Source
doi:10.3389/frsus.2024.1367931 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Domain: d01_renewable_energy_storage, d03_water_waste_circular · SSI: i06_resistance_external_shocks, i07_fulfilment_basic_needs
Summary
Systematic literature review of 84 peer-reviewed papers on Energy-Water-Food (EWF) nexus resilience and decentralization (ScienceDirect, Springer, ResearchGate, 2010–2022). Central argument: decentralization reduces single points of failure in EWF systems and enables swifter response to shocks; multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), particularly Fuzzy AHP, is the most effective tool for assessing and designing resilient decentralized EWF systems. Qatar Foundation researchers; provides conceptual and framework backing for Neobiome’s SSI-EDT structure. All quantitative findings are cited from other studies — use for synthesis conclusions only, not as a primary quantitative source.
Key claims
EWF nexus and resilience framing
- EWF nexus: energy, water, and food resources are “strongly interconnected” — failure in one cascades to others through system interlinkages; integrated analysis required to identify synergies and trade-offs across all three sectors simultaneously. LIT_007
- Resilience definition (Walker, 2004, cited in Haji et al.): “a system’s adaptation, recovery, or reformation after a shock or disturbance occurs”; Barker et al. (2013): “product of interactions between reliability, vulnerability, survivability, and recoverability.” LIT_007
- Integrated basic needs framing: “guaranteeing a safe and resilient supply of energy, water and food resources for all people is a difficult task from local to global scale” — validates treating energy, water, and food provision as a unified target, not three separate problems. LIT_007
Decentralization as a resilience strategy
- “In the context of resilience theory and EWF nexus thinking, decentralization exhibits higher resilience levels thanks to the diversity of the contributing systems which reduces the impact of shocks and disruptions.” — 84-paper synthesis conclusion. LIT_007
- “Having multiple sources for every resource is fundamental to maintaining a continuous supply of products in instances of operational dysfunctions or sudden events where some systems are affected while others are intact.” LIT_007
- “In the context of a natural disaster or a disruption in the supply chain, decentralized energy, water, and food systems can pivot swiftly to alternative sources or adjust consumption patterns based on local needs.” LIT_007
- Centralized EWF systems: resources organized and managed by “large-scale centralized entities” with risk concentrated at a single point of failure; decentralized systems distribute resources across multiple small-scale units. LIT_007
- Social condition for success: community participation and capacity building are essential — Nepal case cited: “community-based method, fostering cooperation and community engagement, has enhanced long-lasting viability through local involvement and facilitated the expansion of decentralized energy initiatives.” LIT_007
- Policy condition: in Germany, Netherlands, and Norway, decentralized renewable energy adoption required government intervention — enabling policy is a prerequisite alongside technology. LIT_007
Decentralized energy systems
- Decentralized solar and wind: “cost-effective solutions for remote and rural areas, bypassing the need for extensive and expensive grid infrastructure” — 84-paper synthesis validation. LIT_007
- Recommended hybrid architecture: centralized electricity grid + decentralized renewables (PV + biomass) for communities with limited non-renewable resources but abundant solar — not a binary choice between full off-grid and full grid dependence. LIT_007
- Biomass decentralized electrification: “can provide more consistent and stable supply of energy while also generating revenue obtained from the usage of local resources by farmers” — dual income and energy provision function. LIT_007
- Biomass economics: “highly dependent on a long-term and reliable supply of sustainable feedstock… region-wise planning is essential to encourage biomass usage for energy purposes.” LIT_007
Decentralized water systems
- Decentralized community-scale water (rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling): “can reduce the demand for potable water and eliminate the need for additional treatment and pumping associated with centralized water systems.” LIT_007
- Centralized water systems inefficiency: approximately 83% of treated water used for non-potable purposes — systemic over-treatment that decentralized alternatives structurally avoid. LIT_007
- Co-designing decentralized water with climate adaptation produces more water and reduces overall costs while lowering energy consumption in centralized systems. LIT_007
MCDM tools for EWF resilience assessment
- Fuzzy AHP “emerges as particularly significant due to its ability to account for uncertainties inherent in complex, real-world scenarios involving EWF systems” — recommended for assessing decentralized EWF resilience under incomplete data. LIT_007
- “The deployment of multi-criteria decision-making framework based on composite indicators can be effective in addressing risks and uncertainties within EWF systems.” LIT_007
Key research gaps
- Most EWF models capture only 2 of 3 nexus sectors — water most researched, food-energy interdependencies under-studied. LIT_007
- GIS-based geospatial assessment of decentralization is a “pivotal yet scarcely explored field.” LIT_007
Thesis insights
- The EWF nexus provides the theoretical underpinning for framing Neobiome’s self-sufficiency targets as an integrated energy-water-food system, not three separate domain problems.
- The Walker (2004) / Barker (2013) resilience definition (adaptation + reliability + vulnerability + survivability + recoverability) is the canonical multi-dimensional framework cited across the EWF literature — suitable for situating Neobiome’s I06 design goals in the thesis literature review.
- Decentralization as a resilience strategy is validated at synthesis level (84 papers) — provides strong academic backing for the thesis argument that distributed community-scale technology deployments improve resilience.
Research targets
Research gaps
- [RT_005] GIS-based geospatial assessment of EWF decentralization — identified as a critical gap in the literature (Haji et al. find it “scarcely explored”). NZ spatial mapping of renewable resource availability, water catchment capacity, and food production potential would directly feed Neobiome site selection methodology. → D01, D02, D03, D09
- [RT_006] Fuzzy AHP composite indicator methodology for community-scale EWF resilience assessment — identified as under-developed at community scale. Directly applicable to Neobiome Intelligence calculation layer; a dedicated methodology source would strengthen the NI assessment framework. → topic for thesis and NI design
Feeds
- D01 — Decentralized solar/wind/biomass hybrid architecture; biomass feedstock economics; hybrid (grid + decentralised) as recommended community energy architecture
- D03 — Decentralized water systems (RWH + greywater recycling); centralized water inefficiency; co-design with climate adaptation
- I06 — EWF decentralization as resilience; multiple sources prevent cascading failures; disaster pivot capability; policy and community conditions
- I07 — EWF nexus as integrated basic needs target; decentralized provision as the delivery mechanism
Connections
Links to
SSI indicators (2): I06: Resistance to External Shocks · I07: Fulfilment of Basic Needs
EDT domains (2): D01: Renewable Energy & Storage Systems · D03: Water, Waste & Circular Systems
Referenced by
Sources (3): LIT_074 · LIT_079 · OT_227
EDT domains (2): D01: Renewable Energy & Storage Systems · D03: Water, Waste & Circular Systems
SSI indicators (2): I06: Resistance to External Shocks · I07: Fulfilment of Basic Needs