Exploring a Water–Energy–Food (WEF) Nexus Approach to Governance: A Case Study of the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town, South Africa

Abstract

The water–energy–food (WEF) nexus is recognised globally as a framework for sustainable resource management and a potential tool for building resilient social-ecological systems (SES). To verify this, we used a transdisciplinary approach to explore how the WEF nexus approach is understood theoretically and practically. The analysis indicated a disparity in how the WEF nexus framework is understood and conceptualised in theory, and the practical implementation of the framework. Given this, the study found it challenging to validate the WEF nexus as a supporting tool for building SES resilience. In line with this, this study argues for a deeper exploration of the practical implementation of the WEF nexus framework in planning, governance and social processes. As such, the study analysed the governance and management systems of the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront (V&A), a precinct in Cape Town that adopted the WEF nexus approach for sustainable management of water, energy, food and waste resources. Using the analysis of V&A Waterfront’s management practices—including the use of the Global Carbon Exchange (GCX) system—from a practical, social and governance perspective, the aim was to understand whether a bridge between WEF nexus theory and governance practice impacts the practical ability to govern for SES resilience. Findings suggest that the nexus governance approach at the V&A Waterfront has implications that strengthen the capacity to govern for SES resilience in the V&A Waterfront context. The conclusion is then made that the nexus governance approach also strengthens the capacity to govern for SES resilience in the Cape Town context. Results also suggest the most crucial element for the success of the nexus governance approach is a material flow analysis (MFA)-based decision support system (DSS) exemplified by GCX Data Analytics Sustainability Hub (DASH-).

1. Introduction

Water, energy and food are some of the most crucial resources required for society to function; it is, therefore, essential that these systems be governed conscientiously [1]. Traditionally, governance approaches to resource systems have been implemented using individual sectors and scales of governance, essentially managing systems in isolation [1,2]. However, as complex cascading effects and trade-offs occur between these systems and the external systems related to them, integrated resource management is required to mitigate trade-offs, leverage vulnerabilities and reinforce the resilience of these systems in harmony with one another [1,2,3]. Fortunately, the literature shows the excellent potential of the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus framework in response to the need for integrated governance. The WEF nexus framework involves cross-boundary collaboration and systematic co-management of WEF systems in the light of coordinated resilience strategies [1,2,3].

However, a disparity exists between the literature and policy ambitions for the WEF nexus and the practical adoption of the nexus governance approach, with practical implementation lagging far behind policy ambitions [1,2,4,5,6]. As such, the WEF nexus approach continues to be under-explored practically, socially and in terms of governance [5,6].

Given the gap in the nexus literature concerning social, practical and governance considerations, this research is dedicated to investigating the practical implementation of an existing nexus approach at the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront (V&A) from a practical, social and governance perspective. The purpose is to explore whether these implications hold any potential for enhanced ability to manage for social-ecological resilience in the V&A Waterfront and Cape Town context.

The V&A Waterfront is a significant case study in the South African context, as it is a large urban economic precinct sitting on 123 hectares of property that attracts roughly 23 million international and local visitors annually, making it a massive economic (social) and resource-intense (ecological) operation [7]. As a major economic precinct in the heart of Cape Town that has committed to various environmental, social and governance (ESG) development targets, the V&A serves as an important example of development in a country where development is a major necessity. Therefore, the significance of this study lies in (1) how the V&A is able to better achieve its development goals, while being situated in a wider context riddled with complex problems, such as interrelated resource crises, governance fragmentation, poverty, unemployment and inequality, and (2) how the V&A, therefore, grapples with these more extensive contextual conditions in striving to achieve its development goals. In working with the V&A management, it quickly became apparent that a cornerstone for achieving these goals lies in the V&A’s use of GCX Data Analytics Sustainability Hub (DASH-), an ESG and performance management platform used by the V&A management to enhance its sustainability performance [8]. The company responsible for GCX DASH- is called Global Carbon Exchange (GCX), a South African sustainability solutions company committed to help their clients achieve their sustainability goals via expertise in ESG, carbon and waste solutions [9,10,11,12]. The company is particularly regarded for its development of GCX DASH-, as it represents an analytics and reporting platform for driving sustainability performance and managing ESG risk [13]. For this reason, the V&A’s use of GCX DASH- is the central focus of this research, with the aim to assess how it assists and enables the V&A to enact nexus governance, enhance its resilience and reach its sustainability targets.

The following section discusses the case study context as well as the transdisciplinary research methodology and related methods adopted in this study, providing a reasoning and justification for the research approach in relation to generating the required information. It is important to note that the research questions discussed in Section 2 were developed together with the consortium members and stakeholders that make up the research project. This is followed by Section 3, where a literature review further explores concepts introduced in Section 1 to generate systems knowledge regarding the WEF nexus framework. Here, the WEF nexus literature, the SES resilience literature and the nexus governance literature are reviewed for their importance concerning the problem statement and research questions. Section 3 then presents the research results and findings concerning each research question, generating target knowledge of how resources should be governed for increased resilience. This is followed by Section 4, which further discusses the findings, with specific emphasis on their resilience implications as well as how these implications apply to the Cape Town context and its necessity to transform. Finally, in Section 5, the research is concluded by outlining the main arguments in relation to each research question.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Study: V&A Waterfront

2.1.1. Context

The V&A Waterfront management is responsible for governing and managing all operations that allow the more than 800 tenants (mixed property types, including two functioning fisheries) to conduct day-to-day operations [7]. This is a massive undertaking, considering the scale, the challenges faced and the socio-ecological commitments of the V&A Waterfront [7,14,15,16].

