Understanding systemic vulnerabilities and resource interactions within the water-energy-food nexus among rural households in Chivi District, Masvingo province, Zimbabwe

1 Introduction

Rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions of Southern Africa are increasingly shaped by intersecting crises across water, energy, and food systems. In Zimbabwe, prolonged climatic variability, declining infrastructure, and entrenched socio-economic inequalities have combined to intensify household-level vulnerabilities, particularly in drought-prone districts such as Chivi in Masvingo Province. While water scarcity, energy poverty, and food insecurity are often examined as discrete challenges, growing scholarship argues that these domains are deeply interdependent and mutually reinforcing, necessitating integrated analytical approaches to address them.

The Water–Energy–Food (WEF) nexus has emerged as a prominent framework for understanding these interconnections, emphasizing the trade-offs, synergies, and feedback loops that shape resource access and sustainability (Bazilian et al., 2011; Hoff, 2011). However, much of the existing WEF literature remains dominated by quantitative modeling, optimisation approaches, and macro-scale assessments, often privileging technical efficiency over lived realities, governance dynamics, and social differentiation (Allouche et al., 2015; Leck et al., 2015). As a result, the everyday experiences of rural households navigating compounded WEF insecurities remain under-represented, particularly in the Zimbabwean context.

In semi-arid communal areas, such as Wards 11 and 12 in Chivi District, households heavily rely on rain-fed agriculture, biomass-based energy sources, and precarious water supplies. These dependencies expose communities to cascading risks: water shortages constrain food production; energy poverty limits irrigation, processing, and storage; and declining food availability increases pressure on both water and biomass resources. Such dynamics point to systemic vulnerability, understood not merely as exposure to isolated shocks but as the outcome of interacting structural, climatic, and institutional constraints (Adger, 2006; Scoones, 2015).

This study responds to calls for empirically grounded, people-centered WEF nexus research by examining how rural households experience, interpret, and respond to the interconnected challenges of water, energy, and food. Drawing on qualitative data from focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, key informant interviews, and direct observation, the article addresses four research questions:

• What is the current status of water, energy, and food security among rural households in Wards 11 and 12 of Chivi District?
• How do interactions across the WEF nexus generate or intensify systemic vulnerabilities at household and community levels?
• What coping and adaptive strategies are employed by households in response to these interlinked challenges?
• What integrated pathways can enhance resilience within the WEF nexus in semi-arid rural Zimbabwe?

Highlighting lived experiences and local knowledge, this article adds empirical depth to WEF nexus scholarship in Southern Africa and offers a more socially grounded understanding of rural vulnerability and resilience.

2 Background and literature review

Rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions are increasingly shaped by the convergence of water scarcity, energy poverty, and food insecurity. In sub-Saharan Africa, these challenges are persistent and mutually reinforcing, driven by climate variability, demographic pressures, declining infrastructure, and structural poverty (FAO, 2018; IPCC, 2022). Zimbabwe reflects this broader regional pattern, in which recurrent droughts, erratic rainfall, and limited investment in rural services have intensified household vulnerability, particularly in marginal agroecological regions such as Masvingo Province.

Historically, water, energy, and food challenges have been addressed through sector-specific policies and interventions. Water security has focused on supply infrastructure and access, energy policy on electrification and fuel transitions, and food security on agricultural productivity and input provision. While these approaches have delivered gains within individual sectors, their siloed nature has often obscured interdependencies and generated unintended trade-offs (Hoff, 2011; Bazilian et al., 2011). For instance, irrigation expansion without adequate energy provision limits functionality, while reliance on biomass energy can accelerate environmental degradation and undermine water availability.

The Water–Energy–Food (WEF) nexus framework emerged in response to these limitations, offering an integrative lens for analyzing interactions across resource systems. Early WEF nexus research emphasized systems modeling, optimisation, and efficiency-oriented analyses, often at national or basin scales (Howells et al., 2013; Mohtar and Daher, 2016). These studies highlighted technical interconnections among water, energy, and food systems and the potential benefits of coordinated planning.

However, critical scholarship argues that dominant WEF nexus approaches remain overly technocratic, with limited attention to social differentiation, power relations, and lived experience (Allouche et al., 2015; Leck et al., 2015). Rural households, as both producers and consumers within the nexus, are frequently overlooked in aggregate analyses, resulting in limited insight into everyday coping practices, gendered labor burdens, and informal resource arrangements.

In Southern Africa, empirical research on the WEF nexus remains uneven. Existing studies tend to prioritize urban systems, large-scale infrastructure, or national policy alignment, with limited attention to communal rural areas where resource access is mediated through informal institutions and customary practices (Biggs et al., 2015). While Zimbabwean studies have examined water insecurity, energy poverty, and food shortages individually, few analyse how these challenges intersect at the household level under conditions of climatic stress and economic precarity.

Insights from vulnerability and resilience scholarship help address this gap by conceptualizing vulnerability as a systemic condition shaped by interactions between exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Adger, 2006). From this perspective, water shortages, energy constraints, and food insecurity are interconnected processes embedded within broader socio-economic and governance contexts. There is therefore a need for empirically grounded qualitative research that situates the WEF nexus within the lived realities of rural households. This study responds to this gap by examining systemic WEF vulnerabilities in semi-arid rural Zimbabwe, with a focus on household experiences and institutional perspectives in Chivi District, Masvingo Province.

2.1 The WEF nexus and the shift from sectoral to systems thinking

The Water–Energy–Food (WEF) nexus has emerged globally as a response to long-standing shortcomings in sectorally organized resource governance. For decades, water, energy, and food security have largely been addressed through separate policy frameworks, institutional mandates, and planning processes. While such sectoral approaches have generated important gains within individual domains, they have often failed to account for interdependencies among resource systems, resulting in fragmented interventions, inefficiencies, and unintended trade-offs (Bazilian et al., 2011; Hoff, 2011). As pressures on natural resources have intensified due to population growth, climate change, and economic transformation, the limitations of siloed governance have become increasingly apparent.

Against this backdrop, the WEF nexus was advanced as an integrative framework that explicitly recognizes water, energy, and food as interlinked systems. Nexus thinking emphasizes that decisions in one sector can directly or indirectly shape outcomes in others, through shared resource bases, infrastructure dependencies, and institutional arrangements. Early nexus scholarship played a pivotal role in demonstrating these interconnections, particularly through systems modeling, integrated assessment frameworks, and optimisation tools applied at national, basin, and transboundary scales (Howells et al., 2013; Mohtar and Daher, 2016). These studies provided compelling evidence that coordinated planning across sectors could improve efficiency, reduce trade-offs, and enhance long-term sustainability, thereby elevating the nexus within global policy discourses.

However, as the nexus concept gained traction, a growing body of literature began to interrogate its underlying assumptions and applications. Critical scholars have argued that dominant nexus approaches often reflect technocratic and managerial logics, prioritizing efficiency, quantification, and system optimisation while paying insufficient attention to social relations, governance processes, and power dynamics (Allouche et al., 2015). Leck et al. (2015) caution that nexus framings are not politically neutral; rather, they shape how problems are defined, which solutions are considered legitimate, and whose knowledge is prioritized in decision-making processes. When treated primarily as a technical coordination challenge, the nexus risks obscure distributional consequences and reinforce existing inequalities.

These concerns have prompted calls for a more socially grounded and governance-sensitive interpretation of the WEF nexus. Scholars increasingly emphasize that effective nexus governance depends not only on technical integration, but also on institutional coherence, political will, and the inclusion of diverse actors and knowledge systems (Foran, 2015). This shift has encouraged greater attention to how nexus interactions are mediated through policies, institutions, and everyday practices, rather than solely through biophysical flows.

The relevance of these critiques becomes especially pronounced in rural contexts, particularly in the Global South. In rural and semi-arid settings, access to water, energy, and food is often shaped by informal institutions, customary arrangements, and gendered divisions of labor, rather than by formalized infrastructure alone. Households interact with the nexus not as abstract systems, but through daily practices such as water collection, fuel sourcing, cultivation, and food preparation. As a result, the consequences of resource interdependencies are experienced unevenly, reflecting social differentiation within and between households.

Understanding the WEF nexus in such contexts, therefore, requires moving beyond high-level systems integration to examine how resource interdependencies are lived, negotiated, and constrained at local levels. This entails situating nexus analysis within broader socio-economic and institutional environments, and recognizing rural households as active agents within the nexus rather than passive recipients of sectoral outcomes. Foregrounding these dimensions redefines the nexus as both a planning tool and an analytical lens for understanding the production and reproduction of systemic resource challenges in everyday life.

2.2 From resource scarcity to interconnected livelihood risks

Recent scholarship increasingly conceptualizes water, energy, and food challenges as interconnected livelihood risks rather than as isolated instances of resource scarcity. This shift reflects growing recognition that households experience insecurity not through abstract sectoral deficits, but through everyday livelihood practices such as farming, water collection, cooking, livestock management, and income generation (Biggs et al., 2015; FAO, 2021; Scoones et al., 2018). These practices inherently span multiple resource domains and are shaped by seasonal variability, labor availability, social relations, and institutional contexts, making sector-specific analyses insufficient for capturing lived realities (Chambers, 2006; Eriksen et al., 2011; Scoones, 2015).

Resource insecurity, in the context of livelihoods, is perceived not just in terms of physical availability but also as an indicator of a household's ability to mobilize assets, capabilities, and support networks amidst uncertainty (Ellis, 2000; Scoones et al., 2018). Water, energy, and food therefore operate as interdependent components of livelihood systems, rather than as discrete inputs that can be addressed independently through sectoral interventions (Biggs et al., 2015). Decisions concerning one resource domain are frequently conditioned by constraints in others, reflecting the need to manage competing demands within narrow margins of security and limited adaptive capacity (Ellis, 2000; Tanner et al., 2017).

Empirical studies of rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa consistently show that households rarely focus on a single resource in isolation when making acquisition decisions. Instead, decisions on accessing, acquiring and utilizing WEF resources are made simultaneously and under severe constraints (Biggs et al., 2015; Jaka et al., 2023). For example, households may allocate limited water supplies primarily to domestic needs at the expense of crop irrigation, or reduce dietary diversity in favor of foods that require less fuel and time to prepare (FAO, 2021; UNDP, 2020). Continued reliance on biomass energy has also been shown to reflect affordability, water availability, and labor constraints, rather than preference alone, particularly in rural and peri-urban contexts (International Energy Agency, 2022; World Bank., 2021). These trade-offs illustrate how WEF insecurities are embedded within livelihood decision-making processes rather than emerging as separate sectoral challenges.

This livelihood-risk framing is especially salient in semi-arid contexts, where uncertainty is a defining feature of everyday life. Increasing rainfall variability, recurrent droughts, and unreliable service provision necessitate that households continually adjust their livelihood practices in response to shifting environmental and economic conditions (Conway et al., 2015; IPCC, 2022). Rather than responding to singular or short-term shocks, households manage chronic and compounding stress, characterized by prolonged exposure to risk, slow-onset change, and limited opportunities for recovery (Chambers, 2006; Eriksen et al., 2011). Adaptation in such contexts is typically incremental, involving repeated adjustments in cropping patterns, consumption practices, labor allocation, and resource use (Scoones, 2015; Tanner et al., 2017).

While incremental adjustments may stabilize short-term survival, a growing body of vulnerability and resilience literature cautions that such strategies can contribute to the accumulation of longer-term vulnerability. Recurrent reductions in food intake, reliance on nutritionally poor diets, and intensified extraction of natural resources have been shown to undermine health, degrade ecosystems, and constrain future livelihood options (Adger, 2006; Eriksen et al., 2011; IPCC, 2022). These responses should therefore not be interpreted as failures of household agency, but rather as constrained strategies shaped by limited adaptive capacity and structural conditions beyond the household's control (Scoones et al., 2018; Tanner et al., 2017).

Viewing WEF insecurity through the lens of interconnected livelihood risks thus strengthens nexus analysis by foregrounding household agency while simultaneously recognizing structural constraints. It shifts analytical attention away from aggregate measures of resource availability toward the social, institutional, and temporal processes through which scarcity is managed and negotiated in everyday life (Allouche et al., 2015; Leck et al., 2015). This perspective is particularly well-suited to qualitative research, as it provides a robust interpretive framework for analyzing household narratives, coping strategies, and trade-offs as rational responses to chronic and interacting pressures, rather than as isolated or ad hoc behaviors (Creswell and Poth, 2016).

2.3 Rural WEF insecurity as a compounded and differentiated experience

In rural and semi-arid contexts, water, energy, and food insecurities rarely occur as isolated or episodic challenges. Instead, they interact through reinforcing feedback loops that intensify vulnerability over time, producing systemic conditions of insecurity rather than discrete resource deficits. A growing body of literature emphasizes that these interconnections generate cascading effects across livelihood systems, shaping how scarcity is experienced, managed, and reproduced (Biggs et al., 2015).

Water scarcity often serves as a central driver in these dynamics. Limited and unreliable water access constrains both domestic use and agricultural production, particularly in rain-fed systems that dominate rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. Reduced agricultural output, in turn, undermines food availability and household income, while also increasing reliance on alternative livelihood strategies that may intensify pressure on other resource systems (FAO, 2021; IPCC, 2022). These processes illustrate how water insecurity propagates through food and energy systems, contributing to broader stress on livelihoods.

Energy insecurity further compounds these challenges by limiting the functionality of water and food systems. In many rural areas, limited access to modern energy services constrains water pumping, irrigation, food processing, storage, and preservation. Dependence on biomass energy can also accelerate environmental degradation, undermining watershed integrity, and agricultural productivity over time (Biggs et al., 2015; International Energy Agency, 2022). These interactions highlight the mutually reinforcing nature of WEF insecurities and the difficulty of addressing any single resource domain in isolation.

Importantly, these interactions are not static. Rather, they unfold through non-linear and cumulative processes that shift household and community vulnerability from episodic stress to chronic insecurity. Seasonal variability, recurrent droughts, and economic instability interact to erode buffers that might otherwise enable recovery between shocks. As coping capacity is progressively depleted, households and communities become increasingly exposed to even minor perturbations, resulting in heightened sensitivity and reduced adaptive capacity (Adger, 2006; Eriksen et al., 2011).

Recent scholarship increasingly conceptualizes these dynamics as forms of systemic vulnerability, in which exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity are shaped by interlinked socio-ecological processes rather than by singular hazards (IPCC, 2022). From this perspective, WEF insecurity arises not only from climatic stress or resource scarcity but also from the interaction of environmental variability with infrastructure decline, market volatility, and limited institutional support. These interacting pressures create path dependencies that lock households and communities into trajectories of heightened vulnerability.

The systemic nature of rural WEF insecurity has important implications for intervention and analysis. Single-sector responses, such as expanding irrigation without reliable energy access, or promoting agricultural intensification without addressing water availability, risk producing unintended trade-offs that exacerbate vulnerability elsewhere in the system (Allouche et al., 2015; Hoff, 2011). Addressing WEF insecurity, therefore, requires analytical frameworks capable of capturing feedbacks, trade-offs, and cumulative effects across resource systems. Conceptualizing rural WEF insecurity as a compounded and systemic experience helps clarify how pressures across water, energy, and food systems do not simply accumulate, but interact in ways that shape everyday life in rural settings. These systemic dynamics influence who is most vulnerable to risk, how households cope with stress, and which coping options are available over time. Attention, therefore, needs to move beyond system interactions alone to consider how such pressures are lived and negotiated within households and communities. The following section takes up this task by examining social differentiation, gender, and uneven exposure within the WEF nexus.

2.4 Social differentiation, gender, and uneven exposure within the WEF nexus

A substantial body of interdisciplinary literature shows that water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurities are socially differentiated, with impacts distributed unevenly across gender, age, wealth, and social position. Rather than affecting rural households as homogeneous units, WEF-related stresses are mediated through social norms, power relations, and intra-household dynamics that shape access to resources, labor allocation, and exposure to risk (Carr and Thompson, 2014; Nightingale, 2011; Rao et al., 2019). Attention to these differentiated experiences is therefore essential for understanding how vulnerability is produced and reproduced within the WEF nexus.

Gender has been central to analyses of uneven exposure to WEF insecurity. Feminist political ecology and gender-and-development scholarship consistently show that women bear a disproportionate share of responsibility for securing water, energy, and food in rural households, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (Agarwal, 1997; Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen, 1998). Responsibilities for water collection, fuelwood gathering, and food preparation are largely feminized and intensify as resource scarcity deepens. Consequently, women and girls face heightened exposure to physical strain, health risks, and opportunity costs associated with declining resource access (Doss et al., 2018; Rao et al., 2019).

Time poverty is a key mechanism linking gendered labor burdens to broader vulnerability. As water sources become more distant and biomass energy scarcer, collection time increases significantly in semi-arid rural contexts (Sorenson et al., 2011). Time devoted to securing water or fuel often displaces income-generating activities, education, and participation in community decision-making. Empirical studies show that these burdens constrain women's adaptive capacity and reinforce cycles of poverty and exclusion (International Energy Agency, 2022; UN Women, 2020).

WEF insecurity is also differentiated by age and household composition. Children, particularly girls, are often drawn into water and fuel collection when adult labor is scarce, affecting school attendance and long-term well being (Porter et al., 2012; United Nations Children's Fund, 2021). Elderly household members may experience food insecurity more acutely due to reduced mobility, health needs, and limited bargaining power, especially where coping strategies prioritize economically active members (Devereux, 2016; FAO, 2021). These dynamics highlight the limitations of treating households as unitary decision-making entities in WEF research.

Socio-economic status further shapes exposure to WEF insecurity. Poorer households with limited assets, insecure land tenure, and weak social networks are less able to buffer shocks or invest in adaptive measures such as improved water storage, alternative energy technologies, or climate-resilient agriculture (Eriksen et al., 2015; IPCC, 2022; Ribot, 2017). Households with access to remittances, livestock, or social capital may better absorb short-term stress, although such advantages do not eliminate broader structural constraints associated with climatic variability, market volatility, and governance failures (Scoones et al., 2018; Tanner et al., 2017).

Social differentiation within the WEF nexus is therefore not merely an outcome of scarcity but a driver of vulnerability. Gendered labor burdens, unequal access to resources, and exclusion from decision-making shape whose needs are prioritized and who bears the long-term costs of adaptation (Eriksen et al., 2015; Nightingale, 2011; Rao et al., 2019). When overlooked, nexus analyses risk reproducing simplified representations of “the rural household” that obscure internal inequalities.

These insights also have methodological implications. Quantitative and model-based studies, while valuable for identifying system-level interactions, often lack the resolution to capture intra-household dynamics and everyday practices (Allouche et al., 2015; Leck et al., 2015). Qualitative approaches are therefore particularly suited to analyzing social differentiation within the WEF nexus, as they illuminate how gender, age, and socio-economic position shape exposure and adaptive responses over time (Béné et al., 2014; Creswell and Poth, 2016). Embedding social differentiation within nexus analysis thus deepens understanding of vulnerability as relational, uneven, and socially produced.

2.5 Governance, institutions, and the limits of local coping

While household practices and social differentiation shape how water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurities are experienced, these dynamics are embedded within broader governance environments that condition adaptive capacity. Scholarship emphasizes that WEF insecurity in rural contexts cannot be explained solely through household behavior but must be understood in relation to structural and institutional arrangements linked to service delivery, policy coherence, and political economy (Cleaver and Whaley, 2018; IPCC, 2022; Ribot, 2017). Across sub-Saharan Africa, governance challenges continue to constrain access to reliable water, modern energy, and agricultural support services, particularly in rural and semi-arid regions. Studies document inadequate maintenance of water infrastructure, slow progress in rural electrification, and under-resourced extension systems (FAO, 2021; World Bank., 2021). These deficits reflect long-standing underinvestment, fiscal constraints, and uneven spatial development that disproportionately affect marginal rural areas.

Institutional fragmentation further complicates WEF governance. Water, energy, and agriculture are typically managed through separate ministries and policy frameworks with limited cross-sector coordination. This siloed structure undermines integrated planning and constrains governments' ability to address interdependent resource challenges (Allouche et al., 2015; Foran, 2015; Wiegleb and Bruns, 2018). Consequently, interventions in one sector often underperform when complementary support is absent, for example, irrigation investments without a reliable energy supply. At sub-national levels, constraints are intensified by weak decentralized capacity, unclear mandates, and limited financial and human resources. Local governments frequently lack the authority and funding to maintain infrastructure or coordinate across sectors effectively (World Bank., 2021). Responsibility for managing resource insecurity is therefore often shifted onto households and communities despite their limited capacity to address systemic challenges.

In the absence of effective formal institutions, informal and hybrid governance arrangements play a significant role in mediating access to water, energy, and food resources. Customary authorities, community-based organizations, and social networks regulate access to water points, grazing land, fuelwood, and food assistance. While these arrangements can provide flexibility and social support, they are shaped by uneven power relations and may reinforce exclusion along gender, age, or socio-economic lines (Cleaver and Whaley, 2018; Nightingale, 2011). Moreover, informal institutions often lack the technical and financial capacity to address long-term infrastructure and climate risks. Within these constrained environments, households rely on coping strategies such as rationing water and food, reducing dietary diversity, selling assets, increasing biomass use, diversifying livelihoods, and engaging in migration. Although these practices demonstrate agency, literature cautions against equating coping with resilience in the absence of supportive institutional contexts (Adger, 2006; Béné et al., 2014; Eriksen et al., 2011).

Short-term coping may enable survival but can undermine long-term sustainability. Asset sales reduce productive capacity, intensified biomass extraction contributes to environmental degradation, and prolonged dietary compromise affects health and labor productivity (Ribot, 2017; Scoones et al., 2018; IPCC, 2022). Over time, such responses may deepen vulnerability rather than enable transformative change.

Recent governance scholarship warns against policy narratives that shift responsibility for systemic risks onto households and communities. Framing adaptation primarily in terms of local resilience can obscure issues of accountability and state responsibility, particularly in contexts of historical marginalization and weak service provision (Eriksen et al., 2015; Nightingale, 2011). Without parallel investment in institutional capacity and policy coherence, household-level adaptation is unlikely to produce equitable outcomes. Understanding WEF insecurity, therefore, requires situating household responses within multi-level governance structures and examining how institutional arrangements enable or constrain adaptive capacity. This approach moves beyond descriptive accounts of coping toward a critical analysis of the structural conditions that sustain WEF insecurities and shape prospects for integrated responses.

3 Theoretical framework: vulnerability theory

This study adopts vulnerability theory as the central analytical framework for examining water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurity in semi-arid rural contexts. The framework explains why WEF insecurity persists, why its impacts are unevenly distributed, and why interventions produce differentiated outcomes. Although the WEF nexus has highlighted interdependence across resource systems, existing scholarship has often prioritized technical integration and system efficiency, offering limited explanation for lived experiences of chronic insecurity in low-income rural settings (Allouche et al., 2015; Howells et al., 2013; Mohtar and Daher, 2016).

A growing body of critical literature, therefore, questions the conceptual adequacy of dominant nexus approaches, particularly regarding social differentiation, governance, and inequality. Reviews note that nexus analysis can become technocratic when it emphasizes biophysical interactions and optimisation metrics while underplaying the politics, institutions, and distributional concerns that shape resource access (Leck et al., 2015; Wiegleb and Bruns, 2018). These limitations are especially evident in semi-arid rural contexts, where WEF insecurity manifests as compounded livelihood risks shaped by climate variability, poverty, infrastructure decline, and limited service provision.

Vulnerability theory provides an explanatory framework for analyzing how insecurity is produced, differentiated, and sustained over time. It conceptualizes vulnerability as the outcome of interacting dimensions of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity shaped by social, economic, and institutional conditions (Adger, 2006; IPCC, 2022; Ribot, 2017). This approach aligns with evidence from Southern Africa showing that households facing similar environmental stressors experience markedly different outcomes depending on livelihood dependence, asset ownership, gender relations, and service access (Conway et al., 2015; Eriksen et al., 2015).

The relevance of vulnerability theory to WEF nexus research lies in its capacity to address three key gaps. First, an explanatory gap: while nexus studies map system interactions, they often provide limited insight into why insecurity persists or why outcomes vary across households facing similar conditions (Leck et al., 2015; Wiegleb and Bruns, 2018). Vulnerability theory addresses this by linking differentiated outcomes to exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity rather than treating insecurity solely as a function of scarcity (IPCC, 2022). Second, a gap concerning social differentiation. Nexus framings that prioritize system performance may obscure questions of power, inequality, and distributional impacts across gender, age, and socio-economic groups (Allouche et al., 2015; Wiegleb and Bruns, 2018). Vulnerability theory strengthens analysis by placing inequality, differentiated exposure, and constrained agency at the center of explanation (Eriksen et al., 2015; IPCC, 2022).

Third, a governance gap. Although institutional fragmentation is widely acknowledged in WEF research, governance is often treated as a contextual background rather than an analytical focus (Urbinatti et al., 2020). Vulnerability theory explicitly incorporates institutions within adaptive capacity, recognizing that access to infrastructure, services, and social protection is mediated through governance arrangements (Cleaver and Whaley, 2018; Foran, 2015). Within this study, vulnerability theory is operationalised through the interrelated dimensions of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Exposure refers to the extent to which households are subject to stresses such as climatic variability, drought, and unreliable service provision. In semi-arid rural Zimbabwe, exposure is persistent and cumulative due to recurrent droughts, erratic rainfall, and declining infrastructure reliability (Conway et al., 2015; IPCC, 2022).

Sensitivity captures the degree to which livelihoods are affected by such stresses. Dependence on rain-fed agriculture, biomass energy, and informal water sources increases sensitivity to fluctuations (FAO, 2021). Sensitivity is also socially differentiated by livelihood composition, asset ownership, health status, and labor availability (Eriksen et al., 2015; Ribot, 2017). Adaptive capacity refers to the ability of households and institutions to anticipate, cope with, and recover from stress. In the study context, it is often constrained by poverty, limited assets, weak social protection, and fragmented institutional support (Adger, 2006; Eriksen et al., 2015). Although households employ coping strategies such as livelihood diversification and consumption adjustment, these responses often prioritize short-term survival and may undermine future capacity if structural conditions remain unchanged (IPCC, 2022; Scoones et al., 2018).

Vulnerability theory also aligns with the qualitative methodological approach adopted in this study. Its emphasis on lived experience, social differentiation, and institutional context supports the use of interviews, focus groups, and observation to analyse how WEF insecurity is negotiated in everyday life (Béné et al., 2014; Creswell and Poth, 2016). Empirical data are interpreted through the vulnerability dimensions, ensuring coherence between theory, methods, and analysis. Overall, vulnerability theory provides a context-sensitive foundation for analyzing WEF insecurity in semi-arid rural Zimbabwe. It strengthens the social and institutional dimensions of nexus analysis and enables integration of household and governance perspectives, supporting a more comprehensive understanding of how interconnected resource insecurities are produced and sustained over time.

4 Methodology

This study adopted a qualitative case study research design to examine how water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurity is experienced, negotiated, and constrained in semi-arid rural contexts. A case study design was considered most appropriate because the research seeks to generate an in-depth, context-specific understanding of interconnected resource insecurities within a clearly Qualitative methods are particularly well suited to vulnerability-oriented research, as they enable in-depth exploration of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity as socially embedded and context-specific processes (Béné et al., 2014; Creswell and Poth, 2016). The case study design facilitated close attention to everyday practices, perceptions, and meanings associated with resource scarcity, while also incorporating institutional perspectives on governance and service delivery.

Data were collected through a combination of in-depth interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and direct observation, enabling methodological triangulation. A total of 30 participants were involved in the study, comprising 22 community members and 8 key informants drawn from local government authorities (local leader (chief rep), Chivi Rural District Council and the District Development Committee), agricultural extension services (Agritex), water management committees (ZINWA and RIDA), and non-governmental organizations (CARE, CARITAS), involved in rural development and natural resource management. Community participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure representation across gender, age, and livelihood categories, consistent with the study's focus on social differentiation and uneven exposure to WEF insecurity. Among the community participants, 15 were women, and 7 were men, reflecting the study's emphasis on capturing gendered experiences of water, energy, and food insecurity. Key informants were selected based on their roles in water provision, energy access, agriculture, and local governance, enabling insight into institutional constraints and policy implementation dynamics.

Three focus group discussions were conducted with community members to explore shared experiences of WEF insecurity, collective coping strategies, and intra-community differences. FGDs were particularly valuable for examining how resource challenges are collectively discussed and negotiated, as well as for identifying gendered and generational patterns of labor and responsibility. Additionally, 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted with individual participants to facilitate a more detailed exploration of household-level experiences, livelihood strategies, and perceptions of risk. Semi-structured interviewing provided flexibility to probe issues related to exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity while ensuring comparability across interviews (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015).

Direct observation was used to complement interview and FGD data, providing contextual insight into everyday practices related to water collection, energy use, food preparation, and livelihood activities. Observation helped situate participants' narratives within the material conditions of the study area and enabled validation of reported practices. Field notes were recorded systematically and integrated into the analysis as supplementary qualitative data.

Data analysis followed a thematic approach, guided by vulnerability theory. Interview and focus group discussion (FGD) transcripts, along with observation notes, were repeatedly read to become familiar with the data and then iteratively coded to identify patterns related to exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity across water, energy, and food systems. The analysis combined inductive coding, which allowed themes to emerge from the data, with deductive attention to the vulnerability dimensions identified in the theoretical framework. Specifically, open coding was first used to identify initial concepts and recurring issues, followed by axial coding to organize related codes into broader thematic categories. The coding and theme development process was conducted by the primary researcher through iterative review and constant comparison across data sources. To enhance the trustworthiness of the analysis, emerging codes and themes were repeatedly cross-checked against original transcripts and field notes, and triangulation across interviews, focus groups, and observations was used to confirm consistency. This process ensured that empirical findings remained grounded in participants' experiences while maintaining analytical coherence and theoretical alignment (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Creswell and Poth, 2016).

Ethical considerations were integral to the research process. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and participation was voluntary. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured through the use of pseudonyms and the removal of identifying information from transcripts and reports. Particular care was taken when discussing sensitive issues related to food insecurity, livelihood stress, and institutional performance, in line with ethical guidelines for qualitative research in vulnerable communities. This methodological approach enabled a nuanced and context-sensitive analysis of rural WEF insecurity. The integration of household and institutional perspectives, combined with the application of vulnerability theory as an analytical lens, provides a robust foundation for examining how interconnected resource insecurities are experienced, managed, and constrained in semi-arid rural Zimbabwe. The case study was analytically bounded spatially (Wards 11 and 12 of Chivi District), socially (rural households and local institutional actors), and thematically (interactions across water, energy, and food systems).

4.1 Study area

The study was conducted in Wards 11 and 12 of Chivi District, a semi-arid area characterized by recurrent droughts, high dependence on rain-fed agriculture, reliance on biomass energy, and limited access to formal water and energy infrastructure. These wards were purposively selected because they exemplify the intersecting WEF challenges facing communal areas in southern Zimbabwe and provide an appropriate context for examining compounded livelihood vulnerability. The study population comprised both community members and institutional actors, reflecting the analytical emphasis on linking household experiences to governance and service-delivery contexts. Figure 1 illustrates the district position in the province and the country.

Livelihoods in the area are mainly based on rain-fed subsistence farming, livestock rearing, and small, informal income-generating activities. Households typically grow maize alongside drought-tolerant crops such as sorghum and millet, while cattle, goats and chickens serve as important economic and social assets. Access to basic services remains limited, with most households relying on communal boreholes and seasonal water sources, and widespread dependence on firewood due to low electricity coverage. These environmental and socio-economic conditions make Chivi District a suitable setting for examining how water, energy, and food insecurities interact within the WEF nexus.

5 Results

This section presents the study's empirical findings, drawing on data from focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, and observations conducted in Wards 11 and 12 of Chivi District. The results are organized thematically to reflect how water, energy, and food insecurities are experienced as interconnected and cumulative pressures within everyday rural livelihoods. Consistent with the vulnerability framework outlined earlier, the findings are structured around patterns of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, while remaining grounded in participants' own accounts and practices. The results foreground household experiences while also incorporating institutional perspectives to illuminate how governance arrangements and service delivery realities shape local responses to WEF insecurity. Verbatim quotations are used selectively to illustrate key themes and preserve participants' voices, without substituting narrative evidence for analysis. The section focuses on the findings, reserving interpretation, and theoretical integration for the discussion.

5.1 Exposure to interconnected water, energy, and food stressors

Participants consistently described water, energy, and food insecurity as interconnected and mutually reinforcing rather than separate challenges. Exposure to climatic variability, particularly recurrent droughts and erratic rainfall, was widely identified as the starting point of hardship, triggering cascading effects across household water access, energy use, and food production. Households reported that rainfall unpredictability had become a defining feature of everyday life, undermining agricultural planning and increasing reliance on insecure water sources.

One participant explained:

“These days, you cannot rely on the rains at all. Sometimes they come late, sometimes they stop completely. When there is no rain, there is no water for the garden, no crops, and no food.” (FGD participant, Ward 11)

Water scarcity emerged as a central exposure pathway linking climate stress to food and energy insecurity. Many households relied on seasonal rivers, shallow wells, or distant boreholes, which were frequently reported to dry up during prolonged droughts. When water availability declined, households prioritized domestic use, often at the expense of crop production and livestock watering. This reallocation of scarce water resources was described as unavoidable but costly.

A household interviewee noted:

“When the borehole is not working, we have to choose. Water is first for drinking and cooking. The fields are left dry, and the crops fail.” (Household interview, Ward 12)

Energy insecurity was closely intertwined with access to water. Participants reported heavy dependence on biomass fuels, particularly firewood, for cooking and heating. As nearby sources became depleted, the time and effort required to collect fuel increased, intensifying exposure to physical strain and opportunity costs. Several participants noted that fuel scarcity directly affected food preparation, as limited firewood constrained what could be cooked and how often meals were prepared.

One woman described this interaction as follows:

“If there is no firewood, you cannot cook properly. Even if you have some maize, you end up eating once a day because there is no energy to cook more.” (FGD participant, Ward 12)

Food insecurity was experienced as both a direct outcome of poor harvests and an indirect consequence of water and energy constraints. Crop failure due to drought reduced household food stocks, while limited access to water and energy constrained food processing, storage, and preparation. Participants repeatedly emphasized that hunger was not only about lack of food, but about the conditions that make food production and preparation difficult.

An elderly participant stated:

“Hunger comes because everything is connected. No rain means no water. No water means no crops. No firewood means even what you have cannot be cooked well.” (Household interview, Ward 11)

Institutional respondents confirmed that these exposure pathways were well recognized but difficult to address due to resource and capacity constraints. Local officials acknowledged that borehole failures, limited maintenance budgets, and inadequate energy infrastructure heightened household exposure to WEF stressors, particularly during droughts.

A key informant explained:

“When drought hits, the pressure is everywhere. Water points fail, people depend on firewood, and food production drops. But our capacity to respond is limited by resources and coordination.” (Key informant interview)

The exposure to WEF insecurity in the study area was characterized by chronic and cumulative stress, shaped by climatic variability, declining infrastructure reliability, and limited institutional capacity. Households experienced these pressures simultaneously, with disruptions in one domain rapidly amplifying vulnerability in others. These findings illustrate how exposure operates not as isolated events, but as interconnected conditions embedded in everyday rural livelihoods.

5.2 Livelihood sensitivity and dependence on fragile WEF systems

Households' exposure to water, energy, and food stressors translated into sustained hardship largely because livelihoods in the study area were structurally sensitive to disruptions across these systems. Participants consistently described a high degree of dependence on rain-fed agriculture, biomass-based energy, and informal water sources, combined with limited capacity to buffer shocks. This configuration meant that relatively modest environmental or infrastructural disruptions often generated disproportionate impacts on household well being.

Rain-fed crop production constituted the primary livelihood activity for most households, yet participants emphasized that increasing rainfall variability had rendered agricultural production highly precarious. Short dry spells during the growing season were frequently reported to result in crop failure, with limited opportunities for recovery due to the absence of irrigation infrastructure and restricted access to agricultural inputs. As one participant explained:

“We depend on the rain for everything. If it stops for just a few weeks, the maize dries. There is nothing we can do because we have no irrigation.” (Household interview, Ward 11)

Livelihood sensitivity was further amplified by limited diversification. Many households relied on a narrow portfolio of activities, including subsistence crop farming, small livestock ownership, and occasional casual labor. Each of these activities was closely tied to the availability of water and energy. Participants noted that poor harvests depleted food stocks and reduced potential income from surplus sales, thereby reducing the ability to purchase food or access alternative energy sources. This interdependence created feedback loops in which agricultural losses rapidly translated into food insecurity and increased reliance on natural resources.

One focus group participant described this process:

“When the harvest is poor, there is no money. Without money, you cannot buy food, you cannot buy gas, and you just go back to firewood and whatever food is left.” (FGD participant, Ward 12)

Energy dependence emerged as a particularly important dimension of livelihood sensitivity. Households relied almost exclusively on firewood for cooking, with few affordable or accessible alternatives. Participants emphasized that energy scarcity affected not only cooking frequency but also food choices and dietary diversity, as some foods required more fuel and time to prepare. These constraints shaped everyday consumption practices in ways that reinforced nutritional vulnerability.

As one participant noted:

“Some foods need a lot of firewood, like beans. When firewood is scarce, we avoid those foods and cook what finishes quickly.” (FGD participant, Ward 11)

Water sensitivity was similarly pronounced. Limited household storage capacity and reliance on communal water points meant that households had little ability to buffer short-term shortages. When water access declined, participants reported immediate impacts on hygiene, livestock care, and small-scale gardening. Several households highlighted the loss of household gardens during dry periods as particularly significant, as these gardens had previously provided an important source of vegetables and dietary supplementation.

An interviewee explained:

“The garden helps us when the fields fail, but without water, the garden also dies. Then everything is gone at once.” (Household interview, Ward 12)

Sensitivity was not uniform across households. Female-headed households, elderly participants, and those with limited labor availability reported greater difficulty responding to disruptions, as their livelihoods were more tightly constrained by physical capacity and access to resources. Participants indicated that households with fewer working-age members struggled to meet the labor demands of water collection, firewood gathering, and farming, thereby increasing their susceptibility to food shortages during periods of stress.

Institutional respondents corroborated these observations, noting that high livelihood sensitivity was a defining feature of the area. Local officials emphasized that reliance on rain-fed systems and biomass energy left households particularly vulnerable to cascading impacts when environmental conditions deteriorated or infrastructure failed.

As one key informant observed:

“The problem is that people depend on systems that are very fragile. When rain fails, or water points break down, there are no alternatives, and livelihoods are affected immediately.” (Key informant interview)

The findings thus indicate that WEF insecurity in the study area is shaped not only by exposure to external stressors, but by deeply embedded livelihood sensitivities. A heavy reliance on climate-sensitive agriculture, informal water sources, and biomass energy exacerbated the effects of environmental and infrastructural disruptions, transforming short-term shocks into sustained stress on livelihoods. These patterns highlight the central role of sensitivity as a pathway through which interconnected WEF pressures translate into chronic vulnerability for rural households.

5.3 Household coping strategies and constrained adaptive capacity

Households across the study area employed a range of coping strategies to manage water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurity. These strategies reflected considerable agency and ingenuity, yet they were consistently described as constrained responses shaped by limited assets, labor availability, and institutional support. Participants emphasized that coping was less about improving conditions than about enduring persistent stress, often through difficult trade-offs that carried longer-term costs.

One of the most commonly reported strategies involved rationing and prioritization. Households adjusted water use by prioritizing drinking and cooking over hygiene, livestock care, and gardening during periods of scarcity. Food consumption was similarly rationed, with participants describing reduced meal frequency and smaller portions as routine practices rather than exceptional measures. Such adjustments were framed as necessary for survival but were widely acknowledged to have negative implications for health and well being.

A participant explained:

“When things are hard, we eat once a day. You cannot finish the food quickly because you don't know what tomorrow will bring.” (Household interview, Ward 12)

In addition to rationing and dietary substitution, participants described reliance on wild vegetables and edible insects (see Figure 2) as an important short-term coping strategy during periods of acute food scarcity. This practice was framed as a seasonal and environmentally dependent response, drawing on local ecological knowledge and access to surrounding natural habitats. Women in particular highlighted the role of the natural environment in supplementing household diets when cultivated food supplies were insufficient, especially during the rainy season and immediately after harvest.

One woman explained:

“Even though most households have serious food challenges, there are times and seasons when we at least live off our natural habitat. During the rainy season, we have shwarara, makugwe, tsambarafuta, and nyenze. After that time, when harvesting is finished, we also have mpani worms, which we call madora in Shona.” (Household interview, Ward 12)

Participants emphasized that while wild foods provided an important source of nourishment, their availability was highly seasonal and unreliable, making them an insecure foundation for sustained food security. Access depended on rainfall patterns, environmental conditions, and proximity to natural vegetation, and was often limited to specific months of the year. Several participants noted that environmental degradation and changing rainfall patterns were reducing the availability of some wild foods, further constraining this coping option.

Reliance on wild foods was therefore described as a temporary survival strategy rather than a long-term solution, helping households bridge periods of extreme scarcity but offering little protection beyond specific seasons. Participants also noted that such foods were often consumed in the absence of staple grains, reinforcing the perception that they were fallback options rather than preferred dietary choices.

Alongside these informal coping strategies, participants reported receiving periodic food assistance from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in the area. Such assistance typically included staple food items such as maize meal, beans, and cooking oil, and was described as critical for household survival during periods of crop failure or prolonged drought. However, beneficiaries emphasized that these interventions were often limited in duration and coverage, and could not be relied upon consistently.

As one participant noted during a focus group discussion:

“Sometimes NGOs help us with maize meal, beans, or cooking oil, and that helps a lot. But it does not come all the time, and not everyone receives it. In most cases, only a few households are selected to benefit from the programme. Care International was one NGO that previously provided foodstuffs, but it has since transitioned to an income-generating project through its Takunda Programme, which has enabled most wards to create community gardens and receive support. ” (FGD participant, Ward 11)

Taken together, these findings indicate that food-related coping strategies, combined with environmentally embedded practices and external assistance, were characterized by uncertainty and limited durability. While wild foods and NGO support helped households manage immediate shortages, participants consistently framed these strategies as insufficient for addressing longer-term food insecurity, underscoring the constrained nature of adaptive capacity in the study area.

Dietary change emerged as another key coping strategy. Households reported substituting preferred or nutritious foods with cheaper or less fuel-intensive alternatives, often choosing foods that required less water and firewood to prepare. While these adjustments reduced immediate pressure on scarce resources, participants noted that they contributed to a decline in dietary diversity and nutritional quality, particularly for children and elderly household members.

One focus group participant noted:

“We stopped cooking foods that take too long and use up more energy, for example, mazondo (cow legs), mashazhare (maize samp), and mutakura (grains mix), even though these are cheaper food options and nutritious. Even if they are good for the body, there is no firewood for that.” (FGD participant, Ward 11)

Labor reallocation was also widely reported. As water and firewood sources became more distant, households redirected labor, primarily women's and children's labor, toward resource collection. Participants described waking earlier, walking longer distances, and spending more time securing basic necessities. While this strategy enabled households to maintain access to water and energy, it reduced time available for farming, income-generating activities, schooling, and rest.

A woman explained:

“Most of the day is spent looking for water and firewood. We walk very long distances, such that by the time you come back, you are too tired to do anything else. We have tried to shift to tsotso stoves, which require less firewood. This helped to an extent, but we still need to collect firewood. There is a need for alternative methods, but we do not know which we can use that have minimal costs that we can afford.” (Household interview, Ward 11)

Asset-based coping strategies were reported less frequently but were considered particularly consequential. Some households described selling small livestock, household goods, or harvested crops earlier than planned to purchase food or meet basic needs. Participants emphasized that such decisions were made reluctantly, as asset sales reduced future livelihood options and increased vulnerability to subsequent shocks.

An elderly participant stated:

“Some households have a few chickens and goats that they can rely on in dire times. In most cases, these are very few and reserved for serious needs and emergencies. When you sell the livestock that you have to solve a current problem, you solve the problem for now, but next year, there is nothing left.” (Household interview, Ward 12)

Social networks played a limited but important role in coping. Participants reported borrowing food, sharing water, or receiving occasional assistance from relatives and neighbors. However, these arrangements were described as increasingly fragile, as many households faced similar constraints simultaneously. Several participants noted that prolonged drought and economic hardship had reduced the effectiveness of social networks as reliable safety nets.

Institutional respondents recognized that household coping strategies were widespread but stressed that adaptive capacity was fundamentally constrained by structural factors beyond household control. Limited access to irrigation, energy alternatives, agricultural inputs, and social protection restricted the range of viable responses available to households. Officials also acknowledged that short-term coping often masked deeper vulnerability rather than reducing it.

A key informant explained:

“People are coping, yes, but coping does not mean they are secure. Many people still remain vulnerable, despite these coping mechanisms. There is a need for more sustainable measures. