Integrating ecosystem services into the water-energy-food-environment (WEFE) nexus for informed conservation strategies and planning in the Upper White Nile basin

Abstract

This study explores the integration of ecosystem services within the water-energy-food-environment (WEFE) nexus framework to inform conservation and development planning in the Upper White Nile basin in East Africa, an area faced with interconnected socio-ecological and climatic challenges. Employing a multi-method approach combining stakeholder valuations and biophysical mapping, we assess the spatial distribution of WEFE-related ecosystem services across the basin and compare them to current conservation measures. Findings reveal a heterogeneous distribution of ecosystem services across the basin, with environment-related services, such as carbon sequestration and environmental quality, dominating spatially (56 %), particularly in the northeastern part of the basin, while food-related services (27 %) are concentrated in the western and eastern regions. Water-related services (15 %) show highest delivery around major lakes, whilst stakeholder valuations highlight the importance of water provision, artisanal fisheries, and biodiversity across all sectors. Analysis of current protected areas indicates their moderate effectiveness in conserving key ecosystem services, with better representation of environment (17 %) and water-related services (12 %) than food (8 %) and energy services (5 %). We identified critical conservation-development conflict zones along the Uganda-Kenya border and in Rwanda-Burundi, where competing priorities for WEFE resources require integrated management approaches. Our conservation gap assessment shows significant shortfalls in meeting international protected targets, particularly for energy and food-related services, which is most pronounced in Rwanda and Burundi. Our study underscores the value of integrating ecosystem services into the WEFE nexus framework for comprehensive conservation planning, highlighting how combining biophysical mapping with stakeholder engagement can inform targeted interventions that balance ecosystem protection with sustainable development in transboundary basins.

Highlights

• •Stakeholder valuations and biophysical mapping were used for an ecosystem services assessment.
• •A novel integration of ecosystem services into the WEFE nexus framework informs conservation planning.
• •There is a heterogenous distribution of WEFE nexus related services in East Africa.
• •Environment related services are spatially widespread and highly valued by stakeholders.
• •Current protected areas conserve key WEFE nexus related services, but future development pose challenges.

1. Introduction

The accelerating pace of human activities is pushing the Earth's systems to the limit of the planetary boundaries, endangering the stability of natural capital and the ecosystem services this provides (Rockström et al., 2009). As we approach these critical thresholds, there's an increasing urgency to transition towards comprehensive sustainable practices and policies that acknowledge the intricate interlinkages within Earth's biophysical systems, which is embodied in the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (Lee et al., 2016). The water-energy-food-environment (WEFE) nexus provides a conceptual framework for cross-sectoral collaboration to identify and manage the interactions between water, energy, and food resources whilst supporting ecological resilience. In the WEFE nexus, resources are interwoven inextricably, where a change in one domain can yield both trade-offs and synergies with others. By adopting this integrated perspective, the WEFE nexus approach aims to enhance resource efficiency, reduce conflicts between sectors, and promote sustainable development that balances human needs with ecosystem integrity (Albrecht et al., 2018; Howells and Rogner, 2014; Zhang et al., 2018).

Ecosystem services, the diverse benefits provided by nature to humans, are crucial for supporting the WEFE sectors and driving socio-economic development (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Wood and Declerck, 2015). These services include water provision, energy resources, and food production, along with regulating functions such as water purification, supporting functions such as nutrient cycling, and cultural services like aesthetic appreciation (Seppelt et al., 2011). However, ecosystem degradation resulting from resource exploitation depletes the capacity of ecosystems to provide essential goods and services (Pascual et al., 2017). Despite increasing attention to integrating ecosystem services into the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus (Ding et al., 2023a,b; Hanes et al., 2018; Yin et al., 2023; Yuan and Lo, 2020), there remains a lack of comprehensive consideration for the full range of environmental and socio-cultural factors within this framework (Bidoglio and Brander, 2016; Ioannidou et al., 2022). This underscores the importance of broadening the WEF nexus to encompass the WEFE nexus, ensuring that environmental services, which form the foundation of the WEF nexus, receive adequate attention and consideration.

Understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics of natural resources requires rigorous mapping approaches to identify resource availability, vulnerabilities, and trade-offs within the WEFE nexus (Spake et al., 2017). These spatial assessments facilitates the identification of regions with high service provision, guiding land-use planning and conservation prioritisation (Gonzalez-Ollauri and Mickovski, 2017; Haines-Young and Potschin-Young, 2010). However, biophysical mapping alone is insufficient, as effective management requires interdisciplinary approaches that integrate biophysical and social dimensions of ecosystem service (Agramont et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2012; García-Nieto et al., 2015). Stakeholder and community engagement complements spatial analysis by capturing local resource use patterns and values, aligning with IPBES recommendations to incorporate diverse forms of local and traditional knowledge (IPBES, 2022; Schlemm et al., 2025). Within the WEFE nexus framework, participatory approaches reveal how different actors value ecosystem services, helping identify potential synergies and conflicts between sectors. By integrating these perspectives, decision-makers can design interventions that both reflect local priorities and enhance implementation success through improved stakeholder acceptance (Cárcamo et al., 2014; Cottafava and Corazza, 2021; García-Nieto et al., 2015; Kainer et al., 2009).

Protected areas have historically served as a pivotal conservation tool (Dudley, 2008; Naughton-Treves et al., 2005; Wei et al., 2020), though their potential to optimise WEFE nexus benefits remains largely unexplored. While traditionally focused on preserving biodiversity, there is a growing recognition of the importance of more inclusive approaches that recognise nature's tangible benefits to humans, enabling broader stakeholder engagement and the development of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) (Dudley et al., 2018). This shift toward socio-ecological frameworks helps mitigate trade-offs between human benefits from nature and conservation efforts (N. J. Bennett et al., 2017; Jonas et al., 2021). In East Africa, despite a substantial network of 1776 protected areas covering over 27 % of the terrestrial area, designations have historically been driven by charismatic species rather than ecosystem service considerations (Riggio et al., 2019), potentially overlooking WEFE nexus hotspots where holistic and integrated resource management is critical.

The Upper White Nile (UWN) basin in East Africa emerges as a hotspot for ecosystem services (Wei et al., 2020) facing a myriad of WEFE nexus challenges, including water quality issues, threatened aquatic ecosystems, and land degradation (Juma et al., 2014; Mkumbo and Marshall, 2015; Odada et al., 2004; Verschuren et al., 2002). Covering five countries - Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi - this basin sustains millions of people who rely on farming, grazing, and fishing for livelihood (Mkumbo and Marshall, 2015; Njiru et al., 2008). Tensions between conservation efforts and local livelihoods are emerging amid escalating developmental pressures. Despite its regional significance and complex environmental challenges, the basin lacks a comprehensive interdisciplinary WEFE nexus assessment leveraging the ecosystem services concept.