The Victoria and Alfred (V&A) Waterfront is situated on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, between Robben Island and Table Mountain, in the heart of Cape Town’s harbour. The V&A Waterfront is essentially an inner-city, high-end commercial waterfront development consisting of mixed property types, including fisheries, residential and commercial real estate, hotels, retail districts, extensive dining, arts and culture, and leisure and entertainment facilities, as well as ocean-related work, leisure and tourism.

The V&A Waterfront has committed its governance structures to establish, maintain, promote and improve environmental, social and economic responsibility and sustainability. This is something it wishes to achieve through all its stakeholders as it has committed to the best sustainable governance practices in all these spheres. As the V&A Waterfront [16] states:

The organisation sees for itself the opportunity to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all, in alignment with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.

These commitments have led to the development of the V&A Waterfront’s corporate social investment (CSI) strategy, a governance blueprint that aligns with the internal strategies and values of the business, especially regarding environmental, social and economic development both locally and globally. According to the V&A Waterfront [16], its CSI strategy ‘…supports the National Development Plan, within the local context, and the Global Goals or Sustainable Development on an international level’. The objectives of the CSI strategy are ‘being an enabler for economic growth, driving meaningful job creation, creating social value, contributing to nation-building and social cohesion, and ensuring environmental sustainability and resilience’ [16].

It is, however, more useful to paint the picture of the V&A Waterfront’s context/governance structures as a neighbourhood/precinct rather than a company/organisation. Within this precinct, there are two governing structures/units, namely the V&A management (with its structures) and the tenants (who are 800 in number plus each of their own management structures) [17]. These two governing units are responsible for managing affairs according to their own goals and mandates, of which some are shared, while others are conflicting [18]. One such shared goal is the overarching goal of sustainability [16]. To achieve sustainability, the V&A management and its tenants must mutually work together [18]. Much of the pressure to do so comes from the V&A Waterfront (as the overarching management in the precinct) because it sets the rules that all tenants need to follow (via their green leases) [17]. However, these management and tenant spheres mutually benefit in many ways.

As a part of the neighbourhood’s governance journey to social and ecological sustainability, the V&A has brought on board the Global Carbon Exchange (GCX), a private sustainability solutions company offering innovative sustainability tools and expertise that enable the V&A Waterfront to set and meet sustainability targets and achieve reliable sustainability reporting, while also allowing for enhanced performance management [8,17,19].

2.1.2. Global Carbon Exchange (GCX)

GCX offers two key solutions enabling it to achieve resolutions in its three main areas of specialisation, namely ESG, carbon and waste. The first solution is what is referred to as ‘GCX Consult’, essentially the sustainability advisory division of the GCX, which has fine-tuned its proprietary ‘sustainability hierarchy’ to enable clients to address shortfalls that come with setting targets, implementing projects and improving performance management [20]. GCX Consult seeks to bring structure to the clients’ sustainability journey by guiding reporting and sustainability performance management [20].

The second solution is called the ‘GCX Data Analytics and Sustainability Hub (DASH-)’, explained as an interactive, web-based and easy-to-use digital tool that provides interactive and meaningful data analytics in real time, providing granular and consolidated sustainability reporting and performance management that helps organisations drive their sustainability and business performance [13]. This is where the GCX expertise combines with its clients’ data, providing a reporting and performance benchmarking platform.

According to the GCX [13]:

The Data Analytics and Sustainability Hub (DASH-) drives sustainability in business and, ultimately, informs Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) mitigation strategies and processes. As companies are under increasing pressure from investors and legislators to set more ambitious climate change targets and improve their ESG ratings, the need for accurate and reliable data has become vital.

GCX DASH- enables the business intelligence and data confidence needed for informed commercial decisions and to align business processes with relevant ESG indicators [13]. It gives companies information by using their data to monitor and quantify key activity indicators that have financial and resource use implications [21]. For instance, it tracks environmental data in relation to their financial materiality. It also ‘consolidates reporting on a company’s operational activities and sets dynamic benchmarks to achieve better performance’ [13].

With a clear picture of the context in mind, the next section will elaborate on the transdisciplinary research approach adopted, before moving into the research findings.

2.2. Transdisciplinary Research

This study used a transdisciplinary (TD) research approach—a methodology of conducting science with society, involving engagement with non-academics and practitioners, as well as academics in other fields—enabling collaborative problem formulation, analysis and transformation [22]. This research adequately adhered to the principle of TD because the identification of a research problem and questions stemmed from a thorough understanding of the current state of knowledge and practices in the real world, as well as via embeddedness of the researchers in the most contemporary practical and scientific context [22,23,24]. This was enabled via an up-to-date literature review and the situatedness of the researchers in a research consortium of three universities—University of the Western Cape (UWC), Stellenbosch University (SU) and Utrecht University (UU)—two local governance intermediatory organisations—Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) Africa and the Western Cape Economic Development Partnership (EDP)—as well as two organisations from the Netherlands—Association of Dutch Water Authorities and Vitens. Together, this consortium facilitated practitioner workshops with scientists (from various fields) and practitioners who conduct work in fields and contexts related to the context researched here.

