A Stakeholder Analysis for a Water-Energy-Food Nexus Evaluation in an Atlantic Forest Area: Implications for an Integrated Assessment and a Participatory Approach

A water-energy-food (WEF) nexus assessment supports natural resource management by providing an integrated framework for evaluation and decision-making. The participation of a wide range of stakeholders is essential for achieving environmental, economic, and social sustainability in this framework. This analysis supports the decision-making process of the nexus assessment by facilitating dialogue between stakeholders in order to achieve long term efficiencies, especially in rural landscapes where most of the services connected to WEF securities are provided. We identify the most relevant stakeholders operating in the connection between agricultural practices and the WEF nexus to stimulate their engagement in the nexus governance. The study area was the Atlantic Forest Reserve of Ribeirão das Lajes, Brazil. A stakeholder analysis, generating qualitative data using snowball sampling interviews was applied and, after the identification of stakeholders, an analytical categorization disclosing potential conflicts among them was performed. We obtained a pool of stakeholders from different organizational types, including a large number of public entities at local and state levels. The main threat to the development of the project is considered to be the lack of communication between the parties. We note that the prior identification of this group of stakeholders facilitates this communication, enhancing social representation in the area. Outcomes of this study demonstrate the relevance of stakeholder analysis in nexus governance for integrated natural resource management.


Introduction
Natural resource management is a multifaceted endeavor, as is the concept of sustainability. Active and continuous consultation between experts and stakeholders is fundamental for two main reasons. First, on the part of natural resources, it is necessary to highlight the interlinkages that exist in their use and production. The Water-Energy-Food nexus aims at defining the risks and With the present analysis, we aim to fulfill the identification and categorization of the stakeholders and unveil possible conflicts among them in our attempt to answer our research question. We want to disclose stakeholders who may have been neglected to both inform them about the issues being tackled in the nexus assessment and to include them in the decision-making process. By doing so, we can express our results in terms of the implications of a stakeholder analysis for an integrated nexus assessment of natural resource governance.  [9]. The procedures adopted in this research are highlighted in blue.

Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment
Albeit not strictly relevant for the purpose of this research, the present stakeholder analysis will contribute also to the theoretical framework of the evaluation process of Projeto Nexus, the Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA). Following König et al. [40], the FoPIA methodology, a participatory methodology designed to assess the impact of land-use policies and investments on regional sustainability [40][41][42], was used as a basis for the participatory engagement in the project. We applied its three main stages: the first stage is to develop the local scenario by describing the physical aspects as well as current public policies that may apply and the socioeconomic situation of the area; in the second phase, the effect of a set of possible agricultural practices and their effectiveness is evaluated with regards to the state of water, food, and energy security in the area; in the third stage, the results are used to build up impact scenarios and validate them with the stakeholders. A stakeholders analysis serves the purposes of FoPIA by providing qualitative data that outline the wide number of actors who live and operate with the resources at stake, to inform them of the risks and to debate the best solutions that have been identified based on the needs of the population and of the local economy. Large and influential stakeholders are also identified within the framework of the FoPIA as they may contribute to the decision-making process with their knowledge or, instead, obstruct its implementation.

Selection of Participants
The first step of this research employs a snowball sampling strategy conducted among a number of informants from different organizations either partnering in or assisting with the evaluation of the nexus assessment in Ribeirão das Lajes. This base of informants was selected for its expertise and understanding of the WEF nexus and its solid knowledge of the historical development of the region.  [9]. The procedures adopted in this research are highlighted in blue.
With the present analysis, we aim to fulfill the identification and categorization of the stakeholders and unveil possible conflicts among them in our attempt to answer our research question. We want to disclose stakeholders who may have been neglected to both inform them about the issues being tackled in the nexus assessment and to include them in the decision-making process. By doing so, we can express our results in terms of the implications of a stakeholder analysis for an integrated nexus assessment of natural resource governance.

Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment
Albeit not strictly relevant for the purpose of this research, the present stakeholder analysis will contribute also to the theoretical framework of the evaluation process of Projeto Nexus, the Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA). Following König et al. [40], the FoPIA methodology, a participatory methodology designed to assess the impact of land-use policies and investments on regional sustainability [40][41][42], was used as a basis for the participatory engagement in the project. We applied its three main stages: the first stage is to develop the local scenario by describing the physical aspects as well as current public policies that may apply and the socio-economic situation of the area; in the second phase, the effect of a set of possible agricultural practices and their effectiveness is evaluated with regards to the state of water, food, and energy security in the area; in the third stage, the results are used to build up impact scenarios and validate them with the stakeholders. A stakeholders analysis serves the purposes of FoPIA by providing qualitative data that outline the wide number of actors who live and operate with the resources at stake, to inform them of the risks and to debate the best solutions that have been identified based on the needs of the population and of the local economy. Large and influential stakeholders are also identified within the framework of the FoPIA as they may contribute to the decision-making process with their knowledge or, instead, obstruct its implementation.

Selection of Participants
The first step of this research employs a snowball sampling strategy conducted among a number of informants from different organizations either partnering in or assisting with the evaluation of the nexus assessment in Ribeirão das Lajes. This base of informants was selected for its expertise and understanding of the WEF nexus and its solid knowledge of the historical development of the region.
Through an online survey, we gathered opinions from 10 respondents across four different organizations that represent expertise in all the three nexus sectors. In order to include a broad range of different interests, these organizations pertain to different environmental governance sectors, including the public, private, and nonprofit arenas.
The informants pointed out a set of organizations, individuals, and associations that they defined as crucial in the decision-making process and that should, therefore, be included-if they were not already part of the nexus assessment group.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedure
We created an online survey using Google Forms and shared it via email with partners of the nexus assessment group of Ribeirão das Lajes. The decision to use an online survey was due to the fact that the interviewers and the interviewees were in different locations at the time of the survey. The survey was structured in four questions that aimed to qualitatively identify: (i) the main issue to be tackled in the reservoir, thus highlighting their interests; (ii) the urgency of an intervention in the area, thus highlighting their level of concern; (iii) their opinion of the stakeholders who play a crucial role in the implementation of the project who either have high influence in the decision-making process or who could have influence if they were involved; and, finally, (iv) their opinion of the stakeholders who may undermine the development of the project, who are either already included or who should be included to resolve covert conflicts.
With the results obtained, we seek to obtain a list of the stakeholders who need to be involved. We then use this list to identify them by the frequency with which a certain stakeholder is mentioned through snowball sampling interviews. Next, we operate a categorization of these stakeholders. This is an analytical top-down categorization [43]. The analytical methodology assumes that the researchers define the categories according to the main objectives of the project, in order to have a clear vision about which stakeholders should be engaged for each particular aspect of the project. Since the assessment comprises the three dimensions of water, electricity, and food security, the categories used are the main area of interest for each stakeholder in terms of the WEF nexus, the governance sector (i.e., private, public, nonprofit), and the level on which they are active (basin, local, state, national, or international). This attempts to unveil the possible dynamics of cooperation, or threat, between the public and private sectors throughout the implementation of the project. This categorization is implemented as a continuous process by the stakeholders themselves through a reconstructive bottom-up categorization in the next steps of the assessment.

Definition of the Issue and Stakeholder Framework
In the first phase, participants were asked to highlight the main issues that affect the area under investigation, regarding the impact of agricultural practices in the WEF nexus. Responses show the different areas of interest that will define the boundaries of the stakeholder identification process, thus narrowing the selection to groups of experts or entities living or working closely with these factors. The respondents had the possibility to choose more than one option. In this regard, soil degradation was indicated by all informants as one of the main threats to be tackled, while water pollution was chosen by 50%. Additionally, water availability and biodiversity were regularly mentioned by, respectively, 40% and 30% of the interviewees. Other existing issues, like the low touristic activity in the area, floods, and wildfires were not indicated as crucial for the Ribeiro das Lajes nexus assessment in this context. The identification process follows the direct result of the snowball sampling interviews. The list of all the organizations quoted gives an indication of the most widely identified stakeholders and is reported in Table 1. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. Local Municipalities (generic) It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders. It is possible to observe that there is a large number of public entities at all levels (local, federal or national) and a smaller number of private or non-profit entities. Out of the 32 mentioned entities, only a few are identified several times, suggesting that there is a limited group of stakeholders commonly recognized as being closely linked with the reservoir or with the nexus sectors in the area. On the other hand, several entities are mentioned only once, suggesting that their presence in the debate should be agreed upon among stakeholders.
The most recognized entities were Light, the company that owns property rights in the region and that, as mentioned earlier, has been the main decision-maker for over a century. Different governmental organizations represented the other most recognized entities, including the State Company for Water and Sewage (CEDAE), the State Institute for the Environment (INEA), the State Secretary for Agriculture (SEAPPA), and, lastly, the Committee for the Guandu Hydrographic Region. Furthermore, a large interest was shown in local municipalities, showing their need to be involved and their role in bringing the project closer to the local population. The municipalities of Rio Claro and Piraí, where the reservoir is located, were the most commonly identified, but there were several references to generic local municipalities needing to participate, thus widening this choice through further consultation, since the municipalities fully supplied by the resources of the reservoir include Itaguaí, Seropédica, Paracambi, and, partially, Japeri, Queimados, Nova Iguaçu, and the city of Rio de Janeiro. The other private entities that received attention included the private companies and rural producers in the area; however, these were named generically, thus indicating a need for further discussion before selecting a representative for this category.

Stakeholder Categorization
The stakeholders were classified and divided into categories by organization type, the level at which they operate (basin, local, state, national, international), and the main nexus sector interest (Water, Energy, Food). The results are shown in Table 2. This categorization discloses the main area of interest for each stakeholder for the different nexus elements, and the organization type. With this categorization we seek, on the one hand, to differentiate working skills and knowledge to better highlight each stakeholder's potential contribution to deliver the best sustainability-related outcome and, on the other hand, to highlight how much each organizational type represents the expertise and interest of each nexus sector. This categorization gives us a perception of the diversity of the stakeholders' environment to highlight sectoral division and different scales of operation. As Mercure et al. [11] highlight, the lack of coordination of the actors at different scales of governance and in different sectors may prejudice the implementation of effective policy in the interlinked nexus dimensions. Responses gathered through the questionnaire from the partner organizations of the nexus assessment in Ribeirão das Lajes resulted in a list of 39 stakeholders of different backgrounds and different areas of interest. More than half of these are public entities (22, plus four public universities), and, out of the 13 private stakeholders, five are nonprofit organizations with environmental or educational purposes. Figure 3 summarizes the shares of stakeholder by organization type.
Among the 22 public institutions present in the list, ten operate at the local level. These are secretaries, municipalities, or organizations operating in the municipalities closest to the basin, mostly Rio Claro and Piraí. Seven other institutions operate at the state level of Rio de Janeiro, representing the population and the economy of the state, all of which rely on the basin's resources. Two organizations, namely Ceivap and Comite Guandu, are state agencies operating in the management of the basin. Local governments is called on to bring the needs of the community closer to the decision-making process and pushed to assume the role of representing what Duran and Thoenig [44] define as "local public action." Furthermore, the commixture of public and private entities is expected to facilitate the dialogue between them. Not only is one of the aims of the Projeto Nexus project to create a learning platform to be used in distance learning courses, but the participative approach also carries an instructive value in its attempt to inform the community about both the nexus framework and the threats and opportunities that their resources are facing. In this way, a sense of ownership and active citizenship reinforcing the protection of the area is created.
Lastly, Figure 4 shows the share of expertise in each Nexus sector as represented by each organizational type, drawing on data in Table 2. From this figure, it is possible to understand how attention to each respective nexus sector is distributed among stakeholders of the same organization type. We see that all the groups (public, private companies, and private nonprofit organizations) show more concern for the water component. This is justified by the fact that water is the first resource used to supplement the production of both food and energy, whose preservation is, therefore, paramount for the existence of the other sectors. To have such a wide base of public organizations (many entirely devoted to environmental protection or to the development and protection of public services), international NGOs, and groups of organized civil society is expected to enhance the representation of the interests of those individuals who are further from the decision-making process [4]. These include around nine million beneficiary citizens of the greater area of Rio de Janeiro as well as the local companies and rural producers that are dependent on the preservation of the basin's resources. The theoretical argument for large public participation in environmental management is enhanced by the public-good nature of the resources. In this context, private companies often fail to quantify the social costs of externalities given by pollution or, as in this case, soil degradation, thus prompting government intervention [44]. The presence of many local public institutions is argued to bring positive impacts to the dynamics of community representation, helping to develop active citizenship in the region [7]. This result also demonstrates that the informants believe that agricultural activity is strongly directed by the public sector.
Among the 22 public institutions present in the list, ten operate at the local level. These are secretaries, municipalities, or organizations operating in the municipalities closest to the basin, mostly Rio Claro and Piraí. Seven other institutions operate at the state level of Rio de Janeiro, representing the population and the economy of the state, all of which rely on the basin's resources. Two organizations, namely Ceivap and Comite Guandu, are state agencies operating in the management of the basin. Local governments is called on to bring the needs of the community closer to the decision-making process and pushed to assume the role of representing what Duran and Thoenig [44] define as "local public action." Furthermore, the commixture of public and private entities is expected to facilitate the dialogue between them.
Not only is one of the aims of the Projeto Nexus project to create a learning platform to be used in distance learning courses, but the participative approach also carries an instructive value in its attempt to inform the community about both the nexus framework and the threats and opportunities that their resources are facing. In this way, a sense of ownership and active citizenship reinforcing the protection of the area is created.
Lastly, Figure 4 shows the share of expertise in each Nexus sector as represented by each organizational type, drawing on data in Table 2. From this figure, it is possible to understand how attention to each respective nexus sector is distributed among stakeholders of the same organization type. We see that all the groups (public, private companies, and private nonprofit organizations) show more concern for the water component. This is justified by the fact that water is the first resource used to supplement the production of both food and energy, whose preservation is, therefore, paramount for the existence of the other sectors.

