The food, energy, and water domains are strongly interrelated. The body of literature investigating these interlinkages developed into water–energy–food and, more recently, ecosystem (WEFE) nexus thinking. The WEFE nexus is concerned with cross-sectoral resource management requiring dedicated WEFE governance approaches. Among the existing WEFE nexus conceptualizations, the one that places the ecosystem at the center emphasizes the importance of ecosystem services for human well-being and as the basis for the functioning of the water, energy, and food domains. Such conceptualization, however, lacks clear definition and explanation of implications for WEFE nexus governance as well as practical tools for implementation. Accordingly, based on an in-depth analysis of WEFE nexus interlinkages, associated governance challenges, and practical experience, we propose the WEFE Nexus Governance Approach as an operationalization of the ecosystem-centric WEFE nexus conceptual framework. This approach takes policy coherence and stakeholder co-creation at its core, integrated with quantitative modeling of WEFE nexus interlinkages, and is organized in four steps: problem identification; formulation of substantive ambitions through stakeholder dialogue; embedding of ambitions and action into a stakeholder agreement; and implementation of actions. The approach is oriented to practical application and can be implemented by any actor (e.g., research institutes, governments, non-governmental organizations) having the ambition to initiate a stakeholders co-creation process toward nexus governance in a specific context. Furthermore, it can be applied to different scales and nexus domains depending on the identified nexus problems, while accounting for the vital role of ecosystem services. The approach’s applicability and needs for future research are discussed. Graphical abstract

Rapid global change threatens to outstrip global efforts to establish sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems (SES). Place-based research can enhance effectiveness of global sustainability policies and actions by providing contextualized knowledge underpinning bottom-up solutions. However, the use and transfer of place-based knowledge remains a major challenge. In this study, we analyze place-based knowledge transfer in a local-to-global and knowledge-to-action context. We aim to provide insights on when, how, and why place-based research can inform decision making at the global scale and lead to action toward more sustainable and just futures. Our iterative and exploratory methodology involved alternating rounds of literature reviews and interviews with interdisciplinary researchers. We identified four key steps (place-based knowledge production, knowledge synthesis, knowledge use at the global scale, and knowledge revision and lessons learned) and five facilitative factors (bridging organizations, knowledge brokers, boundary organizations, institutionalized knowledge governance, and polycentric governance systems), which provide a comprehensive understanding of place-based knowledge transfer. Our conceptual framework provides suggestions on how to set up place-based knowledge transfer to be more effective, complete, and inclusive. Furthermore, our study discusses two major structural challenges that currently inhibit place-based knowledge transfer and shows ways forward for science and policy to overcome these. We argue that place-based knowledge transfer can be an effective means to undo dominant power relations and the epistemic status quo and enable a shift from short-termism in science and policy toward more long-term SES goals. Therefore, it is seminal to open up the predominant value system to more diverse knowledge systems, signifying a shift away from global decision making that is guided by neoliberal capitalist principles and over-emphasizes short-term and individual gains. Finally, it is crucial to prioritize learning over knowing to exploit the long-term value of place-based knowledge transfer.

In this study, we examined the extent to which global warming management is currently integrated into the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), the central legal framework for water management in the EU. We focused on the Elbe River Basin District and how global warming is addressed in its water management. We used the social–ecological systems (SES) approach as our theoretical framework, representing an eminent analytical frame of biosphere-based sustainability science. In our study, we analysed core characteristics of SES in the context of global warming to evaluate the effectiveness of current water management in the Elbe River basin concerning long-term changing climate conditions. To determine to what extent each SES feature is considered in the Elbe water management, we applied a scale of 1 to 5. Our results show that the SES feature “scale and openness” is best addressed (score 4.0) by the Elbe River basin management, followed by “context dependency” (score 3.9); however, “non-linearity, uncertainty, unpredictability” (score 3.2), “self-organisation and adaptability” (score 3.1), and “dynamics” (score 3.0) have only moderate impacts. SES features can only be considered comprehensively if global warming is accounted for in an integrated way at a European level. In order to ensure effective implementation, explicit regulations and legally binding obligations are most likely required.

Amid an ever-intensifying global polycrisis driving biodiversity loss and nature’s decline, calls for transformative change are growing louder. Recent debates emphasise that transformative change is inherently power-laden and deeply shaped by power dynamics. Yet empirical studies analysing transformative change in power terms remain limited. In this study, we operationalise the transformative power framework to investigate how Horizon Europe projects within the Transformative Change cluster mobilise and navigate different power types (prefigurative, reinforcive, countervailing) and dimensions (power to, power over, power with, power within) in their efforts to enable transformative change for biodiversity. To do so, we developed a reflexive power mapping exercise, carried out in collaboration with 14 project coordinators and contextualised through 5 interviews with EU policy actors working on transformative change for biodiversity. Our findings reveal a clear bias towards prefigurative forms of power, while countervailing power aimed at dismantling entrenched structures, challenging dominant actors, and disrupting and phasing out practices remains comparatively underdeveloped. Policy interviews contextualise these findings, suggesting that this pattern reflects broader institutional and political dynamics shaping transformative power within the EU science-policy interface, rather than project-level shortcomings. Addressing these dynamics requires a shift towards political knowledge accountability logics that foreground contestation, normative tensions, and the politicisation of the status quo. It further requires recognising transformative change as a distinct social and political project in its own right, characterised by a sustained period of struggle that demands its own capacities, resources, mandates, and institutional support commensurate with its transformative ambitions.