The first point of transdisciplinary collaboration began when, through collective literature and policy analysis, and practitioner workshops and focus groups with contextually experienced stakeholders (researchers, practitioners and government), the research problem was identified and structured [25]. The researchers consisted of individuals from UWC’s Institute for Social Development, SU’s Centre for Sustainability Transitions, UU’s Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, their Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, and their Urban Futures Studio. The practitioners were made up of representatives from our consortium partners ICLEI Africa, EDP, the Association of Dutch Water Authorities, and Vitens. A third layer of practitioners were representatives of what would become the project’s six case studies: Gugulethu Urban Farming Initiative, Atlantis Special Economic Zone, Cape Town Fresh Produce Market, Philippi Horticultural Area and Lyndoch Eco-village. There most important stakeholder in the study was the City of Cape Town (CCT) government, as the project was set out with the intention of improve the capacity of Cape Town’s urban authorities and citizens to prepare for, cope with and learn from resource crises in the city through more integrated infrastructure planning.

The overarching problem identified was a lack of practical ability to govern resilience in the Cape Town context: a severe problem for the City of Cape Town (CTT) regarding practically achieving what is set out in its resilience policy. Although the WEF nexus is identified as a possible enabling mechanism for resilience, as well as a green/circular economy, another problem collectively identified (and eventually researched in this study) was the lack of practical examples of nexus governance to test these claims. This was coupled with the fact that WEF nexus analysis usually lacks practical, social-economic and governance considerations, as well as a consideration for SES resilience.

Following the recursive nature of TD research, the necessity to identify a practical example of nexus governance led to another solutions assessment, which was to find an existing practical example of nexus governance. This, in turn, led to the identification of the V&A Waterfront as a case study, a location that, in essence, applies and tests the solution identified in the TD process. Because of this, the V&A Waterfront was selected as one of six neighbourhood case studies to investigate in the overarching research. This study focused on the V&A Waterfront, with specific attention to its use of GCX DASH-. Once the case study was identified, the researchers also worked closely with both the GCX and the V&A Waterfront management throughout the time of the study, collaborating on directing the research questions towards their needs, while focusing on implementing and improving the system based on what the research findings suggest, so as not passively observe its operationalisation. One point of collaboration was the observation that the system would seriously benefit from incorporating food flows into the dashboard, an idea that the GCX is now looking to implement in the next version.

Throughout the research at the V&A Waterfront, we received support via continued collaboration with consortium members, as well as interactions with stakeholders via practitioner workshops. The interactions and collaborations enabled a continued revision of research questions considering finding the most contextually valuable information.

Given the context and the problem statements arrived at via the TD approach, the following research questions were proposed:

1.

How does the WEF nexus governance approach at the V&A Waterfront enhance the capacity for resilience governance in the Cape Town context?

1.1

How is the WEF nexus framework understood, with particular reference to the practical, social and governance (PSG) implications?

1.2

What governance and management systems have been developed by the V&A Waterfront, including the GCX system?

1.3

What are the practical, social and governance implications of the nexus governance approach at the V&A Waterfront, and do these implications hold any potential for enhanced resilience in the Cape Town context?

Having arrived at these research questions following a pluralistic approach [25], we used a mixed methods approach both non-empirical methods (literature review) and empirical methods (TD design process, case study with semi-structured interviews and field visits) to answer the questions. In designing the research approach, we followed the works of van Breda and Swilling [22], Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn [23], and Henshilwood, Swilling and Naidoo [25] for necessary methodological guidance concerning the directionality of this study. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research by Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn [23] proved especially beneficial for understanding the requirements for a study to be regarded as TD.

With a clear understanding of how the context and TD research design process helped us arrive at the research questions, next we illustrate how we arrived at the answer to each research question. First, the paper illustrates how a literature review enabled us to answer question 1.1, while equipping us with the necessary theoretical understanding to eventually answer research question 1.3. However, before answering research question 1.3, the paper presents how a case study analysis (via semi-structured interviews and field visits) enabled us to answer research question 1.2. Having answered research questions 1.1 and 1.2, we were equipped with the necessary theoretical knowledge and contextual information to then answer research question 1.3, and the answers to all three questions enabled us to answer research question 1.

3. Results

As mentioned before, research question 1.1 was answered via a literature review, while also confirming research question 1.2 and equipping us with the necessary theoretical information to eventually answer research question 1.3.

The literature on the WEF nexus naturally became the first significant body of literature of relevance to the study. It was responsible for shaping the context and was the main thread weaving throughout the other central literature. The literature suggests that an extensive understanding of the WEF nexus can better inform a transparent framework that is much needed to meet increasing global demands sustainably [2,4]. A transparent and well-informed nexus approach can enable decision and policy makers to develop policies, strategies and investments from the foundations of the approach, allowing practical exploration and synergies, while also identifying and mitigating trade-offs among the development goals related to the security of these resources [1,5,6]. The WEF nexus framework requires active participation by and among government agencies, the private sector and civil society [6]. This is because the nexus governance approach is about cooperation, including cross-sector cooperation (water, energy, food and waste), cooperation across multiple levels of state (national, provincial, local) and cross-domain cooperation (public, private and civil society), as well as interdisciplinarity and trans-disciplinarity [26]. The WEF nexus framework is also promoted as a supporting instrument for resilience [5]. Unfortunately, the WEF nexus literature makes it clear that the approach is too underdeveloped, under-implemented and under-explored practically, socially and in terms of governance to test these resilience claims [1,2,4,5,6]

Studying the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus is essentially researching complex social-ecological systems (SES) as it encompasses both ecological systems and how they are related (e.g., WEF) and social systems and how they are related (e.g., governance), as well as how social and ecological systems are related to one another and the larger systems in which they are embedded [2,27,28,29]. Resilience is an important concept for this research because the WEF nexus is studied here in relation to SES resilience and because it is said to act as a supporting instrument for urban resilience [30]. The assumption is that a practically viable nexus approach increases the ability to govern for resilience [4,5]. The broader view of the WEF nexus is framed through the conceptual lens of resilience, making SES resilience, investigated from an ecosystem services (ES) resilience perspective [31], the second main body of literature relevant to the study [4,5].

To understand whether the PSG findings regarding research question 1.3 hold the possibility to enhance, or potentially undermine, the capacity to govern for resilience, we explored the literature on SES resilience. Exploring the seven principles of enhanced resilience Biggs et al., [31] helped us frame the thinking/action/governance required for building SES resilience. In

Table 1. Seven Principles for Building Resilience in SES (Adapted from [31]).

Seven Principles for Building Resilience in SES	Summarised Description of Each Principles
1. Maintain Diversity and Redundancy	In a social-ecological system, elements like landscape types, species, actors, knowledge systems, cultural groups and institutions offer various responses to change and uncertainty.
2. Manage Connectivity	Connectivity can be both beneficial and harmful. It can facilitate recovery after a disturbance but also spread disturbances faster in highly connected systems.
3. Manage Slow Variables and Feedback	Social-ecological systems can be arranged in multiple configurations, resulting in diverse interactions among the variables within the system and yielding a variety of ecosystem services.
4. Foster Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking	Understanding the interactions between people and ecosystems within a social-ecological system is crucial for sustaining ecosystem services. Adopting management strategies based on ‘complex adaptive systems thinking’ can enhance the resilience of these systems.
5. Encourage Learning	Understanding of a system is always partial and incomplete, and efforts to enhance the resilience of social-ecological systems must be supported by continuous learning and experimentation.
6. Broaden Participation	Active engagement from all relevant stakeholders is crucial for building social-ecological resilience. This helps create trust and relationships needed to improve the credibility of knowledge and authority in decision-making processes.
7. Promote Polycentric Governance	Polycentricity is when multiple governing bodies work together to create and enforce rules in a specific policy area or location. It is seen as one of the best ways to achieve collective action in the face of disturbance and change.

, these seven principles, as illustrated by Biggs et al. [31], are summarised.

The literature on socioeconomic resilience provided a theoretical basis for evaluating the potential for enhanced resilience offered by the WEF nexus approach at the V&A Waterfront. In other words, the SES resilience literature provided us with principles against which to evaluate the PSG findings of research question 1.3: What are the social, governance and practical implications of the nexus governance system at the V&A Waterfront. In turn, it also allowed us to answer the resilience aspect of research question 1.3: Do these implications hold any potential for enhanced resilience in the Cape Town context? It is important to clarify that the case study object of the study was the V&A Waterfront, but because it is situated within the Cape Town context, it also allowed for certain inferences to be drawn regarding the context in which the V&A is situated.

The WEF nexus approach is essentially a matter of governance, with governance in this context referring to the structures and systems by which an organisation/government manages its operations, including resource management [1,6,32]. By investigating how such an approach materialises in practice, the literature on governance become the third body of literature relevant to the study. The positioning of the governance literature came from the focus on governance informed by SES and resilience thinking but situated in the context of the WEF nexus.

Since the WEF nexus has to do with governance, it was important to explore the nexus–governance interface as ‘nexus governance’ [6]. There are many governance gaps and constraining factors inhibiting nexus governance [33]. It therefore became necessary to connect nexus governance constraints with relevant governance theory [1,4,34]. Specialised governance units focusing especially on monitorisation and analysis, in parallel with broadened participation, are of critical importance for enabling collaborative and adaptive nexus governance (due to the ability to link governance units through shared information) [35,36,37,38]. Therefore, what is needed is a nexus-oriented decision support system (DSS) [39]. This is in line with the approach to governance existing at the V&A Waterfront and thus, in effect, confirming research question 1.2: What governance and management systems have been developed by the V&A Waterfront, including the GCX system?

By using these three bodies of literature—the WEF nexus, SES resilience and governance—the study answered research question 1.1: How is the WEF nexus framework understood, with particular reference to practical, social and governance (PSG) implications?

In summary, using these concepts and bodies of literature together was based on the reasoning that a nexus approach is needed for increased urban resilience and that the success of the nexus approach is linked to governance. Therefore, the research intended to understand whether a bridge between the literature and governance in practice can be established—what has been referred to as ‘nexus governance’. In other words, can a practically viable nexus governance approach enhance the practically demonstrated ability to govern for resilience?

The next two sections present findings stemming from empirically exploring the practical implementation of an existing nexus approach at the V&A Waterfront. More precisely, it explores the application of a dynamic resource analytics and decision support system (DSS), called the GCX DASH-, a system that allows for the integrated governance of resource systems at the V&A Waterfront. This empirical analysis was conducted from a PSG perspective via field visits and semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders at the V&A Waterfront and the GCX. Information stemming from these focus groups and interviews was thus used as findings for research question 1.2: What governance and management systems have been developed by the V&A Waterfront, including the GCX system? These findings are presented in the following section.

