Social-ecological interactions mediate water–energy–food security in small developing islands, but community-scale insights are underrepresented in nexus research. These interactions are dynamic in their response to environmental and anthropogenic pressures and need to be understood to inform sustainable land use planning into the future. This study centered on bringing together diverse stakeholders to explore water–energy–food futures using the “Kesho” (meaning “tomorrow” in Kiswahili) scenario tool for two of the largest islands that comprise the Zanzibar Archipelago. The methodology comprised four core stages: (1) exploration of how past drivers of change impacted water–energy–food security; (2) modeling of a Business as Usual Scenario for land cover change; (3) narrative development to describe alternative futures for 2030 based on themes developed at the community scale; and (4) predictions about how narratives would shape land cover and its implications for the nexus. These results were used to model alternate land cover scenarios in TerrSet IDRISI (v. 18.31) and produce visual representations of expected change. Findings demonstrated that deforestation, saltwater incursion, and a reduction in permanent waterbodies were projected by 2030 in a Business as Usual Scenario. Three alternative scenario narratives were developed, these included Adaptation, Ecosystem Management, and Settlement Planning. The results demonstrate that the effectiveness of actions under the scenario options differ between the islands, indicating the importance of understanding the suitability of national policies across considered scales. Synergies across the alternative scenario narratives also emerged, including integrated approaches for managing environmental change, community participation in decision making, effective protection of forests, cultural sensitivity to settlement planning, and poverty alleviation. These synergies could be used to plan strategic action towards effectively strengthening water–energy–food security in Zanzibar.

Small developing islands demonstrate strong social–ecological interactions as well as a high level of exposure to climate-related effects, which can result in intense land use pressures. Scenario methodologies are useful for reflecting on how competing pressures interact when planning for a more sustainable future. In small islands, local knowledge is integral to the development of scenarios because of the close connection between people and local environments. However, local communities are often underrepresented in scenario development processes. This study provides a methodological example of how local knowledge can be used to create scenario themes. Ten community participatory workshops were hosted on Zanzibar (n = 142), where a water–energy–food framework was used to examine impacts of environmental change on resource security. Major drivers of land use and land cover change affecting water–energy–food security were identified; these include population growth, development and climate change. Solutions to observed challenges formed three coherent scenario themes, centred on adaptation, ecosystem health and sustainable settlements. Findings support the idea that communities need space to frame their resource challenges for sustainability planning to work at the appropriate scale.

Small developing islands face a number of environmental and social pressures which impact resource security. This study uses a people-centred framework to investigate social-ecological interactions for water, energy and food security. Ten semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted in Pemba and Unguja islands with village elders and leaders. Results demonstrate that shocks and stresses affecting resource security are attributed to land use and resource competition, deforestation, climate change and insufficient resource infrastructure. The scale and strength of such pressures are heightened in dry seasons and also correspond with spatial characteristics such as remoteness, intensity of land use and amount of natural resource capital. Whilst a number of adaptive responses are identified, these appear to be incremental and do not address the scale of the challenge. Maladaptive responses are also identified; most concerning is the use of poor quality water when piped water was disrupted, reduced nutritional intake during dry season and using unsustainable supplies or methods of obtaining of fuelwood. Findings illustrate the importance of using people-centred approaches for understanding the complexity of social-ecological interactions for resource security. They also demonstrate that interventions for resource management need to consider spatial heterogeneity and temporality in terms of how specific land cover uses connect to differential pressures and adaptation capacity over time.

A global poly-crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, dwindling natural resources, geopolitical instability, among other complex challenges, is on the rise. Societal transformations are therefore imminent, whether intended or unintended. The key question is how to steward and facilitate such changes where fragmentation and siloed ways of working persist. The concept of synergies and the notion of synergic action could help overcome fragmented efforts to steer transformative changes. However, there exists a critical research gap in understanding the conditions needed to enable synergic action. This paper thus explores how synergic action is currently undertaken and the key essentials needed to deliver synergic action. The study uses a case study of the Yorkshire food system transformation to learn from its exemplar practitioners. The study used semi-structured interviews and a thematic analysis process to reach our two key findings. First, we highlight the three types of synergic action: (1) Non-systemic synergic action, (2) Non-systemic synergic action with multiple outcomes, and (3) Systemic synergic action. Differentiating types of synergic action can help identify where synergic action is already underway and guide more explicit efforts towards transformative change. The second key finding is the five essentials for synergic action, which are (1) leadership for synergic action; (2) networking, partnerships, and collaborations; (3) care and understanding; (4) a systems approach; and (5) intentionality for synergic action. This study brings to the fore the importance of intentionality, without which the first four essentials are less likely to coalesce. This is important to inform the reflection and learning of practitioners of systemic change about how they are currently and could be working more synergistically in the future, driven by clear intentionality.