The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1726-0531.htm

Technological
Resource sustainability in the innovation
water, energy and food nexus: role
of technological innovation
Love Opeyemi David
Centre for Cyber-Physical Food, Energy, and Water Systems (CCPFEWS) and
Sustainable Human Settlement and Construction Research Centre (SHSCRC), Received 31 May 2023
Revised 29 August 2023
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Accepted 16 September 2023
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Nnamdi Ikechi Nwulu
Centre for Cyber-Physical Food, Energy, and Water Systems (CCPFEWS),
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Clinton Ohis Aigbavboa
Sustainable Human Settlement and Construction Research Centre (SHSCRC),
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, and
Omoseni Oyindamola Adepoju
Centre for Cyber-Physical Food, Energy, and Water Systems (CCPFEWS),
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa and Department of Management and Accounting,
School of Social Sciences and Management, Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the role of technological Innovation in ensuring resource
sustainability in the water, energy and food (WEF) nexus, as there exists a shortage of statistical research on
the extent of the influence of technological Innovation on the WEF nexus.
Design/methodology/approach – The study used a quantitative research method, using a well-
structured questionnaire to collect data from management staff in the WEF departments in South Africa. The
collected data were analyzed by using mean score ranking, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for structural equation modelling (SEM).
Findings – The findings show that the technological process of technological innovation is significant for
resource sustainability. The result also showed that technological innovations directly and statistically
significantly affect WEF nexus. The EFA resulted in three components of WEF nexus product innovation,
WEF nexus process innovation and WEF nexus novel innovations. Furthermore, the CFA and SEM analysis
reveals that six technological innovation indicators influence the sustainability of the nexus: smart water
metering technology, smart metering technology, food quality monitoring technology, agricultural technology
solutions, new technological design and eco-friendly WEF products.
Originality/value – The sustainability of these three inevitable resources for man’s survival is dependent
on technological innovations, and this study has shown the major categories of innovations needed, thus
establishing a pathway for engineering design. Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology
Keywords Water, energy and food (WEF) nexus, Sustainability, Technological innovation, WEF security © Emerald Publishing Limited
1726-0531
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/JEDT-05-2023-0200
JEDT 1. Introduction
In progressing and enhancing a nation’s socio-economic development, technology is the
principal propellant of global economic growth. Thus, the efficiency, effectiveness and stability
of natural, human or material resources are inevitable without technological innovations. The
authors believe that technological innovations have and will persist in being a dynamic force of
change, making both positive and negative disruptions. Hence, innovations from technological
disruptions will continue to alter and determine the availability, affordability, utilization and
stability of water, energy and food (WEF) resources. Research and human experience have
shown that these three resources are vital to human livelihood. Shannak et al. (2018) opined that
the solutions to global issues of water scarcity, hunger, energy depletion and the need for a
sustainable economy can be solved through the stability of WEF resources. Furthermore, as
Olawuyi (2019) pointed out, the intricate interconnections and trade-offs among the three
resources significantly influence their stability and security. The recognition of synergies and
trade-offs amid WEF resources (David and Adepoju, 2021) highlights the role of technological
innovation in facilitating these interactions.
Technological innovation is demonstrated in the innovative process and technology in
producing WEF resources. Technological innovation involves the implementation of novel
concepts for new products or services, as well as the introduction of new components within
an organization’s production processes. Also, Fayomi et al. (2019) posited that technological
innovation is the development of new products, items, administration and procedures, which
will improve technological solutions for a better life and improved standard of living. The
prominent role of technological innovations in the interactions between the three resources
has led to the concept of the WEF nexus. Technological innovations act as oxidizing and
reducing agents for the interactions, synergies and trade-offs among WEF resources, as they
relate to the sustainability of the resources beyond contemporary generations. The Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2014) opined that the nexus and interlinkages among the
three resources show the complexity and interrelationship of various resources in the world.
Weitz et al. (2014) posit that the WEF nexus is about understanding the utilization of
resources and management of resource systems with their interdependencies (depending on
each other’s), synergies (reinforcing a shared belief) and constraints (trade-offs or acting on
conditions). The research of David et al. (2022) posits that the WEF nexus stimulates
economic activities, brings to limelight the medium of managing environmental impacts of
the resources, provides managerial solutions to the trade-offs of the resources and acts as a
buffer mechanism to resource scarcity. Ogbolumani and Nwulu (2021) opined that the WEF
nexus optimizes resource allocation framework in mitigating the effect of scarce resources.
Moreover, numerous research studies have effectively outlined how technological
innovations play a pivotal role in achieving the objectives and goals of the nexus. The
research of Rosa et al. (2021) opined that through technological innovations, pressures on
WEF nexus could be reduced regarding resource usage and waste minimization. Govindan
et al. (2018) noted that in enhancing the environmental performance of the WEF nexus,
technological innovations are inevitable, as technology will aid in capturing CO2 emissions
and aids the recycling of biomass waste to produce energy. Fontana and Boas (2019) stated
that resources could be recovered from WEF resources through technological innovation,
citing phosphorus recovery from the food chain. However, the authors lamented that these
recoveries by technology threatens existing investments. Walker et al. (2014) identified four
specific technological innovations applicable to resource recovery from the WEF Nexus.
These include urine separation technology, consolidation and co-treatment of household
organic waste, pyrolysis of separated sewage sludge and algae production within
wastewater treatment facilities. The research of David et al. (2022) viewed technological
innovation as a catalyst for achieving the primary objective of WEF nexus, which is Technological
resource sustainability. The research of Zhang et al. (2021), Okampo and Nwulu (2021), innovation
Fabiani et al. (2020) and Nwulu and Fahrioglu (2011) all designed technological innovations
in solving various complexity of WEF nexus in ensuring resource sustainability.
Consequently, from the research of David et al. (2022) and Pahl-Wostl (2019), resource
sustainability refers to the simultaneous security of WEF resources and making it available,
accessible, stable and affordable beyond contemporary generations, factoring in social
cohesiveness, economic equity and environmental integrity.
Empirically, technological innovations function as the vital lifeline of the WEF nexus and
resource sustainability, effectively addressing the inherent insecurity surrounding these
resources due to escalating demand. The United States National Intelligence Council (USNIC)
(2012) projects a substantial rise in demand for WEF resources by 2030 – estimated to surge by
40%, 50% and 35%. This projected demand underlines the urgent need for innovative
solutions that can harmonize the intricate interplay of these resources while ensuring their
enduring availability and efficient utilization. This was corroborated by the United Nations
(2015) that it will require 60% increase in food production for the expected global population of
9.8 billion people by 2050. Moreover, technological innovation application to WEF nexus can
aid in providing technological solutions to the myriad of WEF resource challenges in South
Africa, where this study was undertaken. The study conducted by Otieno and Ochieng (2004)
postulates that South Africa confronts significant challenges pertaining to water scarcity.
Projections indicate that by 2025, the country could experience physical water scarcity. This is
attributed to an annual average rainfall of 450 mm, which falls short of the global average of
860 mm, compounded by an annual per capita freshwater availability of less than 100 m3.
Furthermore, South Africa is confronted with the need to have substantial investments in
technological innovations to harness its renewable energy potential and mitigate the impact of
carbon emissions on the environment. The fact that 86% of the nation’s electricity is coal-
powered exacerbates the strain on limited water resources and adversely influences both
consumption and their quality, affecting the republic’s environmental performance (Mabhaudhi
et al., 2018). Additionally, with arable land accounting for just 13% of the country’s land area,
South Africa needs to rely heavily on technological innovations within the agri-food supply
chain to enhance agricultural productivity (Mabhaudhi et al., 2018). These innovations are
crucial for sustaining food security and bolstering the nation’s self-reliance in terms of
sustenance. Thus, technological innovation can checkmate, predict and manage resource
variations’ complexity for sustainability.
Consequently, research by Rosa et al. (2021), Govindan et al. (2018), Fontana and Boas
(2019), Walker et al. (2014), Zhang et al. (2021) and Okampo and Nwulu (2021) all focused on
the fact that technological innovation affects and increase the sustainability of WEF
resources. Nonetheless, a conspicuous dearth of statistical research is evident when it comes
to gauging the full scope of technological innovation’s impact on the WEF nexus.
Remarkably, no research has yet delved into categorizing the specific types of technological
innovations that enhance the WEF nexus’s sustainability. Also, this paper is particularly
unique as it pivots on the vantage points of managerial and social science perspectives – an
approach that has not been ventured into as per the author’s knowledge, as most research
stems from engineering-oriented viewpoints. The confluence of these gaps in research and
the pressing issues tied to resource insecurity and unsustainability culminates in the
impetus behind this study, thus resulting in the following research questions:

RQ1. What categories of technological innovations influence the resource sustainability

of the WEF nexus?
JEDT RQ2. What is the extent of the influence of technological innovations on the resource
sustainability of the WEF nexus?
Moreover, in accordance with the technological innovation system theory, there is a need to
understand the extent of technological applications to maximize the benefits and formulate the
strategies of technological innovations (Ortt and Kamp, 2022). Furthermore, in concurrence
with Rogers’s (2003) innovation diffusion theory, there arises a necessity to delve into the extent
of technological innovation within the WEF nexus. This exploration is crucial in determining
the degree of adoption, guided by criteria such as relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity,
ease of use, trialability and observable outcomes (David et al., 2022). Therefore, this paper
analyzed the role of technological innovation in resource sustainability in the WEF nexus. In
achieving this aim, the research determined the various categories of technological innovations
that influence the resource sustainability of the WEF nexus. It also established the influential
role of technological innovations in the resource sustainability of the WEF nexus.
Consequently, the attainment of these objectives led to the following contributions:

established the various technological innovations applicable to the WEF nexus;

determined the role of technological innovation in resource sustainability of the
WEF nexus;

established the statistical mechanism of exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM), as it
relates to resource sustainability; and

established the pathway of technological innovation role for increasing resource
sustainability.

2. Conceptual framework
There are different studies on the categorization of technological innovations. The research of
Oslo Manual (2005) averred different types of technological innovations: products, processes
and eco-innovations. According to the authors, product technological innovations entail
producing and commercializing new goods with improved performance metrics. Process
technological innovation is the implementation of an improved or new production process,
while the European Commission (2015) opined that eco-innovations are technological
innovations that optimize resource consumption and utilization while diminishing the impact
on the environment. Moreover, the research of Donbesuur et al. (2020) opined that product,
process and eco-innovations could be used in measuring technological innovations, which was
used by this research paper. Therefore, the paper used the measures above to contextualize
these major classifications with the WEF nexus. In terms of product innovation: varieties of
WEF products, development of novel products, water quality monitoring technology, water
resources technological solutions, smart metering technology, smart energy solutions, food
preservation technology, food quality monitoring technology and agricultural technological
solutions. Also, in terms of process innovations: technological processes, new production
methods, process improvement, new technological design and new production equipment. In
terms of eco-innovation: innovations that reduce environmental footprint, innovations that
emits zero production during production and distribution of WEF products and resources and
eco-friendly WEF products.
Furthermore, given the objective of this paper and cited research (David et al., 2022), the
sustainability of resources is the major outcome of the integrated concept of WEF nexus,
thus preserving today’s resources for tomorrow’s generation, without starving today’s
generation. However, Mensah (2019) and Khan (1995) opined that sustainability is measured Technological
by three environmental, social and economic dimensions. According to the authors, social innovation
sustainability deals with the cohesiveness of the populace in terms of their culture, norms
and communities. While economic sustainability deals with the issues relating to the
economic power of an individual in accessing, mobilizing, possessing and profiting from
factors of production. Also, environmental sustainability entails activities that seek the
protection and preservation of the environment against negative externalities. Therefore, in
the context of the WEF nexus, economic sustainability measures entail environmentally
friendly production, sustainable production mechanism, conversion and recycling of WEF
resources to waste, eco-friendly supply chain, accounting value of WEF resources,
utilization of cleaner production mechanism, a friendly import–export ratio, potentiality of
increasing employment opportunities and production of more innovative products. WEF
nexus in social sustainability entails eco-friendly location of the production factory, a stable
political environment, promotion of stakeholder consultation, training of employees on
nexus thinking, promotion of good working conditions, enhancement of competent
leadership, promotion of health and safety codes, optimization of labor laws, re-organization
of societal norms and digitalized procurement mechanism. Whereas environmental
sustainability measures from the WEF nexus include adequate environmental impact
assessment, reduction of greenhouse gas emission, enhancement of waste management,
enhancement of energy efficiency, water sustainability, recycling and reusability of food
waste, reduction of biodiversity loss, promotion of afforestation, promotion of climate
change management strategies and promotion of green investment (Figure 1).

