquireaclearerpictureoftheirneedsandexpertiseinthedecision makingprocess.Thiswouldenableatransitionbeyondsector-based knowledge on the different yet interlinked dimensions which contributetoshapethenexus.Theadoptionandimplementationof suchanapproacharecomplexduetosocialandpracticelimitations thatarearea-specificandcommontothefieldsofscienceinvolved. Thisincludestheruleswhichcharacterizeknowledgedevelopment, increasedspecificityofeducationandresearchers’specialization, lack of return in termsof visibility opportunities such as publishing in topjournals,fundingapplicationstopublicandprivatebodies,and careerdevelopment.Inthisregard,thevalueaddedof transdisci-plinary approachestoknowledgeproduction helpsovercomegapsin theresearch-policyinterface.Theapplicationofatransdisciplinary approachtoknowledgeco-production,asadoptedinthisresearch, contributestoidentifyingacostandtime-effectiveframeworkfor theanalysisofclimateriskinteractionwith theresource nexusacross 4 identifiedthemes: Communicationandcollaboration,Decision making processes, Social and cultural dimensions, Nature of responsestoshocks.

We havederivedrecommendationsonhow to betterinform decision makers andthe research communityabout the challenges of nexus research as well as develop a scalable approach to transdisciplinaryanalysisofsustainabilitychallenges.In addition wediscussedtheimplicationsofthefindingsfromthisresearchin thebroadercontextoftransdisciplinaryresearch.Whilstweprovide onlyasnapshotinthiscomplexarea,andweacknowledgethatour findingsaredrawnfromaUKcontext,these provide valuable insights into cross-sectoral barriers to nexus shocks decision-making processes. Wecallforfurther researchbuildingonourfindings, into the extrapolation and wider transferability of ourresultsto other internationalcontexts,sectorsanddisciplinaryperspectives.Whilst weexploretheimplicationsofnexusshocksintheUK,asdescribed earlierinthepaper,energy-food-waternexusissueshavebroader instigatingfactorswithimplicationsfortheinternationalcontext. Understandingofintricateprocessesatthenationalandregional level are important and provide a deeper understanding and snapshot of complicated decision makingprocesses within that scope.Wethereforecallformoreworktoexploreourfindingswith particularfocusonthefollowingareas:(i)approachesto sustain-abilityresearchmanagementintermsofformation,coordination andintegrationofresearcherscomingfromdifferentscientificfields ofanalysis;(ii)theroleoftransparency,trustandaccountability withinresearchteams;(iii)theroleoftopjournalsandeditors,who maylackappropriatemetricstoassessthequalityofpapersbasedon atransdisciplinaryresearchapproaches(seeRafolsetal.,2012);and (iv)thedelayinpublicandprivatefundingtoresearchonthenexus (suchastheEUHorizonprograms).

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a UK ESRC Nexus Network NetworkingGrant.WewouldliketothankmembersoftheNexus Network,staffattheGlobalSustainabilityInstituteandworkshop co-hostsfortheircontributionstothediscussionswhichhelped shapedsomeofthisresearch.

References

Allan,T.,Keulertz,M.,Woertz,E.,2015.Thewater–food–energynexus:an introductiontonexusconceptsandsomeconceptualandoperationalproblems. Int.J.WaterRes.Dev.31(3),301–311.

AsianDevelopmentBank,2013.PovertyandClimateChange:Reducingthe VulnerabilityofthePoorThroughAdaptation.http://ec.europa.eu/ development/icenter/repository/env_cc_

varg_poverty_and_climate_change_en.pdf.

Azapagic,A.,2015.Specialissue:sustainabilityissuesinthefood–energy–water nexus.SustainableProd.Cons.2,1–2.

Biggs,E.M.,Bruce,E.,Boruff,B.,Duncan,J.M.A.,Horsley,J.,Pauli,N.,McNeill,K.,Neef, A.,VanOgtrop,F.,Curnow,J.,Haworth,B.,Duce,S.,Imanari,Y.,2015.Sustainable developmentandthewater–energy–foodnexus:aperspectiveonlivelihoods. Environ.Sci.Policy54,389–397.

Ely,A.,Smith,A.,Stirling,A.,Leach,M.,Scoones,I.,2013.Innovationpoliticspost-Rio +20:hybridpathwaystosustainability?Environ.Plan.CGov.Policy31(6), 1063–1081.

Endo,A.,Tsurita,I.,Burnett,K.,Orencio,P.M.,2015.Areviewofthecurrentstateof researchonthewater,energy,andfoodnexus.J.Hydr.Reg.Stud..

FAO,2012.Buildingresilienceforadaptationtoclimatechangeintheagriculture sector.ProceedingsofaJointFAO/OECDWorkshop23–24April2012,FAO, Rome,pp.2012.

FAO,2014.TheWater-Energy-FoodNexusAnewapproachinsupportoffood securityandsustainableagriculture.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationofthe UnitedNations,Rome,pp.2014.

Forrester,J.W.,1961.IndustrialDynamics.ProductivityPress,Cambridge,Mass.

Gilbert,N.,Bullock,S.,2014.Complexityatthesocialscienceinterface.Complexity 19(6),1–4.

Hallegatte,S.,Bangalore,M.,Bonzanigo,L.,Fay,M.,Kane,T.,Narloch,U.,Rozenberg, J.,Treguer,D.,Vogt-Schilb,A.,2016.ShockWaves:ManagingtheImpactsof ClimateChangeonPoverty.Washington,DC:WorldBank.AvailableOnlineat..

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22787.

Harris,F.,Lyon,F.,2014.TransdisciplinaryEnvironmentalResearch:AReviewof ApproachestoKnowledgeCo-production.NexusNetworkThinkPieceSeries, Paper002,November.

Harris,F.,Lyon,F.,2013.Transdisciplinaryenvironmentalresearch:buildingtrust acrossprofessionalboundaries.Environ.Sci.Policy31,109–119.

Hoff,H.,2011.UnderstandingtheNexus.BackgroundPaperfortheBonn2011. Conference:TheWater,EnergyandFoodSecurityNexus.Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute,Stockholm.

Holland,J.H.,1995.HiddenOrder.HowAdaptationBuildsComplexity.Addison Wesleypublishingcompany,Reading.

Holland,J.H.,1998.Emergence:FromChaostoOrder.Addison-WesleyCloth, RedwoodCity,California.

Howarth,C.,Jones,A.,2016.TheNexusShocksNetwork.GlobalSustainability InstituteBriefingNote6.AvailableOnlineat..www.anglia.ac.uk/gsi.

Howarth,C.,Jones,A.,Philip,G.,Hogbin,J.A.,2015.NexusShocksNetwork:Decision MakingonNexusShocks.SummariesofWorkshopDiscussions.Global SustainabilityInstitute.

Howarth,C.,2016.WhatWeAreLearning:FindingsfromtheNexusShocks Network.GlobalSustainabilityInstitute,AvailableOnlineat..http://www. thenexusnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Nexus-Shocks-Network-What-We-Are-Learning_CandiceH.pdf.

Howells,M.,Hermann,S.,Welsch,M.,Bazilian,M.,Segerström,R.,Alfstad,T.,Gielen, D.,Rogner,H.,Fischer,G.,vanVelthuizen,H.,Wiberg,D.,Young,C.,Roehrl,A.R., Mueller,A.,Steduto,P.,Ramma,I.,2015.Integratedanalysisofclimatechange, land-use,energyandwaterstrategies.Nat.Clim.Change3,621–626.

Hsiang,S.M.,Meng,K.C.,Cane,M.A.,2011.Civilconflictsareassociatedwiththe globalclimate?Nature476(7361),438–441.

Hussey,K.,Pittock,J.,2012.TheEnergy–Waternexus:managingthelinksbetween energyandwaterforasustainablefuture.Ecol.Soc.17(1),31.

Ilin,T.,Varga,L.,2015.Theuncertaintyofsystemicrisk.RiskManage.17,240–275.

Kelley,C.P.,Mohtadi,S.,Cane,M.A.,Seager,R.,Kushnir,Y.,2015.Climatechangein theFertileCrescentandimplicationsoftherecentSyriandrought.PNAS112 (11),3241–3246.

Kurian,M.,Ardakanian,R.,GoncalvesVeiga,L.,Meyer,K.,2016.Institutionsandthe nexusapproach.trade-Offs,synergiesandmethodsforgovernanceof environmentalresources.edsresources,servicesandrisks.HowCanData ObservatoriesBridgeTheScience-PolicyDivideinEnvironmentalGovernance? SpringerInternationalPublishing,pp.5–30.

Ladyman,J.,Lambert,J.,Wiesner,K.,2013.Whatisacomplexsystem?Eur.J.Philos. Sci.3(1),33–67.

Lagi,M.,Bertrand,K.Z.,Bar-Yam,Y.,2012.TheFoodCrisisandPoliticalInstabilityin NorthAfricaandtheMiddleEast,WorkingPaper.

Leach,M.,Rockström,J.,Raskin,P.,Scoones,I.C.,Stirling,A.C.,Smith,A.,Thompson, J.,Millstone,E.,Ely,A.,Arond,E.,Folke,C.,Olsson,P.,2012.Transforming innovationforsustainability.Ecol.Soc.17(2) 11.

Lloyds,2015.FoodSystemShock:TheInsuranceImpactsofAcuteDisruptionto GlobalFoodSupply.EmergingRiskReport.

Mannschatz,T.,Wolf,T.,Hülsmann,S.,2016.NexusToolsPlatform:web-based comparisonofmodellingtoolsforanalysisofwater-soil-wastenexus.Environ. Modell.Softw.76,137–153.

MetOffice,2015.‘GlobalTemperaturestoReach1..http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ news/release/archive/2015/one-degree.

MillenniumEcosystemAssessment,2005.EcosystemsandHumanWell-Being: BiodiversitySynthesis.WorldResourcesInstitute,Washington,DC.

Mollona,E.,2008.Strategia,complessitàerisorse.Strumentieprincipiperl'analisi dinamicadellastrategiaaziendale.EGEA.

Monasterolo,I.,Battiston,S.,2015.Mappingthegovernancenetworkofclimate financepoliciesintheEurozone.J.Clean.Prod..

MunichRe,(2012)Naturalcatastrophes2012,Analyses,assessments,positions. MunichRe,2016.NaturalCatastrophes2015.AnnualFigures.MunichReNatCat

Service.AvailableOnlineat..http://www.munichre.com/site/corporate/get/ params_E-1254966961_Dattachment/1130647/Munich-Re-Overview-Natural-catastrophes-2015.pdf.

NomuraHoldingsInc.NomuraReport,2012,www.nomuraholdings.com/csr/ report/.

Rafols,I.,Loet,L.,O'Hare,A.,Nightingale,P.,Stirling,A.,2012.Howjournalrankings cansuppressinterdisciplinaryresearch:acomparisonofinnovationstudiesand business&management.Res.Policy41(7),1262–1282.

Rasul,G.,Sharma,B.,2015.Thenexusapproachtowater-energy-food-security:an optionforadaptationtoclimatechange.Clim.Policy doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865.

Rasul,G.,2015.Managingthefood,water,andenergynexusforachievingthe SustainableDevelopmentGoalsinSouthAsia.Env.Dev.(inpress).

Reynolds,J.,Cranston,G.,2014.NexusThinking:CanitSlowtheGreatAcceleration? NexusNetworkThinkPiece,November.

Scott,C.A.,Pierce,S.A.,Pasqualetti,M.J.,Jones,A.J.,Montz,B.E.,Hoover,J.H.,2011. Policyandinstitutionaldimensionsofthewater–energynexus.EnergyPolicy 39(10),6622–6630.

Sharmina,M.,Hoolohan,C.,Bows-Larkin,A.,Burgess,P.J.,Colwill,J.,Gilbert,P., Howard,D.,Knox,J.,Anderson,K.,2016.Anexusperspectiveoncompetingland demands:widerlessonsfromaUKpolicycasestudy.Environ.Sci.Pol.59,54–74.

Smajgl,A.,Ward,J.,Pluschke,L.,2016.Thewater–food–energyNexus–Realisinga newparadigm.J.Hydrol.533,533–540.