Threats Among Stakeholders
Lastly, our informants were asked to point out stakeholders who are currently being neglected, thus potentially undermining project developments due to conflicting interests. Only one stakeholder proposed that there may be some counter-pressures from Light and CEDAE, the two organizations with the greatest local presence.
Other interviewees clearly stated that there should be no stakeholder who might be against the objectives of the project, unless communication problems between stakeholders arise later. These problems may be due to different understanding of the issues affecting the area being evaluated in Projeto Nexus and, therefore, an uneven understanding of the potential return that the proposed responses could bring to the company or the environment.
Specifically, one of the informants hypothesized that such a problem may occur with Light and CEDAE, by stating the following: "I do not see any entities that could directly harm the project. Perhaps the nonparticipation of some institutions will reduce the scope of the project, for example, the companies of energy [Light, Cemig] or water and sanitation [Cedae], which do not realize the importance of collaborating with the project and the return that this would mean to the companies themselves." Another informant expressed similar concerns, suggesting that many involves private companies and rural producers in the area may oppose the project, not joining it because they feel excluded or because they are not informed about the scenario and the possible outcomes of the project. In particular, the informant said: "Rural producers themselves may not be interested in joining Projeto Nexus if they are not well informed and aware of the project's objectives and the benefits they can have from adopting good agricultural and environmental practices." Lastly, two informants highlighted the relevance of good communication and cooperation between the public and the private sectors, as well as the social and environmental responsibilities that they hold. They stated, respectively, that the stakeholders who might undermine the outcome of the projects are:

Threats among Stakeholders
Lastly, our informants were asked to point out stakeholders who are currently being neglected, thus potentially undermining project developments due to conflicting interests. Only one stakeholder proposed that there may be some counter-pressures from Light and CEDAE, the two organizations with the greatest local presence.
Other interviewees clearly stated that there should be no stakeholder who might be against the objectives of the project, unless communication problems between stakeholders arise later. These problems may be due to different understanding of the issues affecting the area being evaluated in Projeto Nexus and, therefore, an uneven understanding of the potential return that the proposed responses could bring to the company or the environment.
Specifically, one of the informants hypothesized that such a problem may occur with Light and CEDAE, by stating the following: "I do not see any entities that could directly harm the project. Perhaps the non-participation of some institutions will reduce the scope of the project, for example, the companies of energy [Light, Cemig] or water and sanitation [Cedae], which do not realize the importance of collaborating with the project and the return that this would mean to the companies themselves." Another informant expressed similar concerns, suggesting that many involves private companies and rural producers in the area may oppose the project, not joining it because they feel excluded or because they are not informed about the scenario and the possible outcomes of the project. In particular, the informant said: "Rural producers themselves may not be interested in joining Projeto Nexus if they are not well informed and aware of the project's objectives and the benefits they can have from adopting good agricultural and environmental practices." Lastly, two informants highlighted the relevance of good communication and cooperation between the public and the private sectors, as well as the social and environmental responsibilities that they hold. They stated, respectively, that the stakeholders who might undermine the outcome of the projects are: "Both public and private entities, as long as they are not involved in related actions." Also: "Public and private, depending on the lack of socio-environmental responsibility".
These concerns are in line with those aforementioned regarding the relevance of creating a solid, common understanding of the scenario, the WEF Nexus, the issues, and the policy responses [9]. Furthermore, to keep informed and to give a voice to local producers who may generally be excluded from the decision-making process, as they have no direct influence, it is argued that if stakeholders perceive that their interests and necessities have not been taken into consideration, they can nourish a sense of hostility against the project and obstruct its implementation.