3. Methodology
This paper used quantitative research methods, which entails using and analyzing
numerical data via statistical techniques, thus quantifying variables to get results. The
analytical process encompassed both descriptive statistics (percentage and frequency) and
inferential statistics, using EFA, CFA and SEM to establish robust relationships among the
variables. The descriptive and the EFA were done using the statistical package for the social
science (SPSS) version 27. According to Aigbavboa (2014) and Ogunbayo (2021), EFA has
always been a precursor analysis in SEM. Rehbinder (2011) stated that EFA attempts to
identify underlying variables or factors that explain the pattern of correlations within a set
of observed variables. This paper embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the interplay
between variables by harnessing quantitative methodologies and using a multi-faceted
approach involving both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. Through the
application of EFA, CFA and SEM, this study aims to yield robust insights that contribute
to a deeper understanding of the underlying relationships within the data set. The author

Figure 1.
Conceptual
framework
JEDT further opined that EFA is used in data reduction, which will identify several factors or
indicators of a variable, explaining the variance observed in many variables. The study
adhered to the major assumptions of SEM, which includes the multivariate normality,
appropriateness of sample size and the goodness-of-fit indices (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1988;
Hu and Bentler, 1999; Aigbavboa, 2014).
The CFA and SEM were done using equation (EQS) software version 6.4. The choice of
the software EQS for analysis was influenced by the benefit of using the Satorra–Bentler
scaled statistics (S – Bx2), which provide an adjusted and more robust measure of fit for non-
normal data, whereby the CFA must conform with certain cutoff criteria as shown in
Aigbavboa (2014). In addition, the EQS software offers several different estimation methods
for non-normal data, including robust maximum likelihood (Kline, 2005; Aigbavboa, 2014).
The quantitative data collection method for this study is done by the survey method with
the application of a structured questionnaire piloted by management staff of the WEF
departments/Ministry of South Africa. These professionals were chosen for their profound
expertise and hands-on experience regarding the intricate operations of their individual
departments and their involvement and interplay with other departments. A five-point
Likert scale for the study was used per the recommendation of Aaker et al. (2009). The Likert
scale is of two different types, which are the first category (1 – To no extent, 2 – Small extent,
3 – Moderate extent, 4 – Large extent and 5 – Very large extent) and the second category (1 –
Strongly disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neither, 4 – Agree and 5 – Strongly agree). The first
category measures the extent of the effect of technological innovation on the WEF nexus,
whereby the second category focuses on the level of agreement by the respondents on how
the nexus can ensure a sustainable economy in terms of economic, social and environmental
sustainability.
The study focusing on South Africa, with applicability in developing countries, uses
management staff of the WEF resources sectors in South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture,
Land Reforms and Rural Development, Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy and
Ministry of Water and Sanitation. The total population is 953, as sourced from their
respective annual reports between 2018/2019 and 2020/2021. The sample size of the
population was 282, derived via Yamane (1967) sample size formula.

4. Results and analysis

4.1 Respondents demographics
Table 1 reveals that the total number of respondents for the study is 254, depicting a
response rate of 90.07% against the sample size, which, according to the research of Kline
(2005), Aigbavboa (2014) and Ogunbayo (2021) are acceptable for SEM.

4.2 Categories of technological innovation influence on resource sustainability of water,

energy and food nexus
Table 2 provides the indicators and features of technological innovation following their
various categorization. According Table 2, construct features of the product innovation
category have an average mean of 3.84 and a S.D of 0.939. The first influencing indicator for
product innovation construct of technological innovation determinant of the WEF nexus is
“Agricultural technology solutions” with a mean value of 4.04 and a S.D of 0.957. The least
indicators of product innovation is “smart metering technology” with a mean value of 3.69
and S.D of 0.938. Table 2 also shows the features of the process innovation category, with
the largest influencing indicator of “technological process” with a mean value of 3.98 and a
S.D of 0.906 and the least indicator is “new technological design” with a mean value of 3.76
and a S.D of 0.995. The average mean of process innovation is 3.84 and a S.D of 0.971. Also,
Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
Technological
innovation
Gender
Male 100 39.4
Female 154 60.6
Age range
20–30 years 94 37.0
31–40 years 82 32.3
41–50 years 78 30.7
Years of experiences
<5 Years 95 37.4
5–10 years 36 14.2
11–15 years 68 26.8
16–20 years 3 1.2
Above 20 years 52 20.5
Educational qualification
B.Sc/B.Tech/B.Eng 106 41.7
Honors 58 22.8
Masters 41 16.1
PhD 34 13.4
Others 15 5.9
Sector of operation
Water 99 39.0
Energy 70 27.6
Food/ Agriculture 85 33.5
Designation
Low level management 51 20.1
Middle level management 162 63.8
Top level management 41 16.1 Table 1.
Total 254 100 Respondents’
demographic
Source: Authors’ own work characteristics

indicators of eco-innovation constructs of technological innovation are shown in Table 2.

The first influencing factor of the eco-innovation category of technological innovations is
“reduced environmental footprint” with a mean value of 3.80, and a S.D of 1.161 and the least
indicator is “zero pollution in distributing WEF resources” with a mean value of 3.62 and a
S.D of 1.169. The average eco-innovation indicators mean 3.675 and a S.D of 1.152.
Moreover, Table 2 reveals the three-average mean, revealing that product innovation has the
most significant influence on the WEF nexus, followed by process innovation and eco-
innovation.

4.3 Extent of influence of technological innovation on resource sustainability of water,

energy and food nexus
4.3.1 Exploratory factor analysis of the constructs. Exploratory factor analysis was
conducted to assess the reliability and unidimensionality of technological innovation in their
influence on the WEF nexus. This was done using principal components with direct oblimin
rotation specified as the extraction and rotation methods.
JEDT Mean score
Features/indicators of product innovation constructs )
Mean (x SD (sx) ranking (R)

Agricultural technology solutions (e.g. drone irrigation,

pest control devices, seed technology) 4.04 0.957 1
Development of novel products 3.88 0.999 2
Water resources technological solutions 3.87 0.889 3
Food quality monitoring technology 3.86 0.913 4
Changes in market dynamics 3.83 0.855 5
Smart energy solutions 3.83 0.913 6
Smart water metering technology 3.83 1.034 7
Food preservation technology 3.82 0.879 8
water quality monitoring technology 3.80 0.916 9
Varieties of products 3.76 1.031 10
Smart metering technology 3.69 0.938 11
Average construct Mean 3.84 0.939 1st
Technological process 3.93 0.906 1
New production methods 3.89 0.950 2
Process improvement 3.83 0.961 3
New production equipment 3.79 1.082 4
New technological design 3.76 0.995 5
Average construct mean 3.84 0.971 2nd
Reduced environmental footprint 3.80 1.161 1
Zero pollution during the production of WEF products 3.65 1.159 2
Table 2. Eco–friendly WEF products 3.63 1.120 3
Constructs indicators Zero pollution in distributing WEF resources 3.62 1.169 4
Average construct mean 3.675 1.152 3rd
of technological
innovation Source: Authors’ own work

The corrected item-total correlation as shown in the pattern matrix of Table 3 was greater
than the recommended cut-off value of 0.3, indicating that the items were a good measure of
the element. Cronbach’s alpha value was greater than 0.7 at 0.941, indicating acceptable
internal reliability as Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) recommended, which further shows
that factor analysis could be conducted on the data. According to Table 3, the indicators and
attributes of technological innovation had a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin of 0.876 and Bartlett’s test
of sphericity is significant (p ¼ 0.000). This, therefore, signifies that the factor analysis was
appropriate (Field, 2005; Rehbinder, 2011).
Moreover, the factors are loaded into three components. However, most of the items
(4 items) were loaded in Component 1, whereas 3 factors were loaded in Component 2 and 1
factor in Component 3. All the items had loading factors greater than the minimum
recommended 0.4 (Field, 2005). These factors were retained for further investigations, as
Component 1 had an eigenvalue of 5.709; Factor 2 had an eigenvalue of 0.594; and Factor 3
had an eigenvalue of 0.566, which all together explained 85.862% of the variance in the data,
as shown in Table 3. Therefore, enough evidence of convergent validity was provided for
this construct. Furthermore, examining the relationship of the components in Table 3,
Component 1 was named WEF Nexus Product Innovation, Component 2 was called WEF
Nexus Process Innovation and Component 3 was named WEF Nexus Novel Innovations.
4.3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.
4.3.2.1 Technological innovation. The cases analyzed for the construct technological
innovation (TI) were 254 from a sample of 254. The initial model contained 20 observed
 Component
Pattern matrixa 1 2 3 % of variance Cronbach’s Alpha No. of Items

Development of novel products 0.980 71.34

Technological process 0.620 7.42
New technological design 0.955
New production equipment 0.930
Food quality monitoring technology 0.969 7.08
Smart energy solutions 0.891
Smart water metering technology 0.860
Agricultural technology solutions (e.g. Drone Irrigation,
pest control devices, seed technology) 0.735 0.941 8
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.876
Bartlett’s test of sphericity sig 0.000
Source: Authors own work

innovation
EFA pattern matrix
Table 3.
innovation

for technological
Technological
JEDT variables, but the preliminary CFA excluded 14 indicator variables (Figure 2). According to
Joreskog and Sorbom (1988) and Byrne (2006), a well-fitting CFA necessitates symmetrical,
zero-centered residual covariance matrices, with values exceeding 2.58 considered large
(Byrne, 2006; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1988; Aigbavboa, 2014). Thus, the remaining six-
indicator model (TI4, TI6, TI9, TI10, TI15 and TI20), showing a solid residual matrix and
convergent validity, was used for the CFA. The Bentler–Weeks structure analysis of the
construct displayed technological innovation with 6 dependent variables, 7 independent
variables and 12 free parameters, whereas the fixed non-zero parameters were 7. The six

S1 E202
D2

S3 E204

S4 E205

Sustainability

S6 E207

S8 E209

S9 E210

TI4 E37

TI6 E39

TI9 E42

TI

TI10 E43

TI15 E48
Figure 2.
CFA for both WEF
nexus resource
TI20 E53
sustainability and
technological
innovation
Source: Authors’ own work
dependent indicator variables for the technological innovation construct were smart water Technological
metering technology, smart metering technology, food quality monitoring technology, innovation
agricultural technology solutions, new technological design and eco-friendly WEF products.
4.3.2.2 Water, energy and food nexus sustainability. This section introduces a
unidimensional sustainability model. The cases analyzed for construct S totaled 254 from a
sample of 254. The initial model contained 31 observed variables, but the preliminary CFA
excluded 25 indicator variables (Figure 2). According to Joreskog and Sorbom (1988) and
Byrne (2006), a well-fitting CFA requires symmetrical, zero-centered residual covariance
matrices, with values above 2.58 considered large (Byrne, 2006; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1988;
Aigbavboa, 2014). Thus, the remaining six-indicator model (S1, S3, S4, S6, S8, S9) with a
strong residual matrix and convergent validity was used. Inspection of the construct’s
Bentler–Weeks representation showed 6 dependent variables, 7 independent variables and
12 free parameters, with 7 fixed non-zero parameters. The six dependent indicator variables
for sustainability construction are environmentally friendly production, conversion and
recycling of WEF resources waste, eco–friendly supply chain, reduction of CO2 in the
transportation of WEF resources, local production in a friendly import–export ratio and
increased employment opportunities.
4.3.2.3 Technological innovation and water, energy and food nexus for resource
sustainability. Therefore, following the CFA for technological innovation and WEF nexus
sustainability factors, a model CFA was done using the EQS as shown in Figure 2, showing
the interrelationship of both variables. Figure 2 shows that technological innovation exerts
influence on the WEF nexus sustainability ability.
The hypothesis test for technological innovation and WEF nexus sustainability
(Figure 2) resulted in a robust Likelihood Ratio Test (S – Bx2) of 300.5872 with 66 degrees of
freedom. The chi-square value’s insignificance implies an acceptable departure of sample
data from the proposed model. However, due to the chi-square test’s sensitivity to sample
size (Kline, 2005; Ogunbayo, 2021), it is more descriptive than statistical. Hence, the normed
Chi-square (x2/df) is often preferred, as suggested by Kline (2005) and Aigbavboa (2014),
with values # 3.0 or 5.0 recommended (Kline, 2005). The chi-square to degrees of freedom
ratio was 4.55, under Kline’s 5.0 limit, signifying an acceptable fit. Additionally, the robust
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.905, meeting the 0.90–0.95 cutoff for acceptable fit. The
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) at 0.029, along with a 90% confidence
interval (0.146–0.175), indicated a good model fit. The Normed Fit Index (NFI) value of 0.888
also pointed to a good fit. Considering these, other parameters suggested either a good or
acceptable fit. Thus, goodness-of-fit indices (CFI, NFI, RMSEA, RMSEA @ 90%, df, x2/df,
S – Bx2) supported the acceptance of the relationship between WEF nexus sustainability
and technological innovation.
4.3.2.4 Internal reliability and construct validity. The reliability of the SEM model’s
values was assessed by examining Cronbach’s alpha and Rho coefficients. In line with
Kline’s (2005) recommendation, the reliability coefficient is expected to range from 0.00 to
1.00, with values nearing 1.00 being preferred. The Rho coefficient, a measure of internal
consistency, yielded a value of 0.957, surpassing the required minimum threshold of 0.70.
Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the acceptable minimum value of 0.70, registering at
0.904. Both Cronbach’s alpha and Rho coefficients, displayed in Table 4, signified robust
internal consistency and homogeneity. These results imply a strong alignment among
respondents’ answers concerning both observed and unobserved variables within the WEF
nexus sustainability and technological innovation domains.
Furthermore, the SEM model’s construct validity was assessed by examining the
parameter coefficients’ magnitudes, also known as factor loadings. Parameter coefficients
JEDT Indicator Standardized Cronbach’s Reliability
variable coefficients Z Statistics R square Significance alpha coefficient

TI 4 0.859 – 0.738 Yes 0.904 0.957

TI 6 0.779 19.822 0.608 Yes
TI 9 0.920 22.860 0.847 Yes
TI 10 0.853 21.084 0.728 Yes
TI 15 0.775 24.701 0.601 Yes
TI 20 0.842 22.378 0.709 Yes
S1 0.856 – 0.733 Yes
S3 0.894 31.669 0.799 Yes
S4 0.886 23.319 0.785 Yes
S6 0.919 35.430 0.844 Yes
S8 0.961 35.833 0.924 Yes
Table 4. S9 0.905 37.099 0.819 Yes
Factor loadings and
internal reliability Source: Authors’ own work

exceeding 0.5 were indicative of a strong connection between the factor and its
corresponding indicator variable (Hair et al., 1998; Aigbavboa, 2014; Somiah, 2019).
Therefore, a careful examination of Table 4 shows that the values of the factor loadings are
significantly high, with the highest reaching 0.961. A parameter estimates of 0.961 suggests
a robust alignment between the indicator variables and the respective factor, similar to the
other factors. The lowest parameter estimate observed was 0.775, which is still higher than
the minimum of 0.5 recommended.
The CFA results of the full structural model, presented in Table 4, support the general
hypothesis. The relationship between the factors and the endogenous variable (dependent
variable) was statistically significant at a 5% probability level. Furthermore, all
standardized parameter estimates displayed substantial correlation values, approaching
1.00 (ranging from 0.775 to 0.961). This pattern suggests that the standardized factor
loadings were consistently sizable and statistically significant. Again, this underscores a
strong linear relationship between the indicator variables and the endogenous construct.
Again, it signifies a high degree of linear association between the indicator variables and the
endogenous construct. Also, the variances accounted for in each measure by the endogenous
variable revealed that the scores were significant at 5% level. The values were above the
minimum required value of 25%.
Furthermore, the Z-statistics were greater than 1.96, and the signs were appropriate.
Therefore, the estimates were deemed reasonable and statistically significant. In summary,
the score results suggested that the influence of technological innovation on the endogenous
variable was direct and statistically significant.

5. Discussion
Table 1 shows the respondents’ reliability and their knowledge of the operations of WEF
resources, as most of the management staff are middle-level staff who oversee the
operational management of the various WEF sectors departments, thus giving credence to
the usability of this study for economic policy on the management of technological
innovation for WEF nexus sustainability.
Furthermore, in accordance with Table 2, the first three ranked indicators are
agricultural technology solutions, technology processes and new production methods. All
these indicators reveal that the technological process of resource production is vital to the Technological
sustainability of WEF resources. That is, the nexus of the three resources can only lead to innovation
the sustainability of the resource if the production mechanism is technologically oriented.
This is demonstrated in Hoolohan et al. (2019), where a technological innovation system
framework was used in Anaerobic Digestion in exploring the benefits of the WEF nexus. De
Vries (2016) states that the technological process is about designing, making and assessing
technology. Moreover, the authors opined that the technological process that leads to
technological innovation must consider the following factors: scientific factors (knowledge-
based), technological factors (materials and procedures), market factors (customer’s
perception and aesthetical aspects), political factors (politicians’ ideas); juridical factor
(legislation and patent issues) and ethical factors (ethics).
Table 3 shows the three EFA component analyses: product innovation, process
innovation and novel innovation. As cited by David et al. (2022), many research studies have
highlighted several product and process innovations in the WEF nexus. For instance, in
producing freshwater from brackish water or seawater, Okampo and Nwulu (2021)
elaborated on reverse osmosis desalination technology in enhancing renewable energy
sources such as wind energy, geothermal energy, solar energy, ocean energy and their
hybrids. Furthermore, in the application of technology to WEF nexus for different wheat-
intensive agriculture, Fabiani et al. (2020) used the variable rate technology, which combines
digital and physical technologies such as drones, farm machinery, artificial intelligence,
satellites, machine learning and hyperspectral imaging for the automation of materials such
as fertilizers, chemical sprays and seeds to land. You et al. (2021) designed an optimization
model using Biomass to minimize the total annual cost for establishing and operating a
Biorefinery for bioethanol production and its supply chain underwater – energy – food –
land nexus technologies.
Furthermore, considering the changing patterns of consumers of WEF nexus, Table 3
further shows us that there is a need for novel products in the three sectors, which is needed
for the sustainability of the interaction of the resources. Tidd (1995) opined that developing
novelty products propels inter-organizational and intra-organizational networks, increasing
organizations’ technological capability as they adjust to potential, new and threading
market demands and needs. Moreover, considering the WEF nexus, manufacturing novel
products shows the need for digital skills to integrate existing organization processes with
new technological demands and digital processes. These three components further reveal
that the whole concept of WEF nexus should be enshrined within technological innovations
for the security and sustainability of the resources.
Furthermore, the outcomes depicted in Table 4, indicate the presence of a WEF nexus
technological innovation model defined by six distinct variables: smart water metering
technology, smart metering technology, food quality monitoring technology, agricultural
technology solutions, new technology designs and eco-friendly WEF products. This
observation underscores that both process and product innovations should coalesce into eco-
innovation, a pivotal convergence to ensure resource sustainability of WEF nexus. Also, the
result strongly suggests that every variable encompassed within the model exerts a
significant influence on the sustainability outcomes of the WEF nexus, aligning closely with
findings reported in prior research studies (Youssef et al., 2018; Fayomi et al., 2019; and
Donbesuur et al., 2020). These findings further reinforce that technological innovation is a
significant determinant of WEF sustainability project delivery, thereby underscoring the
need for national investment in technological innovations for the three resources. This is to
avoid resource insecurity as a nation that disregards investments in technological
JEDT innovation for WEF resources, despite their undeniable necessity, would inevitably find
itself reliant on countries that do prioritize such investments.
Furthermore, the result has both statistically and empirically established the pivotal role
of technological innovations as a catalytic force in driving the sustainability of the WEF
nexus. The mean score ranking showed that the technological process is vital to resource
sustainability. This was corroborated with the analysis of the EFA, which hinged on the role
of emerging technologies in the production and utilization mechanism of the three resources.
In addition, the CFA revealed that the three resources’ stability depends on technological
innovations: smart water metering technology, smart metering technology, food quality
monitoring technologies, agricultural technology solutions, new technology designs and
technology that manufactures eco-friendly products from the resources. These insights
affirm that investment in technological innovations stands as a crucial avenue for attaining
resource sustainability, hinging on the concept of the WEF nexus. That is, there is a need for
a focused investment in emerging technologies that can ease the production process,
simplify bureaucratic bottlenecks and preserve the consumption integrity of the three
resources of WEF beyond contemporary generations. Hence, this paper postulates three
investment pathways for sustaining technological innovations’ role in WEF resource
sustainability.
The findings from this study have revealed the need for new knowledge in creating,
designing and maintaining technological innovations needed for resource sustainability.
Hence, there is a need for investment in human capital. This is required as most WEF
organizations are changing and restructuring their business model, management systems
and production mechanisms. For instance, within the water sector, the workforce’s
proficiency can sway from being an asset to becoming a liability if they lack adequate
understanding of the applicability and transformative potential of smart water metering
technology. This knowledge gap can considerably impact the sustainability of benefits
derived from such technological advancements. Therefore, acquiring and cultivating human
capital, armed with pertinent knowledge, is paramount in steering organizations toward
embracing and optimizing new technologies, thus ensuring the enduring sustainability of
WEF resources. This conforms with the research of Gjika and Pano (2023), who posit that
educating the workforce in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) technologies will
be a booster to an organization and the national economy. In addition, Markaryan and
Mezinova (2023) opined that in the face of changing consumer purchasing patterns,
automation dynamics and market unpredictability, reinforcing the education of potential
and actual employees with a modern educational system becomes a resource for
sustainability. Hence, in increasing and deepening resource sustainability, organizations
and government agencies should be committed to investing in human capital via relevant
training, capacity-building programs and workshops on the modus operandi of technologies
of WEF sustainability.
Also, technological innovation in the WEF space necessitates a transformation in
business models to ensure profitability, given the substantial costs associated with
technological advancements. Hence, there is a need for private organizations to invest in
the needed technology. Concurrently, governments are encouraged to play a role by
providing incentives such as import duty waivers for critical technologies pertinent to the
WEF sectors. The availability of these technologies due to adequate financial investment
will ensure resource sustainability beyond the contemporary generation. Therefore, the
government must stimulate the technological market to ease purchasing and investment
decisions on food technologies, water infrastructures and energy systems. Such
stimulation serves as a catalyst, encouraging a surge of small- and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) to step into the WEF arena, thereby augmenting the production of Technological
essential resources. By fostering a conducive environment for technological adoption and innovation
innovation, governments can effectively bolster the longevity and resilience of WEF
resources for future generations.
The third investment avenue underscored by the findings of this research pertains to
the imperative of channeling investments into an organization’s R&D endeavors. It is
worth noting that all the technological innovations discerned in this study are direct
outcomes of R&D efforts. Consequently, fostering collaborations between organizations
and SMEs warrants substantial investment in technological R&D, particularly aimed at
enhancing the accessibility and usability of technologies within the context of the 4IR.
This strategic focus on R&D stands to yield the birth of novel technological innovations,
fortifying the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the three essential
resources.

6. Policy recommendations
Addressing the incorporation of technological innovations within the WEF sectors and their
interconnected nexus is a major technological challenge, as noted by Coles and Hall (2012).
Therefore, enhancing technological innovations aimed at achieving sustainable resource
management within the WEF nexus hinges on the augmentation of human capital, financial
resources and R&D investments. Nonetheless, these investments introduce a discernible
disparity between corporate entities and SMEs operating within the WEF realm, primarily
due to discrepancies in investment capabilities. Therefore, the following policy
recommendations will aid the stimulation of technological innovations for resource
sustainability irrespective of organization size:

A National Resource Information system: Data is the technological equivalent of oil,
while a robust database system is the foundational framework for technological
capability. Hence, in boosting the adoption of technology for the three resources, the
government must craft a comprehensive national policy for a resource information
system with collaborative backing from private entities. This policy should
encompass the provision of statistical insights and data pertaining to the country’s
resources, particularly emphasizing vital domains such as water, energy and
agricultural resources. The implementation of such a policy holds the potential to
facilitate the accumulation and simulation of data, aligning with the technological
proficiency and investment potential of various organizations. Establishing a
systematic data collection and analysis structure empowers entities to harness their
unique technological capabilities and financial capacities to acquire, process and
interpret information effectively. This, in turn, paves the way for more informed
decision-making, fostering innovation and driving sustainable resource
management practices across sectors.

Provision of ethical guidelines on technological innovations for WEF resources.
Investing in technological innovation holds the potential to enhance resource
sustainability, however, this is also being propelled by profitability. Given that
WEF resources constitute fundamental necessities for human survival, it becomes
imperative to establish ethical guidelines governing the application of diverse
technological innovations to these resources. These guidelines are essential to
safeguarding individuals from organizations that unwittingly adopt harmful
innovations that could negatively impact people’s well-being and the environment.
In a world where technological advancements can profoundly influence the quality
JEDT and availability of essential resources, establishing ethical frameworks helps ensure
that innovation aligns with human welfare and environmental preservation. Ethical
guidelines play a pivotal role in shaping the responsible development and
deployment of technological innovations in the WEF domain by striking a balance
between the pursuit of profit and the safeguarding of vital resources.

7. Conclusion
The study’s outcomes have conclusively established that technological innovation holds
both statistical and substantive significance in its influence on the WEF nexus, thereby
ensuring the sustainability of resources. Through the findings and subsequent discussion, a
conclusive inference can be drawn: a direct correlation exists between the level of technology
integrated into the WEF nexus and the corresponding degree of sustainability achieved. Put
succinctly, higher technological integration translates to elevated resource sustainability
rates within the WEF nexus. As such, the sustainability of the WEF nexus and its
underlying resources is intrinsically linked to the extent of technological advancement
applied. Consequently, a strategic emphasis on harnessing technologies of the 4IR surfaces
as a pivotal course for ease of applications of technological innovations. The focus should be
on the following 4IR technologies: Internet of Things technology, artificial intelligence,
additive manufacturing and blockchain technology. This is due to their compatibility and
pronounced effects on WEF nexus technological innovations. Therefore, through the
judicious utilization of these technologies, the trajectory toward achieving enhanced
sustainability within the WEF nexus can be charted with ease.