Smith,P.,Bustamante,M.,Ahammad,H.,Clark,H.,Dong,H.,Elsiddig,E.A.,Haberl,H., Harper,R.,House,J.,Jafari,M.,Masera,O.,Mbow,C.,Ravindranath,N.H.,Rice,C. W.,RobledoAbad,C.,Romanovskaya,A.,Sperling,F.,Tubiello,F.,2014. Agriculture,forestryandotherlanduse(AFOLU).In:Edenhofer,O., Pichs-Madruga,R.,Sokona,Y.,Farahani,E.,Kadner,S.,Seyboth,K.,Adler,A.,Baum,I., Brunner,S.,Eickemeier,P.,Kriemann,B.,Savolainen,J.,Schlömer,S.,von Stechow,C.,Zwickel,T.,Minx,J.C.(Eds.),ClimateChange2014:Mitigationof ClimateChange.ContributionofWorkingGroupIIItotheFifthAssessment ReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Sterman,J.D.,2000.BusinessDynamics.Irwin-McGraw-Hill,BostonMA.

Sterman,J.D.,2006.Learningfromevidenceinacomplexworld.Am.J.PublicHealth 96(3),505–514.

Sterman,J.D.,2012.Sustainingsustainability:creatingasystemsscienceina fragmentedacademyandpolarizedworld.In:Weinstein,M.,Turner,R.E.(Eds.), SustainabilityScience:TheEmergingParadigmandtheUrbanEnvironment. Springer,pp.21–58.

Stiglitz,J.,Sen,A.,Fitoussi,J.P.,2010.MismeasuringOurLivesWhyGDPDoesn’tAdd Up.TheNewPress,NYISBN:978-1-59558-519-6.

Stirling,A.,2014.Transformingpower:socialscienceandthepoliticsofenergy choices.Environ.Res.Soc.Sci.1,83–95.

Stirling,A.,2015.Developing‘NexusCapabilities’:TowardsTransdisciplinary Methodologies.TheNexusNetwork.. http://www.thenexusnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stirling-2015-Nexus-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf.

Sutherland,W.J.,Bellingan,L.,Bellingham,J.R.,Blackstock,J.J.,Bloomfield,R.M., Bravo,M.,Cadman,V.M.,Cleevely,D.D.,Clements,A.,Cohen,A.S.,Cope,D.R., Daemmrich,A.A.,Devecchi,C.,DiazAnadon,L.,Denegri,S.,Doubleday,R.,Dusic, N.R.,Evans,R.J.,Feng,W.Y.,Charles,H.,Godfray,J.,Harris,P.,Hartley,S.E.,Hester, A.J.,Holmes,J.,Hughes,A.,Hulme,M.,Irwin,C.,Jennings,R.C.,Kass,G.S., Littlejohns,P.,Marteau,T.M.,McKee,G.,Millstone,E.P.,Nuttall,W.J.,Owens7,S., Parker,M.M.,Pearson,S.,Petts,J.,Ploszek,R.,Pullin,A.S.,Reid,G.,Richards,K.S., Robinson41,J.G.,Shaxson,L.,Sierra,L.,Smith44,B.G.,Spiegelhalter,D.J.,Stilgoe, J.,Stirling,A.,Tyler,C.P.,Winickoff,D.R.,Zimmern,R.L.,2012.A collaboratively-derivedscience-policyresearchagenda.PLoSOne7(3).

UNDP,2014.HumanDevelopmentReport,2014.

USEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyAgricultureandFoodSupply[online].2010,

www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/agriculture.html.

Viner,D.,Howarth,C.,2014.Practitioner’swork&evidenceinIPCCreports.Nat. Clim.Change4,848–849.

Waldrop,M.M.,1992.Complexity:TheEmergingScienceattheEdgeofOrderand Chaos.Simon&SchusterPaperback,NewYork.

WorldBank,2013.TurnDowntheHeat:ClimateExtremes,RegionalImpacts,and theCaseforResilience–FullReport.WorldBank,WashingtonDC.

WorldEconomicForum,2011.WaterSecurity:TheWater–Food–Energy–Climate Nexus.WorldEconomicForum,WashingtonDC.

Yumkella,K.K.,Yillia,P.T.,2015.Framingthewater-energynexusforthe post-2015developmentagenda.Aquat.Procedia5,8–12.