Agricultural Water Security Under Water Scarcity: Structural Patterns, Systemic Blind Spots, and Research Frontiers in Semi-Arid Regions: A Systematic Review

Abstract

In the face of intensifying climate change, agricultural water security in semi-arid zones has emerged as a critical frontier for water governance. This study provides a systematic and critical analysis of the scientific literature to map current research frontiers and structural gaps. The methodology integrated the PRISMA 2020 protocol and a modified Methodi Ordinatio, spanning a search period from 2014 to 2026 across the Science Direct and SciELO databases. From an initial broad screening, 136 high-impact articles were selected based on rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings reveal a significant fragmentation of knowledge, characterized by a high prevalence of small-scale studies (25 articles) and limited interdisciplinarity. Notably, a governance-centric approach is present in only 20% of the literature, while the Water–Energy–Food Nexus appears in just 6%, signaling a major disconnect in holistic management. Based on these results, this study identifies water governance and socioeconomic integration as the most pressing research gaps. Consequently, an integrated conceptual framework is proposed, built upon three pillars: Governance, Technology, and Environment (GET). This study concludes that advancing the frontiers of agricultural water security requires moving beyond isolated solutions toward a structured, systemic, and interdisciplinary integration.

1. Introduction

Water scarcity has currently become one of the main socio-environmental challenges. It has a direct relationship with climate change, population growth, intensification of agricultural production and increased demand for the resource by various sectors of society [1,2]. Studies indicate that approximately 4 billion people experience severe water scarcity for at least one month per year [3]. Among the regions most exposed to climate dynamics are semi-arid environments. In these zones, the limited capacity for water storage, climate variability, and fragile socioeconomic systems create conditions for chronic water stress [4,5]. In semi-arid regions, there is a situation of lower water availability when compared to other scenarios, and the pressure on water resources has intensified in the face of the intensification of extreme climatic events (prolonged droughts, heat waves, variation in rainfall indices) [6,7].

Thus, agricultural activity plays a dual role in this scenario of climate uncertainties. Agriculture is a vulnerable sector and at the same time the largest consumer of fresh water on a global scale, representing approximately 70% of water extraction [8].

1.1. Water Governance and New Paradigms

The issue of water governance is at the center of the debate in times of global water scarcity, particularly in agriculture. Water governance goes beyond resource management and is connected to social processes, policy guidelines, regional socioeconomic conditions, and regulations. Thus, sustainable water governance requires integrated coordination at multiple scales among policymakers and stakeholders [9,10,11,12].

Globally, water governance varies significantly at the institutional, structural, and operational levels, with the socioeconomic context of the locality being the most influential factor. Specifically regarding arid and semi-arid zones, the challenges in water governance are often greater compared to zones with less harsh environmental conditions. In this context, issues are raised such as the asymmetry in water distribution, the limited popular influence in decision-making processes, the low availability of the resource, and infrastructures that do not meet the population’s demand [12,13,14,15].

Currently, scientific literature indicates that sustainable water governance must undergo a paradigm shift, moving away from a top-down, vertical policy and towards an inclusive and participatory one. This process demands the effective participation of citizens, stakeholders, decision-makers, and professionals [16,17].

1.2. Global Pressures: Structural Scarcity, Food Security, and the Semi-Arid Region as a Climate Laboratory

Currently, water scarcity is not restricted to isolated drought events, but rather plays a structural role around the world, adding natural vulnerability, environmental degradation, and inefficient governance [2,3]. Projections indicate that rising global temperatures will intensify evapotranspiration, increase the effects and intensity of agricultural droughts, and reduce aquifer recharge [1].

On the other hand, significant growth in the world’s population and, consequently, in the demand for food is expected by 2050, increasing the structural pressure on agricultural systems that are already in a state of vulnerability [18]. It is in arid and semi-arid regions where the effects of water scarcity act significantly, based on the interaction between low water retention capacity, climate variability, and limited retention infrastructures [19].

Thus, semi-arid regions experience the combined effects of water scarcity, climate change, and socioeconomic vulnerability. This situation can be seen as an opportunity to analyze these regions in order to anticipate challenges that may also arise in other areas [2,7].

Therefore, understanding water governance in a global context is necessary to identify structural limitations and plan more appropriate models that meet local needs and are connected to a larger-scale context.