References
Aaker, A., Kumar, V. and George, S. (2009), Marketing Research, 10th ed., John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY.
Aigbavboa, C.O. (2014), “An integrated beneficiary centered satisfaction model for publicly funded
housing schemes in South Africa”, Doctorate Thesis, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Byrne, B. (2006), Structural Equation Modelling with EQS- Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
Coles, N. and Hall, P. (2012), “Water, energy and food security. Technology challenges of thinking in a
nexus perspective”, Conference Paper presented at the IEEE Technology and Society in Asia
Conference. Singapore, October 26-28, 2012.
David, L. and Adepoju, O. (2021), “Assessing theoretical frameworks, human resources management
implications and emerging technologies on the water, energy and food (WEF) nexus”, Journal
of Digital Food, Energy and Water Systems, Vol. 2 No. 2, doi: 10.36615/digitalfoodenergy
watersystems.v2i2.1025.
David, L.O., Nwulu, N.I., Aigbavboa, C.O. and Adepoju, O.O. (2022), “Integrating fourth industrial
revolution (4IR) technologies into the water, energy and food nexus for sustainable security: a
bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 363, p. 132522, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.132522.
De Vries, M.J. (2016), “Technological processes”, Teaching about Technology. Contemporary Issues in
Technology Education, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32945-1_4.
Donbesuur, F., Ampong, G.O.A., Owusu-Yirenkyi, D. and Chu, I. (2020), “Technological innovation,
organizational innovation and international performance of SMEs: the moderating role of
domestic institutional environment”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 161,
p. 120252, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120252.
European Commission (2015), “Eco – Innovation in United Kingdom. Eco-innovation observatory”, Technological
available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/sites/default/files/field/field-country-files/
uk_eco-innovation_2015.pdf (accessed 20 October 2022).
innovation
Fabiani, S., Vanino, S., Napoli, R., Zajicek, A., Duffkova, R., Evangelou, E. and Nino, P. (2020),
“Assessment of the economic and environmental sustainability of variable rate technology
(VRT) application in different wheat intensive European areas. a water energy foo nexus
approach”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 114 No. 2020, pp. 366-376, doi: 10.1016/j.
envsci.2020.08.019.
FAO (2014), “The water-energy-food nexus a new approach in support of food security and sustainable
agriculture”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Fayomi, O.S.I., Adelakun, J.O. and Babaremu, K.O. (2019), “The impact of technological innovation on
production”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1378 No. 2, available at: https://
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1378/2/022014
Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Fontana, D.M. and Boas, I. (2019), “The politics of the nexus in the city of Amsterdam”, Cities, Vol. 95,
p. 102388.
Gjika, I. and Pano, N. (2023), “Human resource development as a contributor to industry 4.0
implementation in Albania”, Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries,
Vol. 89 No. 2, doi: 10.1002/isd2.12250.
Govindan, R., Al-Ansari, T., Korre, A. and Shah, N. (2018), Assessment of Technology Portfolios with
Enhanced Economic and Environmental Performance for the Energy, Water, and Food Nexus,
Elsevier, doi: 10.1016/b978-0-444-64235-6.50095-4.
Hair, J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hoolohan, C., Soutar, I., Suckling, J., Druckman, A., Larkin, A. and Mclachlan, C. (2019), Stepping-up
Innovations in the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: A Case Study of Anaerobic Digestion in the UK,
Wiley, doi: 10.1111/geoj.12259.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1988), PRELIS: A Program for Multivariate Data Screening and Data
Summarization. A Preprocessor for LISREL, 2nd ed., Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN.
Khan, M.A. (1995), “Sustainable development: the key concepts, issues and implications. Keynote paper
given at the international sustainable development research conference, 27–29 march 1995,
Manchester, UK”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 63-69, doi: 10.1002/sd.3460030203.
Kline, R. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New
York, NY.
Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Nhamo, L., Chimonyo, V.G., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Naidoo, D. and
Modi, A.T. (2018), “Prospects for improving irrigated agriculture in Southern Africa: linking
water, energy and food”, Water, Vol. 10 No. 12, p. 1881.
Markaryan, J. and Mezinova, I. (2023), “Human capital competitiveness management as a resource for
sustainable development”, 2022 International Scientific conference on fundamental and applied
scientific research in the Development of Agriculture in the Far East, AFE 2022, doi: 10.1051/
e3sconf/202337105028.
Mensah, J. (2019), “Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for
human action: literature review”, Cogent Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 1, doi: 10.1080/
23311886.2019.1653531, Article ID: 1653531.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), PDQ Statistics, 3rd ed., McGrawHill, New York, NY.
JEDT Nwulu, N.I. and Fahrioglu, M. (2011), “Power system demand management contract design: a
comparison between game theory and artificial neural networks”, International Review on
Modelling and Simulations, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 104-112, available at: www.scopus.com/record/
display.uri?eid¼2-s2.0-79956134309&origin¼AuthorEval&zone¼hIndex-DocumentList
Ogbolumani, O.A. and Nwulu, N.I. (2021), “Multi-objective optimisation of constrained food-energy-
water-nexus systems for sustainable resource allocation”, Sustainable Energy Technologies and
Assessments, Vol. 44.
Ogunbayo, T.F. (2021), “An integrated model for maintenance of construction buildings”, PhD Thesis,
University of Johannesburg.
Okampo, E.J. and Nwulu, N.I. (2021), “Optimization of renewable energy powered reverse osmosis
desalination systems: a state-of-the-art review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 140, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110712.
Olawuyi, D. (2019), “Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: legal challenges
and emerging solutions”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 103, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1016/j.
envsci.2019.10.009.
Ortt, J.R. and Kamp, L.M. (2022), “A technological innovation system framework to formulate niche
introduction strategies for companies prior to large-scale diffusion”, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 180, p. 121671, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121671.
Oslo Manual (2005), Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological
Innovation Data, 2nd ed., OECD, available at: www.oecd.org/sti/inno/oslomanualproposed
guidelinesforcollectingandinterpretingtechnologicalinnovationdata2ndedition.htm
Otieno, F.A.O. and Ochieng, G.M.M. (2004), “Water management tools as a means of averting a possible
water scarcity in South Africa by the year 2025”, Water SA, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 668-672.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2019), “Governance of the water-energy-food security nexus: a multi-level
coordination challenge”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 92, pp. 356-367, doi: 10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.07.017.
Rehbinder, E. (2011), “Do personal networks affect the success of foreign venture performance? – An
empirical analysis of Nordic firms in Poland”, Copenhagen Business School.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rosa, F.S.D., Lunkes, R.J., Spigarelli, F. and Compagnucci, L. (2021), “Environmental innovation and the
food, energy and water nexus in the food service industry”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 166, p. 105350.
Shannak, S., Mabrey, D. and Vittorio, M. (2018), “Moving from theory to practice in the water-energy-
food nexus: an evaluation of existing models and frameworks”, Water-Energy Nexus, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Somiah, M.K. (2019), “An integrated competitive advantage model for indigenous construction firms in
the Ghanaian construction industry”, PhD Thesis. University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tidd, J. (1995), “The development of new products through inter- and intra-organizational networks”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 307-322, ISSN 0737-6782.
United Nations (UN) (2015), “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development”,
A/RES/70/1, available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%
20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed June 2021).
United States National Intelligence Council (USNIC) (2012), Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds,
NIC, New York, NY.
Walker, R., Beck, M.B., Hall, J.W., Dawson, R.J. and Heidrich, O. (2014), “The energy-water-food nexus:
strategic analysis of technologies for transforming the urban metabolism”, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 141, pp. 104-115.
Weitz, N., Huber-Lee, A., Nilsson, M., Davis, M. and Hoff, H. (2014), Cross-Sectoral Integration in the
Sustainable Development Goals: A Nexus Approach, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.
Yamane, T. (1967), Statistics an Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed., Harper and Row, New York, NY. Technological
You, C., Han, S. and Kim, J. (2021), “Integrative design of the optimal biorefinery and bioethanol supply innovation
chain under the water – energy – food land (WEFL) nexus framework”, Energy, Vol. 228,
pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120574.
Youssef, A., Boubaker, S. and Omri, A. (2018), “Entrepreneurship and sustainability: the need for
innovative and institutional solutions”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 129,
pp. 232-241, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.003.
Zhang, Y.F., Li, Y.P., Huang, G.H. and Ma, Y. (2021), “A copula – based stochastic fractional
programming method for optimizing water – food – energy nexus system under uncertainty in
the Aral sea basin”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 292, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.
126037.

Further reading
Bentler, P.M. (1988), “Causal modeling via structural equation systems”, Handbook of Multivariate
Experimental Psychology, Springer US.

Corresponding author
Love Opeyemi David can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]