3.1. What Governance and Management Systems Have Been Developed by the V&A Waterfront, Including the GCX System

After 10 interviews and five focus groups with GCX and V&A Waterfront staff, GCX DASH- provides the V&A with an analytics and reporting platform for managing ESG risks and reporting [17,18,19,21,40,41,42,43]. It therefore provides the V&A Waterfront with the reporting functionality to trace/map an array of ESG indicators, including carbon footprint activities, across multiple stakeholders and portfolios of assets [8]. According to the company website, the GCX is committed to organising and fixing its clients’ data, enabling them to turn these data into valuable insights that can assist them to make better business decisions.

Investigating the case study findings shows that the most important element for this case study is GCX DASH- as it provides the V&A Waterfront with real-time, on-demand, meaningful data analytics of resource flows (water, energy, waste and fugitive gasses) that assist it with decision-making and setting goals. GCX DASH- is essentially an integrated nexus (specifically water–energy–waste) resource management tool that makes use of material flow analysis (MFA) to help the V&A Waterfront make decisions and reach its targets. The dashboard allows the physical analysis of resource flows to act as a catalyst for improved governance (decision-making and meeting targets). Furthermore, it shapes human and institutional behaviour regarding water, energy and waste, with dynamic financial and resource baselines serving as reactants.

GCX DASH- represents a key nexus governance tool that has enabled the V&A Waterfront to strive better towards the various socio-ecological goals to which it is committed. This is because it allows the V&A Waterfront to monitor and report environmental, social and governance objectives, while also allowing different departments to work in a systemic nature across silos. This positively affects the water, energy and waste management, in turn improving environmental impacts related to the V&A Waterfront.

This, in effect, answers research question 1.2: What governance and management systems have been developed by the V&A Waterfront, including the GCX system? The V&A Waterfront developed a WEF nexus governance approach because GCX DASH- represents the required DSS/monitorisation systems mentioned in the nexus literature as an enabling tool for such a form of governance. GCX DASH- tracks interrelated resources individually and in relation to one another, while also including financial data in relation to those resources. The use of the system at the V&A Waterfront, therefore, represents a practical example of a nexus governance approach because the system is used as an enabling tool for better adaptive co-management among usually isolated departments. Furthermore, the GCX represents a coordination agency that enables the efficient information gathering and sharing for the sake of efficient and informed decision-making.

The next section fleshes out the findings relates to research question 1.3, followed by a final section on research question 1.

3.2. What Are the Practical, Social and Governance Implications of the Nexus Governance Approach at the V&A Waterfront?

After analysis of the V&A Waterfront’s governance and management, the next research sub-question elaborates on the research target knowledge by exploring the PSG significance of the practical nexus governance approach identified at the V&A Waterfront. Although we formulated questions to gain insights into these implications, exploring the PSG implications as they emerged allowed for a diversity of insights to surface, many of which would not have surfaced, given a rigid questionnaire (Supplementary Materials Table S1: Interview Guide).

3.2.1. Decoupled Resource Governance: Bird’s-Eye View of Data

Analysis of all interviews and focus material showed that using GCX DASH- has enabled the V&A Waterfront to enact a measure of decoupled resource governance, that is, sustaining economic growth at a certain percentage while dependence on resources goes flat or declines [44]. By using GCX DASH-, the V&A Waterfront has largely decoupled its economic and financial growth from the growth in carbon emissions, water, waste and energy. Since practical examples of decoupled resource governance using a DSS are shown in the literature as virtually non-existent [45], the V&A Waterfront presents a significant example on a global level.

A practical governance result that has emerged from the use of GCX DASH- is the ability to save time [42,43,44,45]. What would usually be a time-consuming and expensive yearly black-box carbon disclosure exercise has become an automated, updated, real-time analysis of consolidated resource data and related carbon emission data [17]. This not only saves the V&A Waterfront time and money but also offers it a bird’s-eye view of data displayed on a live online accessible dashboard and as a monthly eco-analytics report [13]. An overview and demonstration of the live online dashboard and the eco-analytics report produced each month can be found and requested on the GCX website https://gcxdash.com/dash/ (accessed on 20 April 2024) [13], an overview of which will be briefly given here.

The live online dashboard GCX DASH-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VPhPc9OngA (accessed on 5 April 2024) represents a complete ESG and performance management platform that gathers and displays large amounts of consolidated data about the V&A and its tenants. The process starts with the GCX gathering various sets of data and placing them on the dashboard to build data confidence. Next, the dashboard monitors progress and establishes performance metrics, helping the V&A continuously improve. It also enables the V&A to report on its to both internal and external stakeholders. This assists the V&A in enhancing its sustainability as the dashboard comprises four distinct sections: Environment Dash, Social Dash, Governance Dash and Performance Management [13]. The Performance Management section refers to the assessment of capital expenditure (CAPEX), cost savings, consumption savings and percentage savings. The Governance Dash section contains data on sustainability goals, procurement, tax, business ethics, board independence and diversity, data security and anti-bribery. The Social Dash section produces indicators such as customer complaints, living wages, anti-child labour, fair compensation, fatalities, whistleblowing and equal work and equal pay. The Environmental Dash section provides data on the carbon footprint, energy, water, waste, fuels, fugitive gasses, travel and accommodation. The dashboard produces a monthly eco-analytics report containing environmental data, which is briefly discussed later. Furthermore, the dashboard tracks intensities across sectors, sub-sectors, regions and properties, and is as detailed as the individual tenant level. This allows performance comparison among tenants within a portfolio.