1.3. Conceptual Ambiguity: Water Scarcity ≠ Water Security; Agricultural Production ≠ Agricultural Water Security

The terms “water scarcity” and “water security” are sometimes treated as synonyms, but they are not equivalent concepts. Water scarcity refers to a physical or economic condition that limits the supply of water resources [3]. In turn, water security addresses the guarantee of conditions for reliable, sustainable, and equitable access to water for its multiple uses in society [2,19].

Similarly, “agricultural productivity” and “water use efficiency” do not necessarily imply “agricultural water security.” For example, a system may have high agricultural production and promote the overexploitation of aquifers. In the same way, a family cooperative may produce little, having a low productivity index, but may still have a high water use efficiency index [20,21].

Confusion between these concepts can lead to agricultural water security being measured solely by productive agronomic factors, disregarding environmental, economic, and governance factors, which can result in strategic errors regarding long-term sustainability.

1.4. Literature Fragmentation

The urgency of issues related to climate change has led to a considerable increase in scientific production in this field.

Nevertheless, studies focused on agriculture and water scarcity show a high degree of thematic and methodological fragmentation. A significant portion of the studies promote hydrological modeling and do not go beyond that, disregarding socioeconomic and institutional aspects [22].

The Water–Energy–Food (WEF) Nexus has emerged as a key framework to address the interdependencies between resource systems, particularly in water-scarce regions. By integrating water availability, energy use, and food production, the nexus approach seeks to overcome fragmented sectoral management [23]. However, despite its conceptual advancement, its practical implementation remains limited, especially in semi-arid contexts, where institutional fragmentation, data limitations, and governance constraints hinder its operationalization. As a result, the nexus is often applied as a conceptual lens rather than as a decision-support tool.

There are also a significant number of studies addressing a very limited area, focus on farm-level practices or irrigation efficiency, making extrapolation to other scenarios difficult [18].

The fragmentation of studies hinders the consolidation of a systemic approach to agricultural water security, particularly in semi-arid zones, where the interdependence of factors is more intense and vulnerability more significant.

Much of what is currently found in the literature addresses water scarcity through isolated or poorly integrated disciplines, particularly hydrological modeling, which consequently neglects socioeconomic and governance dimensions that shape water allocation and resilience.

Recent advances in the field indicate the emergence of important research frontiers aimed at overcoming this fragmentation. These include the development of integrated frameworks for water security [24], the operationalization of nexus-based approaches such as the Water–Energy–Food (WEF) Nexus [23], the incorporation of climate-informed modeling [25], and the increasing emphasis on governance-oriented solutions [13]. In particular, there is a growing recognition that technological and environmental analyses alone are insufficient, and that future research must explicitly integrate institutional, policy, and socioeconomic dimensions [26]. Despite these advances, the literature still lacks consistent empirical applications and scalable models capable of bridging these domains, especially in semi-arid contexts.

This persistent fragmentation suggests that current approaches are insufficient to capture the systemic nature of agricultural water security, reinforcing the need for integrative analytical frameworks.

1.5. Research Gap

Despite the growing scientific output on water scarcity, climate modeling, agricultural adaptation, and water governance, there is still no structured synthesis examining how agricultural water security has been conceptualized, operationalized, and empirically validated in semi-arid contexts. In other words, there is a lack of integrated analysis that identifies thematic patterns, structural gaps, and methodological inconsistencies in the scientific literature. The absence of a comprehensive critical analysis limits the structured consolidation and advancement of research on the topic.

This gap is not merely academic but has direct implications for policy and practice. The absence of integrated and empirically validated frameworks limits the ability of decision-makers to design effective water governance strategies, particularly in semi-arid regions where resource constraints and climate variability demand coordinated and adaptive responses. Without a structured understanding of how different dimensions interact, policy interventions risk being fragmented, inefficient, or unsustainable in the long term.

In this context, there is a need for integrative analytical frameworks capable of bridging governance, environmental, and technological dimensions in a structured and operational manner.

These emerging directions highlight a shift from isolated technical solutions toward integrated, system-based approaches capable of addressing the complexity of water security in semi-arid regions.

