The authors regret that there were two formatting mistakes: 1. Definitions of key “Nexus” and “ecosystems” terms appear as a paragraph on page 4 rather than within Box 1. The revised Box 1 is [Table presented] Box 1. Glossary of key terms. 2. The caption for Fig. 7 is separated from the figure and appears as a paragraph on page 15. The revised caption of Fig. 7 is[Figure presented] Fig. 7. Proposed hybrid WEFE Nexus paradigm – elements and interlinkages. Examples for some of the interlinkages are provided. Connection 4: the provisioning ecosystem service of wild foods, but also the expected trends due to planning and strategic conservation efforts that can lead to an increase in their availability and use (Sajeev et al., 2023). Connection 5: the provisioning ecosystem service of wood and biomass, as well as the influence of the energy sector on the use and management of land resources. Connection 6: provisioning of fresh water and water purification as ecosystem services, on one hand, and policy and governance measures for protection and preservation of aquatic habitats and biodiversity, prevention of overexploitation of freshwater, sustaining environmental flows from reservoirs, on the other. Connection 7: the social and governance processes involved in setting aside land and resources for new sectoral developments (e.g., a new reservoir), as well as constraints to such new developments arising from policy (e.g., the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030) and social dynamics; sectoral activities providing livelihoods; global and national agreements setting targets on emissions reductions, as well the socio-economic implications of decarbonization plans (Plazas-Niño et al., 2022), just transition plans (Wang and Lo, 2021), and the economic transformation towards net-zero economies, job creation in emerging sectors, innovation and investment, and social adjustments (Krishnan et al., 2022). Connection 8: the impact of infrastructure development in the water sector (e.g., a new reservoir) on freshwater ecosystems; the impact of agricultural expansion on terrestrial ecosystems; the influence of biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems on the WEF Nexus sectors: pests and diseases, invasive species, pollination, river flow regimes, including floods and low flows. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Integrated approaches for managing natural resources are said to meet increasing demand for water, energy, and food, while maintaining the integrity of ecosystems, and ensuring equitable access to resources. The Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus has been proposed as a cross-sectoral approach to manage trade-offs and exploit synergies that arise among these sectors. Although not initially included as a component of the Nexus, the role of nature in sustaining the water, energy, and food sectors and in regulating their interrelationships is increasingly recognised by Nexus researchers and practitioners. To converge existing approaches that integrate nature into the WEF Nexus and suggest a common framework, we – an interdisciplinary group of natural resources management researchers and systems thinkers from the European research network NEXUSNET COST Action – followed a collaborative process of knowledge creation combining literature review, elicitation of expert opinion and collaborative writing. Our results reveal a multiplicity of concepts utilised in the literature to represent, partially or fully, “nature” in the Nexus, such as “environment”, “ecosystems”, “ecosystem services”, “social-ecological systems”, and “biodiversity”. Disparity was also found in the role attributed to nature, represented by three key paradigms: (1) ecosystems as the fourth component of an expanded Nexus, i.e., the WEF-Ecosystems (WEFE) Nexus; (2) ecosystems as a foundational layer to the Nexus; and (3) the WEF Nexus as a central component of social-ecological systems (SES). By creating a hybrid approach that brings together the benefits of the respective paradigms, we present a forward-looking WEFE Nexus conceptualisation. This paradigm expands the mutual interlinkages among water, energy and food to the entirety of SES, thus acknowledging the social-ecological processes that are affected by and affect the WEF Nexus. The results of this collaborative research effort intend to provide researchers and stakeholders with means to better understand and ultimately manage Nexus issues towards a transformative change.

Problems manifested within social-ecological systems (SES) exhibit dynamic complexity and hold implications for current and future human well-being and environmental sustainability. The complexity of these issues, the ever-present uncertainty inherent to SES, and the multi-stakeholder settings in which they are discussed call for participatory modelling to support decision-making on socio-environmental issues. Yet, this challenging endeavour requires a structured approach — a modelling cycle — to facilitate engagement with the implications of participation and uncertainty as focal points for Good Modelling Practice (GMP). Here we propose an integrated policy analysis framework for SES modelling using System Dynamics (SD). This framework stems from integrating two existing modelling cycles that individually consider participation and uncertainty in SD modelling. Three global modelling phases and a set of tools to address the participation and uncertainty features in SES modelling are distinguished. The framework contributes to mainstreaming GMP, offering a structured model-based approach to enhance the robustness and social acceptance of policies on critical socio-environmental issues.

The social-ecological systems (SES) approach elicits a broad understanding of some of the most pressing socionatural challenges (e.g. resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, and climate change) and the responsibility that humans have in addressing them. System dynamics has proven a powerful paradigm for dealing with complex SES-related issues. Here we discuss some ethical considerations of using system dynamics (SD) to model SES, something that is often either overlooked or discussed as an isolated issue. Sustainable development and human rights are used as ethical standpoints across the modelling cycle, opening the discussion around guiding principles that need to be considered when modelling SES. Based on these, a set of guiding ethical questions are identified and classified across a participatory SD modelling cycle. This structured approach is a simple yet potentially useful tool for SD practitioners to examine the ethical implications of their modelling endeavours in the context of grand societal challenges.

Water enables health, education, and economic well-being opportunities for humanity. Access to basic water and sanitation services, freshwater variability, and water storage are some of the dimensions that may impact on human development worldwide. Yet few studies quantitatively explore the relationship between water and human development. This study uses a statistical approach to quantify the Water-Human Development relation in a global sample, both in terms of correlation and causality between variables. Correlation is established using a multiple linear regression approach, while causality is explored by implementing the multi-spatial convergent cross mapping technique. Our study finds strong interdependence between water-related variables and human development globally. Access to water services positively influences the Human Development Index (HDI), seasonal variability of freshwater resources restricts it, and large water storage is not significant. The analysis is robust between 2000 and 2017, and implies that a 1% increment in a country's HDI is associated with a 1.3%–3.2% increment in water and sanitation access. Causal analyses show strong coupling, suggesting positive feedback between access to water services and HDI that could be exploited. Reaching Sustainable Development Goal 6 requires closing the water and sanitation access gaps while addressing freshwater variability challenges. This will result in global human development benefits.