To address these challenges, we use an innovative multi-method ecosystem services approach rooted in the WEFE nexus framework. Our study combines biophysical mapping with stakeholder engagement to holistically assess the distribution and perceived values of WEFE-related ecosystem services in the UWN basin in East Africa. Using the C$N tool, based on remote-sensed and globally available datasets, we map the spatial distribution of these services and complement this analysis with stakeholder engagement to capture further dimensions of value. Following this, we explore development-conflict zones and conservation coverage gaps to provide a comprehensive framework for integrated resource management. Our aim is to propose strategies for integrating complex patterns of ecosystem service into conservation and development, reducing the conflict between these initiatives through the WEFE nexus framework. This stakeholder-inclusive approach provides insights that encourage cross-sectoral collaboration and support sustainable development efforts in the basin. Our study addresses the following research questions.

• 1.What is the spatial distribution of WEFE nexus-related ecosystem services across the basin?
• 2.How do local stakeholders involved in WEFE nexus-related activities perceive the value of ecosystem services through a WEFE lens?
• 3.What is the impact of current conservation measures in securing WEFE nexus-related ecosystem services?
• 4.What areas within the basin demonstrate trade-offs and synergies between the provision of WEFE nexus services and future conservation and development efforts?
• 5.Where should conservation efforts be prioritised to address gaps in WEFE service protection and meet international conservation targets?

2. Methods and materials

2.1. Overview

To address the research questions, we employed a multi-method approach that integrated biophysical mapping with stakeholder perspectives (Fig. 1, Fig. 3) across the Upper White Nile basin (Fig. 2). The approach considers biophysical mapping and stakeholder engagement to provide both spatial and value-based dimensions of ecosystem services. Our methodology follows a stepwise process as shown in Fig. 1. First, we conducted biophysical mapping of 14 ecosystem services using the Co$tingNature (C$N) tool. This involved identifying both the total realised services (the sum of services across all 14 at-a-point) and the greatest realised services (the highest value service at a point with all services normalised 0–1 within the study area) within the basin. Additionally, we used C$N maps of total conservation and development priorities based on ecosystem services, biodiversity, current pressures, and future threat metrics. Secondly, semi-structured stakeholder interviews were conducted. During the interviews, we presented the C$N maps, and subsequently stakeholders provided valuations for 22 ecosystem services, indicating both the relative value of the service to them, and the magnitude of the service provision in the geographies they know. Following this, stakeholders were classified based on their primary areas of involvement within the WEFE nexus. Concurrently, we classified the 14 ecosystem services derived from C$N and the 22 stakeholder-assessed ecosystem services according to their relevance to the WEFE nexus. Finally, we re-analysed the C$N maps and stakeholder valuations within the WEFE nexus framework. This included an analysis of conflict zones and conservation gaps. This analysis aimed to identify areas of trade-offs and synergies between the existing protected area networks and potential future conservation and development initiatives within the WEFE nexus context.

Fig. 1.

Workflow of the methodology.

Fig. 3.

Conceptual diagram of, a) ecosystem services within the WEFE nexus framework; b) analysis undertaken in this study.

Fig. 2.

a) position of the Upper White Nile basin; b) Protected Areas OECMs (source: (UNEP-WCMC, 2024)).

2.2. Study area: the Upper White Nile basin

The Upper White Nile (UWN) basin in East Africa (Fig. 1) encompasses the Lake Victoria and Victoria Nile basins (NBI, 2022), spanning Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda, and Burundi. Covering 351,500 km², the basin includes Lake Kyoga and Lake Victoria and experiences a hot and humid climate with a bi-modal rainfall pattern, with mean annual rainfall ranging from 1200 to 1400 mm, contributingup to 87 % of Lake Victoria's water level (Global Environment Facility, UNEP, DHI, & International Water Association, 2016; USAID, 2016). The basin is home to approximately 70 million people, a significant portion of whom rely on fisheries and agriculture for sustenance and income (Maitima et al., 2010; Njiru et al., 2008). Population growth rates vary from 2.2 % per year (Kenya) to 3.0 % (Uganda), exceeding the world average of 0.9 % (World Bank, 2022). The UWN basin boasts diverse ecosystems and biodiversity, offering a rich array of ecosystem services related to water, energy, and food provision (Mati et al., 2008; Mbaziira, 2019). Protected areas within the basin (Fig. 2b) play a crucial role in conservation efforts, encompassing 630 Protected Areas and Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs), covering an expanse of 51,371 km² (UNEP-WCMC, 2024). Despite being renowned for its biodiversity, including 651 freshwater species in the Lake Victoria basin (Sayer et al., 2018) and diverse ecosystem services (Agol et al., 2021), the basin faces a myriad of environmental challenges. These include land degradation, overfishing, soil and water pollution, eutrophication, biodiversity loss, invasive species, and climate change impacts (Agutu et al., 2019; Awange et al., 2019; Getirana et al., 2020; Onyango and Opiyo, 2022; Soesbergen et al., 2019; Verschuren et al., 2002).

2.3. Biophysical mapping of ecosystem services using Co$tingNature

An assessment of ecosystem services in the UWN basin was conducted using version 3.4 of the Co$tingNature (C$N) tool (Mulligan, 2012, 2015), a web-based policy support system designed for spatial assessments of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and current human pressure and future threats, to support conservation planning. This tool integrates over 100 global remote sensing datasets and provides a 1 km² biophysical assessment of ecosystem services for the analyses at national or major basin scale. Within the UWN basin, a biophysical assessment of 14 realised ecosystem services (see Supplementary Materials) was performed. From C$N, we extracted four key maps for analysis.

• 1.Total Realised Services: Cumulative sum of the 14 individual services, showing areas of low or high total service provision in relative terms between 0 (low) and 1 (high) within the study area.
• 2.Greatest Realised Service: Service with the highest relative value within each pixel, considering its importance relative to other services within the same pixel.
• 3.Conservation Priority Index: Relative aggregate nature conservation priority index for realised services, indicating anthropogenically pressured and threatened conservation priority areas with high realised service provision. This index combines an analysis of pressures, threats, and conservation priority.
• 4.Development Priority Index: Relative aggregate development priority index of realised service provision, illustrating currently pressured areas with low conservation priority and realised service provision, which can be considered as low conservation risk areas for development.

C$N conservation priority is determined by overlap of areas of conservation priority of the major conservation NGOs, including BirdLife International (Endemic Bird Areas and Important Bird Areas), WWF (Global200 priority ecoregions), Conservation International (biodiversity hotspots and KBAs), Wildlife Conservation Society (Last of the Wild) combined with relative biodiversity priority. The Relative biodiversity priority index - combines relative richness and relative endemism for IUCN sampled red list index species for the groups: mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. The computation of pressured areas incorporates various factors, including relative human population, grazing intensity, fire frequency, agricultural intensity, infrastructural density, and dam density, all scaled from 0 to 1 (Mulligan, 2012). Additionally, future threats are assessed through potential increases in pressures, assumed to be related to accessibility of the population, related to recent land use change, climate change, and infrastructural development. As with the relative pressure index, the relative threat index is scaled from 0 to 1. Post-processing and analysis of the raster maps were conducted using the open-source software QGIS 3.28.15.

2.4. Stakeholder interviews

To assess stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services in the UWN basin, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholders (individuals, groups, or institutions) (refer to Table 1) across Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania in July 2023, with a higher % of stakeholders with their geographical remit within Uganda (36.7 %) and Tanzania (23.3 %), followed by Kenya, Rwanda, and Burundi (all 13 %). Stakeholders were identified through a stakeholder mapping procedure guided by specific criteria: a) Stakeholders affected by and influencing natural resource use in and around Lake Victoria; b) Representation of a variety of potential competing interests and entity types, including NGOs, civil society organisations (CSOs), academia, and government institutes; and c) Representation of one or more areas of the WEFE nexus (Bielicki et al., 2019). Stakeholders were identified using a ‘snowball’ sampling approach, a method that leverages existing stakeholder networks for further identification. During the interviews (see Supplementary Materials for questions), discussions followed structured questions, with unstructured follow-up questions to gather additional insights. Initially, stakeholders were asked general questions about nature's contributions to society, followed by discussions on the concept of ecosystem services and the definition of different services. Subsequently, stakeholders were presented with C$N maps illustrating the spatial distribution of the sum of and greatest of 14 ecosystem services, sparking discussions on their personal observations and perceptions. Finally, stakeholders assigned values to an extended set of 22 ecosystem services to indicate their importance to them and society, ranging from very high (10) to very low (1). These 22 ecosystem services included the 14 mapped by the C$N tool, with an additional 8 services that either could not be mapped by C$N but may still be important to regional stakeholders (such as spiritual enrichment) or were sub-divisions of existing C$N categories (for example, C$N ‘wildlife services’ was separated into pollination and pest control services). These services were chosen based on expert judgement and scientific literature of ecosystem services in East Africa. Stakeholders were told they could skip any service they were unsure about.

Table 1.

Categorisation of stakeholder groups according to the WEFE nexus.

WEFE category	Code	Stakeholder category	Organisation type	Geographical remit
Water (n = 1)	WatBus1	Water quantity; Water quality	Businesses and corporations	Uganda
Energy (n = 1)	WatBus2	Water quantity; Energy production	Businesses and corporations	Uganda
Food (n = 2)	FishCSO1; Fish1	Fisheries	CSOs; Natural resource users	Tanzania, Uganda
Environment (n = 2)	EnvCSO1; EcoNGO1	Environmental challenges; Eco-tourism	CSOs; NGOs	Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi
Food and Environment (n = 2)	AgriGov1; FishCSO2	Agriculture and livestock; Fisheries	Government agencies; CSOs	Uganda
Water and Environment (n = 2)	EnvGov1; EnvAcad1	Environmental challenges; Natural resource management	Government agencies; Academia and research	Uganda, Tanzania
Water, Food, Environment (n = 1)	EnvDon1	Environmental challenges	Donors	Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi
Water, Energy, Food, and Environment (n = 3)	EnvNGO1; EnvNGO2; EnvCSO2	Environmental challenges	NGOs; CSOs	Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi

2.5. Application of the WEFE nexus framework to ecosystem services

The classification of ecosystem services within the WEFE nexus framework delineates between services directly linked to water, energy, and food (WEF) provision, and those that underpin the environmental foundation necessary for their sustainability (Table 2). Ecosystem services directly related to WEFE nexus services include water provisioning, energy production (from hydropower or fuelwood), and crop pollination, which directly contribute to the availability, quality, and distribution of these resources. In contrast, supporting services within the ‘environment’ category encompass biodiversity maintenance, habitat provision, climate regulation, and cultural/spiritual values. These services sustain ecosystem resilience, stability, and health, ensuring the continued provision of WEFE resources. Cultural and spiritual values associated with natural landscapes foster human well-being and environmental stewardship, contributing to the conservation of ecosystems. Furthermore, while biodiversity may not be classified as an ecosystem service, it plays a fundamental role in establishing a foundation for the provision of other services. By recognising these distinct categories, the WEFE nexus framework enables holistic assessments and decision-making processes that integrate social and environmental considerations.

Table 2.

Categorisation of ecosystem services within the WEFE nexus framework. Ecosystem services that appear in more than one WEFE category are underlined. For instance, “water provision” is underlined as it is included in both water and energy categories, highlighting its importance for hydropower generation. Services enclosed in (brackets) denote the ecosystem service identified through stakeholder interviews that is equivalent to the names of C$N services. Additionally, services presented in italics are exclusive to the stakeholder interviews and do not feature in the C$N tool. The stakeholder relevance column indicates the stakeholders associated with different areas of the WEFE nexus, and thus the associated ecosystem services. Those with a ∗ indicates ‘services’ which are not ecosystem services per se, but rather a key component that underpins service provision (in this case, biodiversity).

WEFE category	Co$tingNature Ecosystem service outputs	Stakeholder relevance
Water	Water Hazard mitigation (Flood storage and mitigation) Water purification	WatBus1; WatBus2; FishCSO1; Fish1; EcoNGO1; FishCSO2; EnvGov1; EnvAcad1; EnvNGO1; EnvNGO2; EnvCSO2
Energy	Fuelwood Water	WatBus2; EnvNGO1; EnvNGO2; EnvCSO2
Food	Commercial fisheries Artisanal fisheries Grazing and fodder Non-wood forest products Wildlife services (pollination)	FishCSO1; Fish1; FishCSO2; AgriGov1; EnvDon1; EnvNGO1; EnvNGO2; EnvCSO2
Environment	Carbon storage and sequestration Nature-based tourism Culture-based tourism Commercial timber Domestic timber Environmental quality Terrestrial biodiversity∗ Aquatic biodiversity∗ Cultural heritage Spiritual enrichment	WatBus1; FishCSO1; Fish1; EnvCSO1; EcoNGO1; FishCSO2; AgriGov1; EnvGov1; EnvAcad1; EnvDon1; EnvNGO1; EnvNGO2; EnvCSO2

Our conceptual framework (Fig. 3) formalises these concepts, illustrating that ecosystem services form the foundational basis for all WEFE nexus domains. The framework recognises that ecosystem functions provide the biophysical and social underpinning for water, energy, food, and environment components, which are tightly interconnected through resource flows, dependencies, and feedback mechanisms. These WEFE components, in turn, exist within broader socio-ecological systems where human activities, values, and institutions both influence and are influenced by the availability and quality of ecosystem services. The analytical process (Fig. 3b) demonstrates how our study explores the intersection between the WEFE nexus services, conservation needs, and development pressures, through the lens of biophysical mapping and stakeholder valuations. This multi-method approach acknowledges that while ecological processes determine the biophysical capacity of ecosystem to provide services, socio-cultural factors ultimately shape how these services are perceived, valued, and managed within governance frameworks. This framework enables more holistic and context-specific conservation planning that can address the inherent complexity of socio-ecological systems in the basin.

Stakeholders were classified according to the areas of the WEFE nexus their organisations are most strongly related to. The average value of each ecosystem service was calculated across different stakeholder groups from the initial score between 1 and 10. Additionally, the percentage contribution of each ecosystem service to each part of the WEFE nexus was determined. This calculation was performed by dividing the value of each ecosystem service (ES) by the sum of all ecosystem service values (EST) within the area of the WEFE nexus and multiplying by 100. The formula used for this calculation is: (ES/EST) x 100. For the final comparative analysis, stakeholder values were obtained from interview responses, while C$N values were derived based on the area of ecosystem services within the greatest realised ecosystem services map. For this, the stakeholder values represent the % contribution of each service from the total WEFE services, whilst the C$N values represent the % of land area over which the service is greatest.

2.6. Biophysical assessment of the WEFE nexus

To analyse the spatial distribution of the WEFE nexus, we reclassified the ‘Greatest Realised Service’ map (Map 2 from C$N) according to our WEFE framework (Table 2), assigning each pixel to its WEFE domain. This approach provided a clear assessment of the primary service at each location without the complexity of overlapping services. We then combined this map with the ‘Total Realised Services’ map (Map 1 from C$N) to show the relative delivery magnitude of services within each WEFE domain.

2.7. Conflict analysis and conservation planning

To better understand the interactions between conservation priorities, development needs, and ecosystem services, we implemented three integrated analyses: 1) Conservation contribution analysis; 2) Development-conservation conflict zone analysis; and 3) Conservation gap analysis.

2.7.1. Conservation contributions analysis

To assess the role of protected areas, we mapped and calculated the intersection between the WEFE domains and protected area boundaries. We calculated the percentage of each WEFE component within protected areas to evaluate current conservation coverage. The same method was applied to conservation priority and development priority maps derived from C$N (Maps 3 and 4, see Section 3 of the Methodology). This was a general analysis that included all overlapping areas, with no priority thresholds, providing an overview of all key basin interactions.

2.7.2. Development-conservation conflict zone analysis

We developed a composite analysis to identify potential conflicts between conservation, development, and WEFE service delivery. The areas were classified into four categories.

• 1.Development-conservation conflict: Areas with high development and conservation priorities (>0.5) but low WEFE service delivery (<0.5)
• 2.Development-WEFE conflict: Areas with high development priority and WEFE service delivery (>0.5) but low conservation priority (<0.5)
• 3.Conservation-WEFE alignment: Areas with high conservation priority and WEFE service delivery (>0.5) but low development pressure (<0.5)
• 4.Severe conflict: Areas where all three measures (development, conservation, and WEFE nexus) are high (>0.5)

We then calculated a conflict intensity score (CIS) using the formula:

$$CIS=\left(DP\mathrm{x}0.5\right)+\left(CP\mathrm{x}0.5\right)$$

Where DP = Development priority; CP = Conservation priority. This was applied where both values exceeded 0.5, representing areas where both development and conservation priorities were substantial.

The resulting CIS was classified into four intensity categories.

• 1.Critical, CIS > 0.8
• 2.Severe, 0.7 < CIS ≤ 0.8
• 3.High, 0.6 < CIS ≤ 0.7
• 4.Moderate, 0.5 < CIS ≤ 0.6

For the CIS intensity analysis, we incorporated social and infrastructural factors by analysing population density and road networks. Population data (derived from WorldPop 2020 at 100m resolution) was used to quantity the number of people potentially affected in each conflict zone category. For each conflict intensity class, we calculated the total population within the affected area by multiplying population density values by the area of each pixel. Road network data (from OpenStreetMap) was used to calculate areas with high road density (>5 km/km²), which was weighted with an additional 0.1 in the development priority calculation, reflecting their increased vulnerability to future development pressures.

This enabled us to understand the scale of potential human impact in conflict zones. To understand which ecosystem services were most at risk in conflict areas, we identified the dominant WEFE component in severe and critical conflict zones by comparing the relative values of each component.

2.7.3. Conservation gap analysis

After assessing the general overlap between current conservation areas and WEFE nexus (see 2.7.1), we assessed current protected areas against international conservation targets. For each WEFE component and country, we calculated.

• 1.Total area of high-value component (where values > 0.5)
• 2.Area of high-value component inside protected areas and protection percentage
• 3.Gap to minimum thresholds (17 %, Aichi Target 11 (CBD, n.d.))
• 4.Gap to good threshold (30 %, aligned with the 30 × 30 initiative (Mitchell et al., 2023))

We then identified priority areas for additional protection based on the following criteria.

• 1.Areas with high WEFE value (>0.7) outside protected areas
• 2.Areas with high conservation priority

For WEFE components, a higher threshold of 0.7 was applied when identifying priority areas for conservation to focus on areas with substantially high ecosystem service delivery, representing approximately the upper 30th percentile of values. The threshold was based on expert judgement. This ensures that conservation efforts target areas with the highest potential return on investment in terms of ecosystem service protection.

The resulting output was classified into different levels of priority for further conservation.

• 1.High priority, >0.6
• 2.Medium priority, 0.3 < priority area ≤0.6
• 3.Low priority, <0.3

3. Results

3.1. Spatial distribution of WEFE nexus-related ecosystem services

In the spatial distribution analysis of WEFE nexus-related ecosystem services across the UWN basin, a heterogeneous distribution pattern emerged from the biophysical mapping (Fig. 4). Environment-related ecosystem services (such as carbon sequestration, see Table 2) were the most spatially widespread, encompassing 56.2 % of the basin, followed by food (27.0 %), water (15.2 %), and energy (1.6 %) services. Food-related services were concentrated in the western and eastern regions, while water-related services were prominent around Lake Victoria, Lake Kyoga, and areas in northern Tanzania and eastern Kenya. The relative delivery (intensity) of each WEFE nexus component varied spatially (Fig. 4). Environment-related services showed highest delivery along the northern shores of Lake Victoria in southern Uganda and western Kenya. Meanwhile, food-related services demonstrated higher delivery in western Uganda and Rwanda, with notable areas in the eastern basin in Kenya and Tanzania. Water-related services had the highest delivery in the mountainous region along the Kenya-Uganda border and in northern Tanzania. Energy-related services, though limited in spatial extent, showed high relative delivery in the few locations where they did occur.

Fig. 4.

(a) relative delivery of WEFE nexus related ecosystem services and (b) the percentage contribution of each component of the WEFE nexus.

3.2. Perception of ecosystem services value by stakeholders in WEFE nexus-related activities

Stakeholder valuations of ecosystem services revealed important patterns across different WEFE domains and stakeholder groups (Fig. 5). When examining the most highly valued ecosystem services within each WEFE nexus category by percentage contributions (Fig. 5b), water provision emerged as the most valued water-related service (9.62 average valuation across all stakeholder groups), artisanal fisheries and pollination dominated the food domain (8.85; 8.77), and aquatic biodiversity and environmental quality were the highest within the environment domain (8.85 and 8.69) (Fig. 5a).

Fig. 5.

Stakeholder valuations of ecosystem services within the WEFE nexus, showing a) the average valuation of each ecosystem service within stakeholder groups; b) the percentage contribution of each ecosystem service within its respective WEFE group. Ecosystem services are as follows: water domain - water provision, water purification, and flood storage; energy domain - water provision for hydropower production (water provision) and fuelwood; food domain - artisanal fisheries, pollination for crop production (pollination), grazing and fodder for livestock (grazing and fodder), pest control, commercial fisheries, and non-wood forest products (NWF products); environment domain - aquatic biodiversity∗, environmental quality, terrestrial biodiversity∗, erosion control, nature-based tourism (NB tourism), wildlife disservices, culture-based tourism (CB tourism), carbon storage and sequestration (carbon), domestic timber, cultural heritage, commercial timber, and spiritual enrichment. Those with a ∗ indicates ‘services’ which are not ecosystem services per se, but rather a key component that underpins service provision (in this case, biodiversity).

Further analysis of stakeholder valuations revealed distinct patterns of consensus and divergence in how different ecosystem services are valued by stakeholder groups (Fig. 6). Water-related services consistently appear in the high-consensus-high-value quadrant, demonstrating strong agreement across stakeholder groups regarding their importance. Similarly, most food-related services like artisanal fisheries and pollination are in the same quadrant. In contrast, environment-related services are highly valued but spread across the high to low consensus quadrants, with cultural services such as spiritual enrichment and cultural heritage receiving an especially low consensus in valuations, suggesting greater variability in how different stakeholders perceive their importance. Nevertheless, some environment-related services such as terrestrial biodiversity and environmental quality are consistently highly rated across stakeholder groups, while timber production and carbon storage display greater divergence in stakeholder valuation. These patterns highlight the importance of incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives when prioritising ecosystem services for conservation and management.

Fig. 6.

Consensus and disagreements of service valuations across stakeholder groups. The quadrants show ecosystem services according to their mean valuation score (y axis) and standard deviation (x axis), identifying high-consensus/high-value services (upper left), low-consensus/high-value services (upper right), high-consensus/low-value services (lower left), and low-consensus/low-value services (lower right).

3.3. Impact of current conservation measures on WEFE nexus-related ecosystem services

The current network of protected areas within the UWN basin provides varied coverage across WEFE domains (Fig. 7). Environment-related services receive the most substantial coverage (17 %), followed by water (12 %), food (8 %), and energy (5 %) (Fig. 7b). This reflects the historical focus of conservation for biodiversity protection rather than provisioning services. The eastern parts of the basin contain the largest protected areas, which effectively cover areas important for environment, food, and water-related services. Analysis of overlaps between protected areas and conservation priorities (Fig. 8) reveals a considerable alignment (17 % representation), indicating synergies between existing protected areas and conservation priority areas. Notably, areas within Kenya, situated in the eastern part of the basin, demonstrate the most significant synergies. Conversely, fewer trade-offs exist between development priorities and current protected areas (Fig. 8), with only 8 % of development priority areas overlapping with protected areas. Notable trade-offs are observed primarily in the northern (Uganda) and southwestern regions (Tanzania/Burundi) of the basin.

Fig. 7.

a) The overlap between protected areas and the WEFE nexus in the UWN basin, and b) The percentage of each WEFE nexus area covered by protected areas.

Fig. 8.

a) overlap between protected areas and conservation priority (left) and development priority (right), and b) percentage of conservation priority and development priority areas within the protected areas.

3.4. Areas with trade-offs and synergies between the WEFE nexus and future conservation and development efforts

Our analysis of conflict zones revealed varied impacts across different WEFE nexus components (Fig. 9). Food-related services emerge as the most affected, displaying considerable synergies with conservation priority areas (up to 50 % overlap) in the western regions of the basin and even greater trade-offs with development priority areas (up to 63 %) in the eastern basin sections (Fig. 9). Furthermore, environment-related services show significant synergies in the northern basin, with slightly lower trade-offs in the southern regions. Related to their limited spatial spread, both energy and water-related services demonstrate minimal synergies and trade-offs with conservation and development priority areas. However, water-related services show higher synergies with conservation priority areas (up to 10 % overlap), predominantly observed in the northeastern basin sectors.

Fig. 9.

a) overlap (synergies) between WEFE nexus services and conservation priorities; b) overlap (trade-offs) between WEFE nexus services and development priorities.

When considering all components of the WEFE nexus together, we identified critical areas for integrated management (Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 12). Our analysis reveals that conservation-WEFE alignment is the most prevalent category, covering 28,2918 km² (8.0 % of the basin). Across the different countries, Kenya experienced the greatest conservation-WEFE alignment (32.8 % of the area), with high levels of alignment also experienced in Uganda (24.1 %) and Burundi (22.7 %) (Fig. 10). Development-WEFE conflict affects 19,876 km² (5.7 %), while Development-Conservation conflict impacts 14,532 km² (4.1 %) across the basin (Fig. 10). The most severe conflict hotspots - where high conservation and development priorities both overlap with important WEFE nexus areas - are concentrated in the northeastern basin area along the Uganda-Kenya border, the eastern Kenya-Tanzania border, and the southwestern basin extremity spanning Rwanda and Burundi. Within each country, Burundi experienced the most widespread severe conflict (41.8 % of the area), followed by Rwanda (36.5 %) and Kenya (22.3 %), driven primarily by high population density and infrastructure development. Tanzania had the lowest levels of severe conflicts (5.0 %) (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10.

Conflicts between conservation priority, development priority, and WEFE nexus.

Fig. 11.

Areas of high a) conservation priority and b) development priority overlap with high WEFE nexus service delivery; c) trade-offs between these areas; d) conflict intensity between conservation and development priority, WEFE nexus, and socioeconomic factors (population and infrastructure).

Fig. 12.

WEFE components in conflict (>severe) area.

These areas experienced varying levels of conflict intensity (Fig. 11d), with the highest intensity observed along the Kenya-Uganda border and across Rwanda and Burundi. Across the basin, 1.7 % experiences critical conflict levels, with another 4.3 % experiencing severe conflict (Fig. 11d). Kenya and Rwanda showed the highest proportion of land area in critical conflict (4.3 % and 4.2 %, respectively), followed by Burundi (3.8 %), while Tanzania again experienced the lowest levels of critical conflict (0.2 %). Our analysis reveals that approximately 5.6 million people live in areas experiencing severe or critical conflict between conservation, development priorities, and the WEFE nexus. Kenya has the highest affected population (2.14 million people), followed by Uganda (1.58 million), Rwanda (0.99 million), Burundi (0.90 million), and Tanzania (0.03 million). Analysis of the WEFE components in conflict areas indicated that environment-related services were predominant in 42.7 % of severe and critical conflict areas, followed by food (32.5 %), water (19.6 %), and energy services (5.2 %) (Fig. 12).

3.5. Conservation gap analysis

Our assessment of current protected area coverage against international targets used a more stringent approach than the previous general analysis (Fig. 7), focusing specifically on high-value WEFE resources areas (those with delivery values > 0.7) to evaluate protection gaps (Fig. 13a). This threshold-based analysis revealed significant shortfalls in safeguarding critical WEFE resources. While Tanzania has almost all high-value WEFE components over the minimum protected area threshold of 17 % (Aichi Target 11; 17 % terrestrial and inland water areas conserved by 2020) (CBD, n.d.), with environment components surpassing the 30 % thresholds (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3; 30 % of earth conserved by 2030) (Mitchell et al., 2023), other countries in the basin showed substantial protection gaps. Kenya and Uganda demonstrated high levels of protection for high-value water and energy resources, with gaps of 2–3 % to the minimum threshold of 17 % area under protection. Rwanda and Burundi showed the largest gaps (7.4 % and 8.4 %, respectively, for all high-value WEFE domains), resulting in basin-wide protection levels below international targets for all critical WEFE components.

Fig. 13.

a) percentage of protection levels of WEFE nexus domain by country (high priority areas); b) conservation gap priority.

Energy-related ecosystem services (fuelwood and hydropower) and food-related services (pollination, grazing, NWF products) require the most urgent protection interventions, with gaps of 12.4 % and 8.2 % to the minimum 17 % threshold, respectively. The conservation gap analysis indicated that to meet the minimum threshold for high-value WEFE service protection, an additional 5,824 km² (>5 % of the current protected area network) would be required across the basin, focusing primarily on energy and food-related services. To achieve the more ambitious 30 % protection target aligned with the 30 × 30 initiative, an additional 27,418 km² would need protection to safeguard critical WEFE nexus resources. The identified priority areas (Fig. 13b) represent the optimal locations for establishing new protected areas or other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) to address these gaps of high-value WEFE nexus service protection. Southern Uganda, northern Kenya, and western Burundi and Rwanda were identified as high-priority areas for additional conservation measures to safeguard critical WEFE resources (Fig. 13b).

When comparing the relative distribution of WEFE domains across three metrics - stakeholder valuations, spatial extent (according to C$N), and general protected area coverage – we intentionally used the non-threshold approach for protected areas (Fig. 7) rather than the threshold-based assessment. This methodological choice ensures a more equal comparison with the other two metrics, which also consider all areas regardless of service magnitude. As seen in Fig. 14, environment-related services dominate in spatial extent (56.2 %) and general protected areas coverage (17 %), reaching Aichi target 11 threshold when considering all areas of service delivery, regardless of magnitude. However, stakeholder valuations show a more balanced distribution across all domains, with water and food services receiving proportionally higher stakeholder valuations relative to their spatial extent. This suggests a potential mismatch between what stakeholders value the most and what is best represented in both landscape coverage and protected areas. Energy-related and water-related services show a substantial imbalance between the different metrics, with a higher stakeholder valuation relative to their more limited spatial extent and protected area coverage.

Fig. 14.

Comparison (by %) of stakeholder valuations, spatial extent (from C$N), and protected areas coverage across WEFE nexus domains (all areas).

4. Discussion

This study demonstrates that integrating ecosystem service into the water-energy-food-environment (WEFE) nexus framework can effectively bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and practical regional planning. Our findings address our research questions posed: 1) we mapped the spatial distribution of WEFE nexus services, showing environment-related services dominate spatially but with distinct patterns for each domain; 2) stakeholder valuations revealed high consensus on water-related services but divergent views on some environment-related services; 3) current protected areas provide moderate but uneven coverage of WEFE domains; 4) we identified critical conflict zones where conservation and development priorities compete, particularly along international borders; and 5) we determined priority areas for conservation expansion to address gaps in WEFE service protection, focusing on underrepresented energy and food-related services. Our multi-method approach is crucial for promoting the use of ecosystem service assessments in policymaking and bridging the gap between scientific research and its practical application.