1.6. Objectives

The objective of this study is to develop a structured systematic review of the scientific literature addressing water scarcity and agricultural water security in semi-arid regions, with the aim of:

−

Assessing how agricultural water security has been conceptualized and operationalized across different analytical approaches;

−

Identifying the main thematic architectures structuring the field;

−

Mapping structural research gaps.

2. Methodology

This study conducted a systematic review of the literature addressing water scarcity and its use in promoting agricultural efficiency. The following sections describe the methodological process adopted in all its stages. The protocol for this systematic review was previously registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform under the digital identifier DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/P2GWM.

2.1. Research Design

This study adopted a methodology for identifying, selecting, ordering, and critically analyzing articles that combined the PRISMA 2020 protocol and a modified Methodi Ordinatio as a structured strategy.

The PRISMA 2020 protocol was adopted to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor in the systematic review process, which includes a checklist and a diagram for the inclusion and exclusion of articles [27]. An Excel spreadsheet was used to organize the data, and the analysis was performed independently by the two authors of this article.

Unlike conventional systematic review approches that rely primarily on inclusion and exclusion criteria, the Methodi Ordinatio introduces a ranking index (InO) that integrates scientific impact, journal relevance, and publication recency. In addition to filtering studies, this approach allows for their hierarchical ranking based on objective and replicable criteria, providing transparency and robustness to the method.

Given the heterogeneity of the topic proposed in this study, the adoption of the Methodi Ordinatio was appropriate, enabling the development of a strategy that balanced scientific relevance and knowledge updating.

2.2. Search Strategy and Database Selection

The database searches were conducted on 2 February 2026. The bibliographic search was conducted in the Science Direct and SciELO databases, which are recognized for their comprehensiveness, editorial quality, and multidisciplinary indexing. The descriptors used were combined and are shown below:

−

“Semi-arid.”

−

“Mediterranean climate.”

−

“Water scarcity.”

−

“Agriculture.”

−

“Food security.”

−

“Rainwater harvesting.”

−

“Retention basin.”

−

“Detention basin.”

−

“Check dam.”

The search strategy was adapted to the syntax requirements of each database. In ScienceDirect, the search was conducted using combinations of keywords applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords fields, using Boolean operators such as:

−

(“semi-arid” OR “mediterranean climate”) AND (“water scarcity”) AND (“agriculture” OR “food security”) AND (“rainwater harvesting” OR “retention basin “ OR “check dam” OR “detention basin”).

In SciELO, similar descriptors were applied, with adaptations to the platform’s indexing structure, focusing on subject and abstract fields.

Initially, the searches were restricted to the period 2021–2026, using the following filters across all databases:

−

Type: Review Article; Research Article;

−

Thematic Area: Science Direct (Environmental Science; Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Engineering); SciELO: (Agricultural Sciences; Engineering; Earth and Exact Sciences).

On 27 April 2026, a complementary retrospective search was conducted using the same databases, descriptors, and inclusion criteria, extending the time frame to 2016–2020. This approach ensured methodological consistency while expanding the dataset and improving the representativeness of the literature. Therefore, the final analysis covers the period 2016–2026.

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

−

Peer-reviewed scientific articles;

−

Studies focusing on agricultural systems;

−

Studies explicitly addressing water scarcity or water security;

−

Semi-arid context or regions under water stress.

The exclusion criteria for articles are outlined below:

−

Exclusively urban studies;

−

Purely technical works without a systemic approach;

−

Grey literature and institutional documents.

Grey literature and non-English publications were excluded to ensure the methodological consistency, reproducibility, and comparability of results. Peer-reviewed articles in English were prioritized due to their standardized structure and broader accessibility within the international scientific community.

2.3. Screening and Final Sample

Following the expanded search strategy, a total of 3665 records were identified across the selected databases:

−

Removal of duplicates;

−

Screening of titles for thematic alignment;

−

Screening of abstracts based on relevance criteria;

−

Full-text assessment for final eligibility.

The documents were organized in an Excel file, and two authors independently evaluated each study. In cases of disagreement, articles were re-analyzed until consensus was reached.

After the title and abstract screening, 227 articles remained for full-text assessment, which resulted in the final inclusion of 136 studies for analysis; of these, 63 were identified through Science Direct and 73 through SciELO. Detailed characteristics of all included studies are available in the Supplementary Materials.

It should be noted that the ranking was not used as an exclusion criterion but rather as a tool for prioritizing and organizing the literature. The final dataset represents the most relevant and methodologically aligned studies on agricultural water security in semi-arid contexts.

The multi-stage screening process ensured transparency, traceability, and replicability, in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 protocol. The checklist is available in the Supplementary Materials.

2.4. Application of the Modified InOrdinatio Index

After filtering, the Ordinatio Index was determined for each article [28,29]. To address the potential bias associated with cumulative citation counts in the original InO formulation, this study adopts a modified index incorporating a time-normalized citation metric. Specifically, citation (Ci) counts were normalized by the number of years since publication to calculate citations per year, thereby mitigating the bias toward older publications that have had longer periods to accumulate citations. Additionally, the recency component was rescaled to ensure a balanced contribution across all variables, preventing any single factor from disproportionately influencing the ranking. The resulting formulation maintains the conceptual structure of the Methodi Ordinatio while improving its robustness across different publication periods. The modified index is defined as follows:

$$InO={\displaystyle \frac{IF}{10}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Ci}{\left(Current Year-Publication Year+1\right)}}+\mathsf{\alpha }\left(1-{\displaystyle \frac{\left(Current Year-Publication Year\right)}{T}}\right)$$

(1)

where:

InO = Ordinatio index;

IF = Journal impact factor (JCR);

α = Weighting coefficient for recency (assigned by the researcher);

Ci = Number of citations;

T = Time window considered in the study (T = 12 years);

Current Year = Year in which the research is being conducted;

Publication Year = Year the article was published.

The weighting coefficient α was defined by the researcher to balance the influence of temporal relevance. In this study, α was set to 5, representing a moderate weighting that ensures recent publications are not systematically penalized while avoiding overemphasis on recency. This choice promotes a balanced trade-off between temporal relevance and accumulated scientific visibility.

To ensure the reliability of the findings, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the InO ranking by testing different weighting scenarios (α = 3 and α = 7). The results demonstrated a high level of stability, particularly among the leading group, with no impact on the overall structure of the most relevant contributions. Importantly, these variations did not affect the thematic patterns or the main conclusions of the study, confirming the stability of the adopted parameter (α = 5). Detailed results of this analysis are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

It is important to emphasize that the InO was not used as an exclusion criterion. The final set of articles was defined exclusively based on the PRISMA 2020 protocol and predefined eligibility criteria. The index was applied only after the selection process, serving as a tool for organizing and prioritizing the literature for analytical purposes.

Furthermore, the findings of this study are not dependent on the ranking position of individual articles. All analyses, including thematic classification and identification of research gaps, were conducted based on the full set of selected studies. To further reinforce this aspect, the analysis was verified independently of the ranking procedure, yielding consistent thematic patterns and structural insights.

Finally, it is acknowledged that citation-based metrics represent imperfect proxies of scientific relevance. Citation counts may be influenced by disciplinary practices, publication age, journal visibility, and broader academic trends. Although normalization procedures reduce temporal bias, residual effects may persist. Therefore, the InO should be interpreted as a complementary analytical tool rather than a definitive measure of study quality or relevance.

2.5. Analytical Framework

After the articles were defined, they were subjected to a structured analysis focused on two main axes:

• Thematic Architecture

  −

  Biophysical basis;

  −

  Infrastructure and water retention technologies;

  −

  Productive management and efficiency;

  −

  Governance and decision-making;

  −

  Systemic integration (Nexus and security).

For the “Thematic Architecture” axis, the studies were classified into thematic blocks. This classification allowed for the identification of patterns, thematic concentrations, and asymmetries in the scientific production.

• Structural Gaps

  −

  Spatial and scale constraints;

  −

  Temporal and prospective limitations;

  −

  Lack of empirical results;

  −

  Lack of forward-looking modeling/climate scenarios;

  −

  Lack of socioeconomic integration;

  −

  Lack of government debate;

  −

  Limited empirical validation.

The “Structural Gaps” axis involved systematizing the gaps observed in the articles.

Figure 1 illustrates the steps of the methodological process, from database selection to the definition of the final portfolio of articles.

The integration between the PRISMA protocol and the Methodi Ordinatio was conducted in a complementary manner. PRISMA ensured transparency and rigor in the identification and selection of studies, while the Methodi Ordinatio was applied after the screening process to rank the selected articles. This sequential integration ensures methodological consistency and has been adopted in previous systematic review studies [30].