The eco-analytics report is produced each month as part of the Environmental Dash section and is prefaced with an emissions page, followed by a detailed section for each major activity reported on, e.g., water, energy, waste, fugitive gasses, travel and accommodation. Within each section, separate pages are provided for details, including consumption, costs, intensities, the top 15 consumptions and intensities, the largest consumption (by property) and the largest consumption (by tenant) [13].

3.2.2. Projecting Potential Outcomes for Better Decision-Making (CAPEX)

The bird’s-eye view of resource flows and patterns tells the V&A Waterfront precisely what resources are being used on a monthly and yearly basis, enabling it to make better decisions and set realistic sustainability-oriented performance targets for the year ahead [17]. These annual targets are improvements on the previous year’s performance, following a standardised set of metrics (e.g., emissions, water use per person, waste per person, energy use). These targets are not, like in many cases, wishful-thinking targets designed for political performance that can be construed as greenwashing. They are rooted in reality and are realistic and achievable. The system, therefore, enables a deep level of learning that enables better decision-making and better setting of realistic targets.

The dashboard also makes it possible to project potential outcomes over time, for example, in 2030, 2040 or 2050, if the rate of improvement is maintained. For the V&A Waterfront, this projection drives its CAPEX budgeting. Evidence suggests that with accurate key performance indicators (KPIs) and dynamic baselines, the V&A Waterfront can compare buildings per square metre, enabling it to assess the performance of outliers, while finding reasons for why these are outliers.

Previously (before GCX DASH-), CAPEX was ‘...driven by who shouted the loudest’ [17]. However, with the analytics tool in place, guided decisions directing CAPEX can be made that contribute ecologically and socially. As GCX 1 [19] explains, ‘You will be able to use data to identify where capital expenditure is required. So, yes, the dashboard does have the ability to indicate where it’s required.’ This has led V&A 1 [17] to describe the resource data flows enabled by GCX DASH- as ‘game-changing’.

3.2.3. Unintended Consequences

Findings indicate that accurate measurement of waste throughout the V&A Waterfront enables better decision-making surrounding waste. One such instance occurred when using waste data: the V&A Waterfront management realised it could only go up to 43% landfill diversion, as going higher leads to a hefty gate fee at landfills [18]. This means it is essentially paying more than it is saving for recycling high quantities, an unintended consequence that GCX DASH- picked up, since it displays environmental data in relation to financial data, otherwise known as materiality. As V&A 1 [17] states, ‘We’ve proven with the platform that anything above 43% doesn’t pay me to recycle’, once again highlighting the importance of picking up materiality rather than pure non-financial data in isolation.

Realising these unintended consequences of recycling led the V&A management to seek alternative ways of dealing with waste. This led to an assessment followed be the approval of plans for a waste-to-energy plant using advanced pyrolysis treatment, where all waste except glass and metal would go into the plant to produce energy [18]. In other words, the V&A Waterfront would stop effectively recycling on-site, as everything would be used for energy in the long run [18]. Access to a complete data record of the V&A’s MFA (provided by GCX DASH-) enabled it to use nexus thinking around water, energy and waste. As V&A 2 [18] explains:

Once we did the viability for the waste-to-energy, we knew that the amount of energy that we would be able to get from the waste-to-energy plant would be able to provide at least two-thirds of the energy required for the desalination plant. And the other third of that would be coming from the PV installations. So, it was a no-brainer for us. Because your payback period was within reach of what we were hoping for. And at least from a development perspective, we’re not putting additional strain on the system, it would be able to generate our own electricity, which is great.

This is an example of how GCX DASH- allows for decision-making that takes a nexus perspective: a single intervention was constructed that would have reverberating effects on three distinct resources, namely waste, energy and water. Other proposed interventions stemming from solutions assessment via the dashboard include commissioning a blackwater treatment plant to help the V&A deal with its wastewater [42]. The blackwater treatment plant is being constructed at the site of the V&A Waterfront’s current sewage pump station and will, once completed, treat sewage water to a level two standard, making it safe to use for irrigation. There is an option to upgrade the blackwater treatment plant to a level one standard, making the treated water safe for consumption; however, this will occur only after a trial period.

In short, the GCX dashboard has allowed for the enactment of circular thinking, as it made the V&A Waterfront realise that it had reached a ceiling regarding many of the systems meant to save and recycle resources. Significantly, MFA data underpinned this decision, which, in turn, made possible a proper nexus perspective and is thus a determining factor in enacting accurate nexus thinking.

3.2.4. Adaptive Co-Management between Land Tenants through Adaptive Approaches

Another finding was the positive effects GCX DASH- has on the collaboration between tenants and landlords through supporting and reinforcing the enactment of green leases and a shared value ecosystem approach adopted at the V&A Waterfront. Green leases are essentially contracts between Growthpoint (including the V&A Waterfront) as the landlord and the tenants, whereby they all share the benefits and expenses of driving efficiencies in water, energy and waste [7]. The shared-value perspective refers to striving towards business outcomes that extend beyond just benefits for the shareholders and take a social-ecological system (SES) view in striving for holistic system outcomes [17]. With GCX DASH- in place, the V&A Waterfront can support both these agendas with accurate and up-to-date resource flow data displayed with excellent detail (e.g., it can show a specific tenant’s consumption or a particular room within the tenant’s building). This also helps with conflict resolution, as disputes can be resolved with accurate data [18].

3.2.5. Driving System Change: Implications during Day Zero

The enactment of green leases and a shared value ecosystem are catalysts for system change. One example is the water crisis in Cape Town (Day Zero) [46]. Because the V&A relies on tenants for the total consumption, it was paramount to drive down consumption. During the water crisis, to motivate tenants to participate, the V&A assembled all significant users together in a room and showed them comparisons of consumption rates using GCX DASH-, while also highlighting who the significant users were [17]. By offering the data, the V&A Waterfront persuaded large consumers to ask questions and eventually implement changes. Another factor influencing this was large consumers realising how much money their competitors save (made possible by showing the materiality of water consumption), which incentivised the changes over time for many of these tenants.

3.2.6. Dynamics of Power through Trust Relationships That Enhance System Change

Investigating how the implementation of the GCX influenced the relationships between the landlord and tenants led to the conclusion that a DSS, such as GCX DASH-, enables shared information, which is, in turn, critical in shaping the required relationships of trust needed to create mutual relationships between top-down and bottom-up governance structures [17,18,42,43,44,45]. Therefore, a shared DSS that tracks performances and stimulates better collective decision-making may be a part of the answer related to shaping power dynamics via better connections to enable real, achievable system change.

3.2.7. Possible Improvements

However, there are still opportunities for improvement. One improvement discussed relates to more direct access to GCX-provided information for all units of governance at the V&A Waterfront, including tenants. Another suggested improvement is incorporating the monitorisation of food flows on GCX DASH-, as this will extend the sphere of consideration when making decisions that take into account interrelated resources. A third limitation discussed is the fact that CSI components are currently not fully incorporated into the dashboard. Since this is a large portion of the V&A’s responsibility and budgeting, the V&A would highly benefit from more accurate tracking of environmental, social and financial data in relation to one another. Another suggested improvement is for the V&A to increase and evolve policies promoting broadened governance participation between all units of governance related to the V&A. The final improvement recommended is for more collaborative agreements with relational units of governance, such as the City of Cape Town, NGOs, private institutions and civil society, developing polycentric agreements between systems that are inextricably interlinked. These recommended improvements are important because if they are implemented, they may have a further strengthening effect on the V&A’s ability to govern for resilience.

4. Discussion

4.1. Do These Implications Hold Any Potential for Enhanced Resilience in the Cape Town Context?

Equipped with an understanding of the PSG significance and implications of the WEF nexus governance approach at the V&A Waterfront, this section discusses these findings in relation to their potential for enhanced resilience, explicitly referring to Biggs et al.’s [32] seven principles of enhanced resilience explored in the literature review.

Resilience Implications

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the V&A Waterfront displays the ability to adapt, collaborate, improve and continue to function (via adaptive co-management) in the face of serious challenges—all essential characteristics for SES resilience [2,27,28,29,31]. Exploring the PSG implications and their potential for enhanced resilience shows that the V&A Waterfront also displays a highly prevalent degree of institutional capacity to maintain diversity and redundancy. In addition, the analysis shows that the V&A Waterfront can manage connectivity, slow variables and feedback, while broadening participation. Furthermore, the V&A Waterfront displays a prevalent degree of institutional capacity to drive adaptive system thinking, while also encouraging learning and polycentric governance. Since the nexus governance approach is responsible for bringing about many of these resilience-enhancing PSG implications, its practical application does enhance the ability to govern resilience in practice.

To synthesise different degrees of principle prevalence at the V&A Waterfront as a result of nexus governance,

Table 2. Degree of Principle Prevalence and Recommended Improvements.

Principles for Enhanced Resilience	Degree of Principle Prevalence at the V&A Waterfront as Result of Nexus-Governance (not Prevalent, Prevalent or Highly Prevalent)	Possible Improvements
Maintain diversity and redundancy	Highly prevalent level of governance diversity and redundancy while maintaining autonomy.	Establishing an extra unit of management at the V&A that enacts a nexus view of resources, enabling the identification of synergies and trade-offs.
Manage connectivity	Highly prevalent level of connectivity via shared information provided by GCX DASH-.	More direct access to GCX-provided information among all units of governance present at the V&A Waterfront, including tenants.
Manage slow variables and feedback	Highly prevalent levels of management which considers slow variables and feedback, largely underpinned by information provided by GCX DASH-.	Greater emphasis on future scenario forecasting using data from GCX DASH-.
Foster complex adaptive systems thinking	Prevalent complex adaptive system thinking within the governance sphere of the V&A Waterfront.	Further development of social, financial and environmental data in relation to one another on GCX DASH-.
Encourage learning	Prevalent levels of learning via monitorisation and experimentation.	Incorporate the monitorisation of food flows on GCX DASH-.
Broaden participation	Highly prevalent levels of broadened participation with broad range of governance units all working together on shared governance issues.	Increased and evolved policies promoting broadened governance participation between all units of governance related to the V&A Waterfront.
Promote polycentric governance systems	The V&A Waterfront has developed a prevalent form of participation that in many regards represents and resembles the polycentric governance system proposed by Biggs et al. (2015) 31.	More collaborative agreements with relational units of governance such as City of Cape Town, NGO’s, private institutions and civil society, developing polycentric agreements between systems that are inextricably interlinked.

illustrates each principle, as well as the degree of principle prevalence at the V&A (ranging from not prevalent to prevalent or highly prevalent). This is combined with a column synthesising various possible improvements that, if implemented, could lead to even greater prevalence of the seven principles of enhanced resilience. Table 2 is based on what research findings suggested in relation to the research framework applied, as interpreted by the researchers, and therefore it is a representation of the researchers’ opinion supported by research findings.

