Building Climate-Resilient Food Systems Through the Water–Energy–Food–Environment Nexus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

This review article explores how the Water–Energy–Food–Environment (WEF-E) nexus can be used to build climate-resilient food systems, also giving some practical examples and identifying research priorities. ​Overall, from my viewpoint, this topic is very pertinent under the current climate change challenges and suits well with this journal's scope. The text is well structured and clear, with appropriate length. The review is sufficiently comprehensive and gives enough credit to the relevant literature. Therefore, I recommend its publication after some revisions that are outlined below.

Specific comments:

1. The article can be improved with a new subsection in Section 2 (Methods) by giving some statistics concerning the bibliographic references used in the review, namely, a map showing the countries covered by the different studies referred to in the manuscript, and a graph with the temporal distribution of the references. These will enable, e.g., a better assessment of the geographical extension and temporal evolution of the research on this topic.
2. In Section 6, it would be interesting to create a new short subsection on the prospects for the integration of the WEF-E nexus concept in teaching programmes, from primary schools to universities, and capacity building of stakeholders and policymakers. Education on these issues, right from childhood, and transversal to different disciplines and academic courses, should be enhanced in modern societies.
3. I suggest adding a Table or Figure (e.g., schematic diagram) with a summary of the main impacts, strategies and future guidelines mentioned throughout the manuscript. This will enable an easier reference to the main ideas.

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging feedback and thoughtful suggestions that recognize the clarity, structure, and relevance of the review. I appreciate the insightful recommendations to enhance the manuscript’s comprehensiveness and presentation.

Comment #1: The article can be improved with a new subsection in Section 2 (Methods) by giving some statistics concerning the bibliographic references used in the review, namely, a map showing the countries covered by the different studies referred to in the manuscript, and a graph with the temporal distribution of the references. These will enable, e.g., a better assessment of the geographical extension and temporal evolution of the research on this topic.

Response #1: I have added a new Subsection 2.1 in the Methods entitled “Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Selection Summary.” This subsection includes a world map figure highlighting the country/regional coverage of cited case studies, and a bar chart figure showing the publication years of the referenced literature. (Please see Figure 1 and Figure 2 and the accompanying text in Section 2.1.).

Comment #2: In Section 6, it would be interesting to create a new short subsection on the prospects for the integration of the WEF-E nexus concept in teaching programmes, from primary schools to universities, and capacity building of stakeholders and policymakers. Education on these issues, right from childhood, and transversal to different disciplines and academic courses, should be enhanced in modern societies.

Response #2: I agree and have added a new Subsection 6.7: “Integrating the WEF-E Nexus into Education and Capacity Building.” This subsection (in Section 6) discusses the integration of nexus concepts into primary and secondary school curricula (to promote systems thinking from an early age), incorporation into university courses and professional training, and capacity-building efforts for stakeholders and policymakers.

Comment #3: I suggest adding a Table or Figure (e.g., schematic diagram) with a summary of the main impacts, strategies and future guidelines mentioned throughout the manuscript. This will enable an easier reference to the main ideas.

Response #3: A comprehensive summary table (Table 1) has been added in the Conclusions (Section 7). The table concisely lists key climate change impacts on food systems, the nexus-based strategies to address them, and future directions/guidelines. This serves as a quick-reference synthesis of the review’s main points. The table captures all the major ideas discussed in the text, along with forward-looking priorities.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The per-reviewed manuscript is addressed to the relevant problems related to the future of all mankind, the issues related to food security and the interconnection of the nexus of water– energy–food and environment have been considered. The author has analyzed an extensive range of scientific publications and made detailed research of cause-and-effect interrelations about challenges related to water, energy or food shortages; in addition, the review article proposes directions for solving these problems. The manuscript is properly structured, including all the necessary sections; each section is clearly written and easily understandable. The text is written in a clear and concise manner. The manuscript offers valuable insight for experts in ecology, environmental science, food and biotechnology. Overall, the manuscript has received positive feedback. However, there are some questions for the author, as noted below.

Line 119 -120: Over 220 documents were reviewed in full, 135 peer-reviewed sources were cited in the manuscript.  Please explain what criteria you used to select or exclude scientific articles in your review? To make it easier to understand, please include a flowchart of the methodology for searching sources for the scientific review.

In the text of your manuscript you provide a lot of examples and analytical conclusions, but for better perception, as a rule, review articles include tables and graphs. In this regard, I recommend you to include illustrations, tables, reflecting research related to the influence of one of the factors on other relationships emerging challenges and directions for their solution.

Author Response

I am grateful to the reviewer for the positive evaluation and valuable comments highlighting the structure, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript. I appreciate the constructive suggestions to improve visual representation and methodological transparency.

Comment #1: Line 119 -120: Over 220 documents were reviewed in full, 135 peer-reviewed sources were cited in the manuscript.  Please explain what criteria you used to select or exclude scientific articles in your review? To make it easier to understand, please include a flowchart of the methodology for searching sources for the scientific review.