3. Results

This section provides a detailed analysis of the results derived from the multi-step methodological approach, highlighting the key patterns identified in the research landscape.

3.1. PRISMA 2020 Workflow

Figure 2 shows the step-by-step process of the PRISMA 2020 methodology used up to the selection of articles.

Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic screening process was conducted, resulting in a final sample of 136 articles. These core documents underwent a comprehensive full-text review to ensure alignment with the established eligibility criteria.

3.2. Visualizing Correlations

The global landscape of scientific production is illustrated in Figure 3, revealing the geographic distribution of research output between 2014 and 2026.

Figure 4 highlights the 10 articles with the highest InO and shows the relationship between the number of citations and the year of publication.

The selected articles were imported into the VOS Viewer software (version 1.6.20), making it possible to analyze the correlations that exist in the field of study. The bibliographical landscape is described in further detail in Figure 5, where Figure 5a highlights the most frequently cited references and Figure 5b maps the primary scientific journals contributing to the field’s dissemination.

The bibliometric analysis presented in Figure 6 reveals both author prominence (a) and keyword recurrence (b). The overlay visualization allows for an assessment of the temporal evolution of these elements, distinguishing consolidated topics from emerging research frontiers.

3.3. Categorization of Articles

To better understand the current research landscape, the selected articles were cross-analyzed by theme and research gaps. Figure 7 presents a Sankey diagram that illustrates the interconnectivity and flow intensity between these thematic categories and their corresponding scientific limitations.

4. Discussion

This section interprets the results obtained through the analysis of the selected articles, exploring the implications of the identified trends, practical implications, and thematic gaps.

4.1. Methodological Approach

By using the PRISMA 2020 protocol in combination with the modified Methodi Ordinatio, it was possible to systematize the article selection process and rank the papers. The combined use of methodologies remains underrepresented in the analyzed literature in academic literature. Thus, the present study enhances systematic review methodologies by integrating the transparency and reproducibility of PRISMA 2020 with the analytical robustness of Methodi Ordinatio.

The methodology adopted in this study meets the current needs of systematic literature reviews on water scarcity and agricultural systems, particularly regarding the balance between systematic rigor, analytical depth, and interpretative integration.

This combination of methodologies allows for rigorous selection and structured prioritization of the literature.

Analysis of geographic scope (Figure 3) indicates that the sample has significant diversity, although with strong regional concentration. Brazil stands out as the country with the largest academic contribution, exceeding 50 publications. Countries such as China, India, and Iran also present relevant volumes, suggesting that the topic has great traction in developing countries, challenging the traditional hegemony of the Global North in knowledge production.

4.2. Technical Water Retention Approaches

Water retention techniques have been widely explored in the literature as a response to increasing water scarcity, especially in semi-arid zones. Among the types of infrastructure observed are centralized systems (reservoirs and detention basins) and decentralized systems (retention basins, rainwater harvesting systems). The literature confirms that the adoption of these systems can increase water availability, reduce surface runoff losses, and improve aquifer recharge rates [31,32].

Based on the analysis of the selected articles, it is possible to divide them into the following categories:

−

In situ management [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43];

−

Water collection and storage infrastructure [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53];

−

Modeling and decision-making tools [54,55,56,57,58,59,60];

−

Water resources management [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72];

−

Irrigation efficiency [68,73,74,75,76].

4.3. Governance and Allocation Mechanisms

The analysis of governance and correlated factors is a crucial point for defining water allocation, access, and sustainability. Studies highlight that the inefficiency of governmental markets is among the main factors of water insecurity [22]. In arid and semi-arid zones, the challenges are greater due to adverse environmental conditions and limited institutional capacity [77].

Only 14% (N = 19) of the articles selected for review address the topic of governance in any context [34,53,56,62,64,66,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93].

Three studies address the need for integrated water management with WEF Nexus instead of segmenting and treating them as isolated elements. It is reported that public policies for water security that disregard energy and food tend to fail [62,79,85,88].

There is also a mismatch between macro and micro policies, which translates into top-down guidelines that do not meet the real demands of the agricultural sector [64,86,89].