The findings for all the sub-questions equipped us with the necessary information to present findings in relation to the primary research question 1: How does the nexus governance approach at the V&A Waterfront enhance the capacity to govern for resilience in the Cape Town context?

4.2. How Does the Nexus Governance Approach at the V&A Waterfront Enhance the Capacity to Govern for Resilience in the Cape Town Context?

The main findings revolve around how dysfunctions in the wider urban context of Cape Town, and its related City of Cape Town (CCT) government, are made apparent, given system changes at the V&A Waterfront in response to these dysfunctions. These dysfunctions are made apparent because the V&A Waterfront constantly faces constraints of the wider system (recycling, water, energy). Yet, the limits of the wider system are also catalysts for the V&A Waterfront to enact system changes in response to these wider system limitations. These changes include the V&A Waterfront’s innovations regarding waste to energy, desalination and the installation of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system and a blackwater treatment plant.

Evidence strongly suggests the essential role of a DSS, namely GCX DASH-, and its tracking of resource flows (MFA) in revealing the weaknesses of the wider system, while also providing information necessary to make informed decisions in response to these wider system weaknesses. The consequences of this are twofold. Firstly, it gives the V&A Waterfront the wherewithal to engage with the wider system actors to recommend system changes that would significantly build capacity to govern for resilience. Secondly, it demonstrates the possibility for strengthened capacity to govern for resilience in the Cape Town context that may emerge if other precincts, or perhaps the CCT as a whole, were to implement an MFA-based DSS for nexus governance (similar to the one found at the V&A Waterfront).

Understanding the potential of an MFA-based DSS, however, led to a further question: Will the same resilience-enhancing effects be experienced if the CCT implements a DSS-backed (and related MFA-based) nexus governance approach? Exploring this question demonstrated various contextual differences between Cape Town and the V&A Waterfront, all of which will inevitably make a difference regarding how the MFA-based DSS will have to be contextually adjusted. However, the concluding argument is that, with these contextual adjustments, a DSS-supported (and related MFA-based) nexus governance approach will bring about similar resilience-enhancing effects experienced by the V&A Waterfront and should, therefore, be implemented.

5. Conclusions

Cape Town, like any other major metropolitan city in the world, can be identified as a unit that has a divergence of complex sustainability challenges. As such, cities around the world are facing an urgent need to adopt and enhance social-ecological system (SES) thinking for building resilience to existing and anticipated shocks and stresses. The interwoven nature of food, energy, water and waste in the urban context is increasingly facing shocks and stresses that call for decision-makers and policymakers to urgently seek more resilient measures. However, studies reveal there is a gap between commitments to SES resilience and the practical ability to govern for resilience, creating a dichotomy between resilience theory and practice. With the aim to bridge the gap between resilience theory and practice, the WEF nexus framework is suggested to be a supporting tool for SES resilience, as it recognises the interconnected nature of resources, as opposed to the traditional approach of governing resources separately from one another.

To test the claim that the WEF nexus approach is a suitable planning and management tool for building SES resilience, a transdisciplinary study approach was used to assess how the WEF nexus approach is understood theoretically and practically. The analysis indicated there is a disparity in how the WEF nexus framework is understood and conceptualised in theory and what the reality of the framework’s implementation is. As such, the study found it challenging to validate the WEF nexus as a supporting tool for building SES resilience. In line with this, the findings of this study argue for a deeper exploration of the practical implementation of the WEF nexus framework in planning, governance and social processes. To explore the realities of a more practical WEF nexus governance approach, the study analysed the governance and management systems of the V&A Waterfront, a precinct in Cape Town that adopted the WEF nexus approach for sustainable management of WEF nexus resources, to understand whether the merger between WEF nexus theory and governance impacts the practically demonstrated ability to govern for SES resilience. This study analysed the V&A Waterfront’s governance and management systems in place, including its use of the Global Carbon Exchange (GCX) system, as well as the practical, social and governance significance of the WEF nexus governance approach at the V&A Waterfront. The study also included an in-depth analysis of the significance and implications of such an approach and whether those implications have any potential to enhance SES resilience.

The findings of the analysis indicate that the WEF nexus governance approach at the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town has implications that enhance the capacity to govern for SES resilience in the V&A Waterfront context. Furthermore, the study concludes that the WEF nexus governance approach also enhances the capacity to govern for SES resilience in the Cape Town context, as the need for such an approach is indicative of the broader contextual conditions within which the V&A Waterfront functions, making clear the dysfunctions and, thus, the paths for improvement in Cape Town. Lastly, findings indicate the key factor for the success of the WEF nexus governance approach at the V&A is a material flow analysis (MFA)-based decision support system (DSS) exemplified by the GCX Data Analytics and Sustainability Hub- (DASH-).