Response #1: I have expanded the Methods (Section 2) to clarify the literature selection criteria and process. In particular: (1) I explicitly stated the eligibility and exclusion criteria, and (2) included a flowchart diagram (Figure 3) in the new Subsection 2.1, which visually outlines the search and screening process.

Comment #2: In the text of your manuscript you provide a lot of examples and analytical conclusions, but for better perception, as a rule, review articles include tables and graphs. In this regard, I recommend you to include illustrations, tables, reflecting research related to the influence of one of the factors on other relationships emerging challenges and directions for their solution.

Response #2: I added illustrative figures and tables that improve clarity and visual understanding: (a) Added Figure 1 (map) and Figure 2 (timeline) to show reference coverage, (b) Added Figure 3 (flowchart) to illustrate the methodology, (c) Added Table 1 summarizing climate impacts, nexus interlinkages, and solution directions – explicitly reflecting how one facet influences others and what solutions address these interlinked challenges. Additionally, existing examples in the text have been re-structured in a clearer way to highlight cause-and-effect relationships.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article addresses a highly relevant and timely topic: enhancing climate resilience in food systems through the Water–Energy–Food–Environment (WEF-E) nexus. Integrating cross-sectoral approaches is essential for tackling the complex challenges posed by climate change.

 

While the review is interesting and provides some valuable insights, it does not comprehensively cover the topic. Its scope is limited and biased toward hot climates and arid regions. The author frequently discusses similar technologies, such as solar-powered irrigation systems and agrovoltaics. Although these solutions are valid and effective within specific climate zones, their dominance in the discussion narrows the range of solutions explored. The review primarily focuses on challenges related to fossil fuel use for irrigation and cooling, agrovoltaics, and agroforestry, while key aspects of food system resilience in temperate or cold climate regions are overlooked.

 

Adaptation and mitigation strategies relevant to moderate climate agriculture are notably absent. For example, the review neglects the energy requirements for heating greenhouses or livestock barns (e.g., for poultry), despite this representing a significant challenge in non-arid regions. These aspects deserve attention in a review on this subject.

 

Furthermore, although the author mentions in the introduction that food systems account for around 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the paper does not adequately analyze the major sources of these emissions. It is crucial to clearly identify the sources. In this context, the definition of "food systems" is unclear. At times, the term seems to encompass the entire supply chain—from production to processing, logistics, and trade—while in other instances, it appears to refer only to agricultural practices. This inconsistency creates confusion and requires clarification.

 

According to IPCC classifications, the majority of agricultural GHG emissions stem from soil management, enteric fermentation, and manure management. In addition to these, the production of fertilizers and the combustion of fossil fuels are additional sources of emissions closely linked to food commodity production. Reducing these emissions would significantly enhance agricultural resilience within the WEF-E nexus. Unfortunately, these topics are not covered in the review.

 

The inclusion of grey literature and policy insights is an advantage of the paper. However, the methodology section lacks transparency. The process for identifying and selecting literature is not clearly described, raising questions about the review's comprehensiveness. While not all reviews need to be systematic, incorporating more elements of a systematic approach—such as clear search criteria, keyword logic, database selection, and a defined methodology for choosing papers—would strengthen the paper's credibility. Additionally, the chosen keywords (“WEF nexus,” “climate resilience,” “food systems,” “sustainability,” “governance,” and “nature-based solutions”) may not adequately reflect the broader scope implied by the research questions, potentially contributing to the observed regional and technological bias.

 

Lastly, the discussion of energy and water interdependencies oversimplifies the issue by focusing primarily on hydropower. In reality, conventional power plants—especially those that rely on fossil fuels—also require substantial water inputs for cooling, which are often drawn from natural reservoirs. This aspect of the WEF-E nexus is crucial and should be acknowledged.

 

In conclusion, while the paper addresses a critical issue and includes relevant examples, it would benefit greatly from a more balanced geographical and technological scope, clearer terminology, a transparent methodology, and deeper engagement with the full spectrum of adaptation and mitigation challenges across various climate contexts.

 

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the detailed and critical evaluation, which raised important points regarding regional balance, clarity of definitions, and methodological rigor. These comments have been highly valuable in helping me improve the depth and scope of the review.

Comment #1 & #2: 

While the review is interesting and provides some valuable insights, it does not comprehensively cover the topic. Its scope is limited and biased toward hot climates and arid regions. The author frequently discusses similar technologies, such as solar-powered irrigation systems and agrovoltaics. Although these solutions are valid and effective within specific climate zones, their dominance in the discussion narrows the range of solutions explored. The review primarily focuses on challenges related to fossil fuel use for irrigation and cooling, agrovoltaics, and agroforestry, while key aspects of food system resilience in temperate or cold climate regions are overlooked.

Adaptation and mitigation strategies relevant to moderate climate agriculture are notably absent. For example, the review neglects the energy requirements for heating greenhouses or livestock barns (e.g., for poultry), despite this representing a significant challenge in non-arid regions. These aspects deserve attention in a review on this subject.