Three studies address decision support tools with a governmental approach, using Artificial Intelligence and Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCDA), which can increase the accuracy of technical decisions [56,87,91].

Some studies address an analysis of farmers’ perceptions of water governance, with one of them applying the Health Belief Model (HBM) [78,80,81,83,90].

The temporal analysis of the keywords (Figure 6b) reveals a clear transition in the research focus: traditional technical themes, such as ‘salinity’ and ‘irrigation’, have given way to emerging and current discussions on ‘climate change’, ‘sustainability’, and ‘adaptive capacity’. This evolution reinforces that the current trend in the field prioritizes climate resilience, integrative solutions, and sustainable governance in the face of water scarcity.

4.4. Water–Food–Livelihood Nexus Approaches

The WEF Nexus currently represents the most comprehensive approach to analyzing the health of water resources, enabling the projection of scenarios that are more faithful to reality. The approach considers the correlation between water resources, agricultural production, and socioeconomics. Its comprehensiveness allowed the method to fill a perceived gap in studies that assess agricultural water scarcity solely through the lens of water resources or agricultural efficiency.

The selected studies converge on an integrated WEF Nexus analysis, highlighting multidisciplinary approaches to achieving sustainability. They address the need for more sustainable production practices, a circular economy, and effective policy management. New indicators have been included, such as “Health” and “Environment” [79,85,88,94,95,96,97,98,99].

4.5. Thematic Correlation

Analysis of Figure 7 reveals that studies focused on ‘Productive management and efficiency’ predominate in the literature, showing the greatest number of connections to the identified gaps. Notably, this theme has a strong link to the lack of socioeconomic integration and the need for prospective modeling. Following this, the theme ‘Biophysical basis’ also demonstrates significant relevance, connecting mainly to the modeling gap, which reinforces the need for more robust predictive tools.

Figure 7 shows how integrated systems analysis (e.g., WEF Nexus) is still under-researched in the literature, accounting for only about 6% (N = 8) of the total correlations.

The concentration of studies on production management and the analysis of its correlations highlights the search for more efficient production methods, but these are still poorly integrated with governmental and socioeconomic factors.

An analysis of the 10 articles with the highest InO value (Figure 4) confirms the current relevance and academic interest in integrating environmental, political, and socioeconomic factors into the themes of water scarcity and agricultural efficiency.

4.6. Structural Gaps in the Literature

Despite the evolution of the field, several structural gaps and limitations remain in the current literature. This section critically examines these deficiencies, categorizing them to highlight areas where future research efforts should be prioritized.

4.6.1. Limited Empirical Validation

The lack of robust empirical validation is a point to be highlighted among some of the studies analyzed, representing 33% (N = 46) of the total limitations. A large number of modeling studies, conceptual analyses, and theoretical studies are observed. A portion of the articles promote partial empirical validation because they are restricted to an experimental scale, a limited database, or an evaluation of personal perception.

Considering that the studies analyzed are the most recently published studies that align with the theme, the lack of robust empirical validation is a gap in this area that highlights a disconnect between academic production and the practical conditions for its implementation. It is observed that even with theoretical and practical models showing significant progress in the field of agricultural water security, further research with analysis closer to field realities is still needed. It is concluded that the literature analyzed is insufficient to assist in the planning of large-scale public policies.

4.6.2. Spatial and Scale Constraints and Climate Projection

The geographical limitations found in the selected studies lie in the fact that 18% (N = 25) of the studies are focused on a specific area, which makes it difficult to transfer the considerations to other scenarios (Figure 7). Analyses are also conducted on local agricultural crops, subjected to the specific climate of the area. This limitation relates to what was discussed previously (Section 4.3). With everything presented in this study, the need for integrated analyses connected to the reality of the area on a national or at least regional scale is evident. The production of focal studies may be valid in a limited geographical area, which does not contribute to analyses at the macro level.

Working with a reduced scale also applies to studies based on qualitative field research, which invariably involve a small sample group among the selected articles. In this case, we have the same problem of difficulty in extrapolating the analysis and not applying it to management policies on a larger scale. Studies that rely on interviews may be vulnerable to a high margin of error in their qualitative analyses [47,80,83,100].

The selected studies also show a short temporal analysis and an absence of future projections (Figure 7). In a scenario of climate change, developing projections is fundamental in the pursuit of a sustainable future [1].