Conclusions
Our study is built on and contributes to the literature that implements nexus assessment through a stakeholder analysis [13,19] to tackle challenges that may arise throughout its implementation. These are the creation of a common understanding of the natural resource scenario, as well as the institutional framework of entities governing the resources or depending on their conservation. The incomplete communication flow among stakeholders may harm the decision-making process and hinder effective policy implementation causing science-to-policy gaps [15,18,19]. We encourage the inclusion of a diverse set of stakeholders in the decision-making process for land use management due to its normative and instrumental benefits [9]. For this purpose, we test and verify the feasibility of stakeholder analysis for the region and the multi-level evaluation process embedded in rural landscape planning and WEF nexus governance. Snowball sampling has proved to be an effective methodology to gather a pool of diverse stakeholders pertaining to different organizational categories, providing us with a more complete framework of actors and institutions from the region.
As a secondary result, we claim that the participation of different public entities in the decision making process will result in a clearer representation of societal needs.
The stakeholder analysis itself is characterized by several specific properties that make it a suitable tool for the implementation of the nexus, such as being an inherently participative process that helps the co-production of knowledge and the mutual recognition of stakeholders [4,9], creating an arena for experts and stakeholders to find the best policy responses.
This research is also a case study of the application of the nexus assessment in the framework of a participatory evaluation project in land use management in the Atlantic Forest biome, that seeks to evaluate the impact of rural practices in the WEF nexus.
The need for stakeholder analysis originates from two aspects of the research. First is the interdisciplinarity of the nexus assessment, which calls for the active co-creation of knowledge nurtured by the diverse background of a broad range of stakeholders [3,19]. Secondly, the participatory approach used to consolidate the evaluation and decision-making processes calls for the active participation and engagement of a wide spectrum of stakeholders [4,32], who are not only those actors who can affect change, but also those affected by it [5]. Thus, there is a need to represent a wide range of societal needs through the identification and categorization of the actors who define the scenario. In turn, this has the benefit of enhancing the democratic representativeness [6,32] and the civic participation of the local community [7].
Based on the methodology of Reeds et al. [9], we build a stakeholder analysis that aligns with the aim of Projeto Nexus, located in the Atlantic Forest Area of the Reservoir of Ribeirão das Lajes, Brazil, and that provides us with a good understanding of the actors who define the scenario and who should be considered in the decision-making process. The research carried out produced information obtained from the expert's responses that is functional with respect to the stakeholders' dialogue. We processed the results to address the first two aims of the stakeholder analysis, namely identification and categorization. This contributes to the research, providing us with three main results: (i) Our informants identify 32 organizations that, together with the previous partners of the project, make up a pool of 39 stakeholders. The informants consider that these stakeholders should take part in the decision-making process either due to their dependency on the resources or the influence that they have in the area. (ii) The categorization of these stakeholders by organization type and main Nexus sector of interest reveals a majority of public institutions, supporting the general view that agricultural activity is strongly directed by the public sector. This result is supported by the need to represent a wide range of societal needs that are related to security of the WEF nexus, the primary aim of Projeto Nexus. Furthermore, this result is also set to improve the communication between the private and public sectors, in a scenario that has seen the dominating presence of one main company, the owner of the land in the area, for more than 100 years. (iii) No entity has been identified as a stakeholder that could harm the development of the project. Instead, the main factor pointed out by the informants as a possible threat to the development of the project is the lack of communication across sectors and with small, local companies and rural producers.