Response #1 & #2: I appreciate this important observation and have broadened the geographic/climatic scope throughout the revised manuscript. In particular, Section 4 (Climate Change Impacts and Interconnected Challenges at the WEF-E Nexus) now includes a detailed discussion on cold-climate agriculture challenges and solutions – for example, the need for heating in greenhouses and barns, and technologies like biomass heating, geothermal heat pumps, and insulation for cold regions.

Comment #3 & #4:

Furthermore, although the author mentions in the introduction that food systems account for around 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the paper does not adequately analyze the major sources of these emissions. It is crucial to clearly identify the sources. In this context, the definition of "food systems" is unclear. At times, the term seems to encompass the entire supply chain—from production to processing, logistics, and trade—while in other instances, it appears to refer only to agricultural practices. This inconsistency creates confusion and requires clarification.

According to IPCC classifications, the majority of agricultural GHG emissions stem from soil management, enteric fermentation, and manure management. In addition to these, the production of fertilizers and the combustion of fossil fuels are additional sources of emissions closely linked to food commodity production. Reducing these emissions would significantly enhance agricultural resilience within the WEF-E nexus. Unfortunately, these topics are not covered in the review.

Response #3 & #4: I agree that GHG mitigation in food systems is an important piece of resilience. I have reflected this point in the overall revision of the manuscript with expanded discussion of food-system GHG emissions and their sources. I then related the sources to the WEF-E nexus, for instance, how improving fertilizer efficiency or biogas from manure simultaneously addresses emissions and other nexus components. The revised manuscript now includes discussion on the mitigation measures that can enhance resilience with the support of examples.

Comment #5: The inclusion of grey literature and policy insights is an advantage of the paper. However, the methodology section lacks transparency. The process for identifying and selecting literature is not clearly described, raising questions about the review's comprehensiveness. While not all reviews need to be systematic, incorporating more elements of a systematic approach—such as clear search criteria, keyword logic, database selection, and a defined methodology for choosing papers—would strengthen the paper's credibility. Additionally, the chosen keywords (“WEF nexus,” “climate resilience,” “food systems,” “sustainability,” “governance,” and “nature-based solutions”) may not adequately reflect the broader scope implied by the research questions, potentially contributing to the observed regional and technological bias.

Response #5: I have taken the following steps to make the methodology more transparent and systematic: (1) Section 2 (Methods) now details the search strategy (databases used, inclusion of grey literature sources, Boolean keyword combinations, and the publication year range targeted). I explicitly listed the keywords and logical combinations used, as well as the rationale for them, and acknowledge their focus. (2) I added text about expanding the search beyond the initial keywords. (3) I described the selection criteria and exclusion criteria applied, and presented the flowchart (Figure 3) as a visual systematic overview of the process. I also addressed the potential keyword bias by noting how this review handled it.

Comment #6: Lastly, the discussion of energy and water interdependencies oversimplifies the issue by focusing primarily on hydropower. In reality, conventional power plants—especially those that rely on fossil fuels—also require substantial water inputs for cooling, which are often drawn from natural reservoirs. This aspect of the WEF-E nexus is crucial and should be acknowledged.

Response #6: You are right. I have corrected this oversimplification by broadening the energy-water nexus discussion both in Section 4 and Section 5.2.

Comment #7: In conclusion, while the paper addresses a critical issue and includes relevant examples, it would benefit greatly from a more balanced geographical and technological scope, clearer terminology, a transparent methodology, and deeper engagement with the full spectrum of adaptation and mitigation challenges across various climate contexts.

Response #7: The manuscript has been revised according to the suggestions provided.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has revised the article satisfactorily. My only recommendation is to increase the label font size in Fig. 1. 

Author Response

Comment: The author has revised the article satisfactorily. My only recommendation is to increase the label font size in Fig. 1.

Response: I am thankful to the reviewer for the appreciation and suggestion. Now I have increased the font size in Figure 1.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the previous comments regarding geographical bias. They have significantly improved the manuscript. While the article still remains slightly biased towards hot and arid regions, this focus is now clearly explained and justified within the context of the study.

The methodological section has been expanded and is now comprehensive and well-structured; it no longer raises any concerns.

The authors have also significantly enhanced the conclusions by summarizing the main insights in a clear and concise table. This addition greatly improves the overall clarity and contribution of the article.

In my opinion, the article in its current form is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Comments: 

The authors have addressed the previous comments regarding geographical bias. They have significantly improved the manuscript. While the article still remains slightly biased towards hot and arid regions, this focus is now clearly explained and justified within the context of the study.

The methodological section has been expanded and is now comprehensive and well-structured; it no longer raises any concerns.

The authors have also significantly enhanced the conclusions by summarizing the main insights in a clear and concise table. This addition greatly improves the overall clarity and contribution of the article.

In my opinion, the article in its current form is suitable for publication.

Response: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. I sincerely appreciate your recognition of the revisions and am grateful for your support in recommending the manuscript for publication.