4.1. Spatial distribution of WEFE-related ecosystem service

The spatial patterns of WEFE nexus-related ecosystem services reveal important landscape patterns with implications for resource management (Fig. 4). The dominance of environment-related ecosystem services (56.2 % of the basin area) suggests that the basin has a potentially stable environmental foundation essential for supporting services that underpin other WEFE domains (Comino et al., 2014; de Groot et al., 2012). However, areas with high development pressures and fragmented environmental services could become vulnerable to degradation through land use change or climate impacts. The concentration of food-related ecosystem services (27.0 %) in the cultivated areas in the western and eastern regions in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania mirrors historical settlements and agricultural expansion patterns, indicating areas where interventions that support pollinators or livestock would have a great positive impact on food-related services and livelihoods (Bryan et al., 2013; Kogo et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2020). The limited spatial extend of water (15.2 %) and energy services (1.6 %) underscores their geographical constraints and potential higher vulnerability to local degradation. Further, this spatial specificity may make these services potential bottlenecks in WEFE nexus service delivery, particularly where resource competition is high. The distinct spatial pattern of the WEFE services also highlights the potential for inter-regional dependencies, emphasising the need for basin-wide cooperative management that transcends administrative boundaries (Muyodi et al., 2010; Ntiba et al., 2001; Nyamweya et al., 2023; Verschuren et al., 2002).

4.2. Stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem service values

Stakeholder perspectives provide valuable complementary insights to biophysical assessments (Schlemm et al., 2025). While spatial mapping identified where services are delivered across the landscape, stakeholder valuations reveal which services are most important to regional actors, and our analysis of stakeholder valuations provided several key findings. First, the high consensus on water-related services across all stakeholder groups underscores water's central role as a potential entry point for WEFE nexus interventions, particularly where shared priorities can drive cross-sectoral cooperation (E. M. Bennett et al., 2015; Haines-Young and Potschin-Young, 2010). Second, due to their roles in supporting agricultural livelihoods and food security in the basin (Koko et al., 2020; Waiswa et al., 2015), stakeholders highly valued artisanal fisheries and pollination services, which indicates specific ecosystem services which warrant targeted protection within agricultural development strategies. Third, the divergent valuations for certain environmental services (Fig. 6) reveal potential areas of conflict which may require careful consultation and negotiation in planning processes. The consensus-disagreement analysis provides a practical framework for prioritising interventions balancing ecological importance and social acceptability. High-consensus-high value services (Fig. 6) represent the ‘low-hanging fruit’ for conservation initiatives, providing potential leverage points where stakeholder support is likely to be strongest. In contrast, services with high value but low consensus may require more rigorous stakeholder engagement and sensitisation processes during planning, decision making, and implementation of conservation measures. These variations in stakeholder perspectives highlight the importance of inclusive, participatory approaches to conservation planning that can account for diverse priorities.

4.3. Effectiveness of current conservation measures

Protected areas within the UWN basin primarily benefit the environment and water components of the WEFE nexus, with more limited coverage of food and energy services (Fig. 7). This pattern aligns closely with stakeholder's priorities (Fig. 5), suggesting that the current protected areas effectively address key stakeholder needs. This reflects a common trend in East Africa, where protected areas cover a substantial portion of terrestrial biodiversity (20–27 %) but offer limited coverage for provisioning ecosystem services (5–15 %) (Wei et al., 2020). The moderate overlap between conservation priorities and existing protected areas (17 % of conservation priority areas, Fig. 7) indicates potential for the expansion of the current protected area network to better secure crucial WEFE related ecosystem services. Conversely, the relatively low overlap with development priorities (8 %) suggests that current conservation measures generally avoid areas with high development potential, minimising potential conflicts. Nevertheless, conversion of protected areas to agriculture or other human uses remains a significant threat, with 6.8 % of East African protected areas already converted since their establishment (Riggio et al., 2019), which may continue or worsen in light of current population growth and resource demands (Olokotum et al., 2020; World Bank, 2022). Indeed, certain studies suggest that East Africa will become a hotspot for future conflict between agricultural expansion and biodiversity (Shackelford et al., 2015). However, a balance between human needs and nature conservation may be possible in some regions, as pastoralism, prevalent in the UWN basin (Kideghesho et al., 2013), has shown neutral or positive effects on biodiversity, unlike transitions to agriculture or settlements (Kiffner et al., 2015; Little, 1996; Msuha et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2004).

4.4. Synergies and trade-offs between conservation, development, and the WEFE nexus

Our conflict analysis provides a framework for identifying areas where competing priorities require careful management (Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 12). The spatial clustering of severe conflicts along international borders (Uganda-Kenya and Rwanda-Burundi) highlights the need for transboundary cooperation mechanisms that can address these shared challenges (de Strasser et al., 2016; Mirumachi, 2015; Salmoral et al., 2019). In addition, the disproportionate impacts on food-related services (such as pollination), especially in the eastern basin, suggests that agricultural sustainability strategies should be a priority in conflict mitigation efforts. Further, the significant population exposure (5.65 million people living in severe/critical conflict zones) underscores the human dimensions of these WEFE and environmental conflicts. These findings align with the growing body of literature on socio-ecological approaches to conservation, which emphasise the need to balance human well-being with biodiversity protection (Bourne et al., 2016; Canavire-Bacarreza et al., 2018; Escobedo et al., 2015; Jonas et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2020; Kaimowitz and Sheil, 2007; Rodrigues and Cazalis, 2020; Saito et al., 2019). The conflict intensity mapping provides a practical prioritisation framework for interventions, identifying critical focal areas (1.7 % of the basin in critical conflict) where limited resources can be concentrated for maximum impact. The country-specific patterns, where Kenya and Rwanda experience the highest proportion of critical conflict areas (4.3 % and 4.2 % respectively) and the different WEFE components at risk in each country, underscore the need for context specific approaches which consider local WEFE nexus risks, stakeholder values, and development pressures (Bekchanov et al., 2015; Dargin et al., 2019). These conflict zones represent potential innovation spaces where integrated WEFE nexus approaches could yield widespread transboundary benefits in sustainability and resilience.

4.5. Opportunities for conservation planning

Our conservation gap analysis further emphasised the need for coordinated approaches, with most countries in the basin falling below international protection thresholds for critical WEFE domains (Fig. 13a). While Tanzania demonstrates relatively good coverage, especially for high-value environment-related services, other countries – particularly Rwanda and Burundi – show substantial protection gaps. The significant gaps to the 17 % Aichi Target of most high-value WEFE components highlight the need for urgent action to expand protection, particularly to safeguard energy and food-related services. Our analysis suggests that an additional 5,824 km² of protected areas or OECMs would be required to meet this minimum target areas, with priority areas in southern Uganda, northern Kenya, and western Rwanda and Burundi (Fig. 13b). Given the ambitious global 30 × 30 target, which aims to protect 30 % of land and sea areas by 2030, even more substantial conservation efforts will be required in the coming years (Mitchell et al., 2023).