This time constraint limits long-term planning and the determination of effective policies for maintaining water and agricultural security.

4.6.3. Lack of Socioeconomic and Government Integration

What proves to be the most critical limitation is the lack of integration of the water resources theme with related themes that have a total influence on sustainability. By not addressing governmental (N = 109) and socioeconomic (N = 114) parameters, the scope for intervention is extremely limited. The absence of an in-depth discussion correlating water sustainability, governance, and socioeconomics is a gap in the scientific literature.

The analysis of the selected articles reveals a clear distinction. Most studies addressing governmental and socioeconomic factors treat them superficially or do not offer concrete suggestions for the adoption of retention infrastructure, water conservation mechanisms, or instruments that ensure agricultural security. On the other hand, technical studies focus on system efficiency, with little or no emphasis on governmental or socioeconomic criteria. It is known that food vulnerability is not solely the result of environmental conditions, but is intensified by socioeconomic inequality and governance failures [1]. These associated factors limit adaptive capacity, and as shown, arid zones are the most affected.

5. Proposal of an Integrated Conceptual Framework

Given the gaps and limitations of the current literature in the field of agricultural water security, this work presents, in Figure 8, the ideal model for developing work in this field.

Three major areas are established that integrate the structure:

• Environment: hydrology, soil, climate;
• Technological solutions: irrigation, infrastructure, agronomy;
• Governance: Policies, allocation, stakeholders.

Integrated frameworks are not new in the literature, but this study promotes the integrated conceptual model (Figure 8) based on the systematic analysis of 136 high-impact scientific articles.

Unlike previously developed conceptual frameworks, this framework arises from the identification of limitations and gaps in the current scientific literature, integrating the Governance–Environment–Technology (GET) fields for the study of agricultural water security with the necessary scope and interdisciplinarity.

The Governance–Environment–Technology (GET) framework (Figure 8) was developed based on the structural patterns and gaps identified in the analyzed literature (N = 136). Empirical evidence reveals a significant imbalance in scientific production across the three dimensions, highlighting critical blind spots that limit the effectiveness of current approaches to water management for agricultural purposes in semi-arid regions.

From a technological perspective, a strong concentration of studies on infrastructure and productive efficiency was observed, particularly in areas such as water retention technologies and agricultural optimization. While these contributions are essential, they are often developed in isolation, with limited integration into broader environmental and governance systems. This fragmentation is reflected in the high frequency of gaps related to the lack of prospective modeling and limited empirical validation, indicating that technological solutions are rarely evaluated in long-term climate or socio-environmental scenarios.

In the environmental dimension, although biophysical aspects are reasonably represented, a critical deficiency persists in their integration with socio-economic dynamics. The identified gaps, related to spatial and scale limitations, as well as a lack of socioeconomic integration, suggest that environmental analyses are frequently restricted to localized or purely physical perspectives, without adequately addressing interactions at different scales or feedback mechanisms between humans and the environment.

The most significant blind spots emerge in the governance dimension, which is markedly underrepresented compared to technological approaches. The relatively low number of studies addressing governance and decision-making is directly associated with recurring gaps related to the absence of integrated public policies and limited institutional articulation. This indicates that, despite advances in technical and environmental knowledge, there are a persistent lack of structures capable of translating this knowledge into coordinated political actions.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights a systemic gap in the integration between the three dimensions, reinforcing the need for holistic approaches, such as the GET framework. The limited number of studies addressing systems integration and nexus-based perspectives confirms that the literature remains largely fragmented, with insufficient emphasis on the interdependencies between governance structures, environmental processes, and technological interventions.

The integrated framework proposed in this study (GET) offers a distinct perspective when compared to established global models, such as the Water–Energy–Food Nexus (WEF) and the OECD Water Governance Principles.

While the WEF nexus [23] focuses primarily on interdependence and the management of finite resources to avoid conflicts of use, the GET model directs the focus to the operational pillars (Technology and Governance) acting strictly within the Environmental boundary. This approach fills a critical gap in “how to implement,” often identified in purely theoretical models or those focused solely on resource allocation.

Unlike the OECD [101] model, which focuses almost exclusively on institutional effectiveness and efficiency (political dimension), the GET framework integrates technological feasibility (Infrastructure, Irrigation, and Agronomy) as an inseparable driver of agricultural water security. Thus, by situating these elements within a socio-ecological system, the GET model not only identifies the challenges but also provides the necessary technical and administrative roadmap for resilience in semi-arid regions, where theory must be rapidly converted into field solutions.

In this context, the GET framework contributes by explicitly structuring these interconnections and addressing identified blind spots. It provides a conceptual basis for aligning technological innovation with environmental constraints and governance mechanisms, thus supporting more coherent and effective strategies for agricultural water security in semi-arid regions.

6. Future Research

Based on the structural gaps and thematic patterns identified in this study, future research should go beyond conceptual development and focus on the empirical operationalization of the Governance–Environment–Technology (GET) framework in semi-arid contexts.

First, the GET framework can be empirically tested through case studies in representative semi-arid regions, such as the Brazilian Northeast, the Sahel, and the arid zones of the Mediterranean. In these contexts, the framework can be operationalized by defining measurable indicators for each dimension, including governance capacity (e.g., policy integration and institutional coordination), environmental conditions (e.g., water availability and climate variability), and technology adoption (e.g., irrigation efficiency and water retention systems). This would allow for comparative assessments between regions and the identification of context-specific constraints.

Second, future studies should develop integrated, multi-scale models that explicitly link the three dimensions of the GET. Such models could combine geospatial analyses, socioeconomic data, and hydrological variables to simulate how governance structures and technological interventions interact in different environmental scenarios. This directly addresses the gaps identified in prospective modeling and multiscale integration.

Thirdly, incorporating climate projections into the GET framework is essential to assess its robustness in future scenarios. Scenario-based modeling approaches could be used to evaluate how changes in precipitation patterns and temperature regimes affect the balance between environmental constraints, governance responses, and technological adaptation strategies.

Fourthly, there is a need for longitudinal and field empirical validation. Pilot implementations of the GET framework could be conducted at the watershed or regional levels, monitoring outcomes such as water use efficiency, agricultural productivity, and institutional effectiveness over time. This would directly address the lack of empirical validation observed in the literature.

Finally, future research should strengthen the policy relevance of the GET framework, aligning it with existing water governance instruments and decision-making processes. This includes testing how the framework can support the development of integrated policies, particularly in contexts where fragmented governance structures currently limit the effectiveness of water management strategies.

By moving from conceptual synthesis to empirical application, these lines of research can contribute to validating and improving the GET framework as a practical tool for improving water security in semi-arid regions.

7. Limitation

In this study, the authors acknowledge the limitations inherent in a systematic review. First, despite the use of broad databases such as Science Direct and SciELO, the selection of studies is subject to the indexing coverage of these platforms.

Second, although the inclusion of the SciELO database aimed to capture regional scientific production from Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula, a potential language bias remains, as the search strategy focused primarily on articles published in English, which may exclude relevant local-scale studies published in other languages.

In addition, while this study employs a modified Methodi Ordinatio to rank articles, the weighting system remains a point for critical reflection. Here, we introduced a time-normalized citation metric (citations per year) and rescaled the recency component. However, the selection of the α coefficient was set to 5 and the decision to divide the Impact Factor (IF) by a factor of 10 still involved researcher-defined parameters. While these adjustments enhance robustness and prevent older or high-citation papers from overshadowing recent, high-quality research, different mathematical scaling or weighting choices by other researchers could still lead to variations in the final ranking. Thus, the index should be viewed as a prioritized screening tool rather than an absolute measure of quality.

Finally, the proposed GET framework, although derived from a robust synthesis, remains a conceptual model that requires further longitudinal and empirical validation in diverse semi-arid contexts to confirm its practical scalability.

8. Conclusions

Agricultural water security is a complex and multidisciplinary challenge in semi-arid zones that cannot be analyzed with isolated methodologies. This study demonstrated that even with evident methodological and technological advances, the research field lacks solid methodological integration. The existing gaps regarding socioeconomic analysis, robust empirical validation, and governance assessment became evident during the development of this study.

The development of agricultural water security requires a structural paradigm shift and the construction of integrated studies, based on the interdisciplinarity that water management policies demand.

Thus, by conducting a systematic review of the current literature, identifying its gaps and limitations, and potential improvements, this work provides a structured basis for the integrated study of water security in agriculture.