The comparison between stakeholder valuations and spatial distributions (Fig. 14) reveals the important insights for conservation prioritisation. For instance, while environment-related services dominate spatially and are highly valued, stakeholders place proportionally higher value on water and food-related services relative to their spatial footprint. This suggests that conservation strategies focused solely on area-based metrics may not adequately reflect local priorities and values. Inclusion of stakeholder perspectives can help tailor conservation approaches to local contexts, potentially increasing community support and implementation success (Nath, 2024; Norris et al., 2018; Preuss and Dixon, 2012). For instance, the high stakeholder valuation of water-related services across all stakeholder groups (Fig. 6) suggests that watershed protection could serve as a unifying conservation objective, even among stakeholders with otherwise divergent priorities. Addressing these gaps through strategic conservation planning that targets high-priority areas identified by our analysis (Fig. 13b) could substantially enhance the resilience of the WEFE nexus across the basin. OECMs offer a promising approach for expanding protection while accommodating sustainable resource use. Unlike strict protected areas, OECMs can include territories governed by indigenous peoples and local communities, private conservation areas, and sustainable managed production landscapes (Dudley et al., 2018). This approach aligns with our findings that stakeholders highly value services related to resource provision, and that many high-priority areas for conservation coincide with areas important for food production and local livelihoods, suggesting that flexible and inclusive conservation models are needed.

4.6. Policy implications and recommendations

Our findings have direct policy implications for the UWN basin. The WEFE nexus framework provides a valuable lens for informing integrated resource management policies, particularly in transboundary contexts. We recommend.

• 1.Target conflict hotspots: Prioritise integrated management planning in the 1.7 % of the basin area with critical conflicts, focusing on transboundary zones along the Uganda-Kenya border and in Rwanda-Burundi where competing priorities required coordinated responses
• 2.Adopt integrated domain-driven approaches: Develop interventions which support WEFE interlinkages while targeting the dominant WEFE component in each region, such as nature-based agricultural solutions in food-dominant areas, watershed protection in water-service areas, and ecosystem restoration where environmental services dominate
• 3.Address protection gaps: Strategically expand protected areas to meet international commitments (particularly the 30 × 30 initiative), prioritising currently under protected energy and food-related services
• 4.Leverage existing institutions: Strengthen the basin-wide Lake Victoria Basin Commission and Nile Basin Initiative by formally incorporating WEFE nexus principle into all operational frameworks and decision-making processes
• 5.Implement inclusive conservation: Establish stakeholder-driven management models for new conservation initiatives that engage communities throughout the entire process-from planning to monitoring. Prioritise high-consensus services identified in our valuation analysis, such as water provision and artisanal fisheries, to build support and enhance implementation effectiveness

Despite the comprehensive approach adopted in this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the C$N tool provides static outputs at a 1 km² resolution, which may overlook fine-scale ecosystem service patterns and local variations relevant to community-level decision making. In addition, it does not provide information regarding the flows and feedback of services. Second, while our stakeholder engagement captured diverse perspectives, the sample size (n = 14) does not represent all stakeholder groups across the basin, particularly smallholder farmers and local communities. Third, our analysis relies on globally available datasets, which makes the study possible in data-scarce regions, but may not capture recent land use changes or ecosystem degradation. Finally, the WEFE nexus framework, while comprehensive, cannot fully represent the complex, non-linear interactions between ecosystem services and human well-being. Future research should address these limitations through higher-resolution mapping, broader stakeholder engagement, ecosystem services flow analyses, further integration of stakeholder values, and more dynamic modelling approaches than can capture temporal changes and feedback within the system.

By simplifying the integration of ecosystem services into the WEFE nexus (Table 2, Fig. 3), we enhance comprehension and facilitate adoption by institutions operating beyond their areas of expertise, enabling more holistic, cross-disciplinary resource management in the basins (Bekchanov et al., 2015). Expanding the role of the WEFE nexus within conservation empowers relevant stakeholders to address socio-ecological challenges effectively. As societal recognition of human dependence on nature grows, demand for robust environmental stewardship practices will increase (Armsworth et al., 2007). In the UWN basin, this will require balancing formal protection with community-based management approaches, particularly for aquatic ecosystems of Lake Victoria where local stakeholder have demonstrated strong valuation of fisheries resources and water provision, and protection is lacking across the region (Acreman et al., 2020; Burivalova et al., 2019; Norris et al., 2018).

5. Conclusion

This study advances our understanding of the important role of integrating ecosystem services within the WEFE framework for effective conservation and sustainable development practices in the Upper White Nile basin. By employing multi-method approaches that considers stakeholder valuations and biophysical mapping, we identified the spatial distribution of the WEFE nexus, assessed stakeholder priorities, evaluated current conservation measures, and highlighted areas of potential synergy and conflict between conservation and development. Our findings reveal that environment-related services dominate the basin spatially, while water and food services receive consistently high stakeholder valuations. Current protected areas provide moderate coverage of environment and water services but limited protection for food and energy services. We identified critical areas in the northeastern and southwestern parts of the basin where competing priorities for WEFE resources will require careful management approaches. The conflict and conservation gap analysis provide complementary frameworks for addressing the complex challenges of resource management in the basin. By identifying areas of concern (conflict zones) and opportunity (priority conservation areas), our approach offers decision-makers critical tools for balancing conservation with development needs. The WEFE nexus framework offers a systematic approach to engage stakeholders and align socioeconomic development with conservation efforts. By categorising ecosystem services within this framework, we make these concepts more accessible to resource managers and policymakers, facilitating cross-sectoral collaboration. Additionally, leveraging tools like C$N as part of a stakeholder process enhances accessibility to ecosystem services mapping for relevant stakeholders, thus enabling broader understanding and uptake of these concepts. Our methodology and results directly inform regional frameworks and institutions by identifying areas targeted for interventions and providing guidance on leverage points and framing based on stakeholder priorities. The multi-method WEFE nexus approach offers a practical framework for addressing transboundary conservation challenges in the Upper White Nile basin by considering scientific assessments alongside local knowledge, revealing critical interconnections between ecosystem services and human wellbeing, and providing targeted intervention pathways as resource pressures intensify cross the region.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Annika Schlemm: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Mark Mulligan: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization. Afnan Agramont: Writing – review & editing. Charles Brown: Writing – review & editing. Jean Namugize: Writing – review & editing. Ann van Griensven: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.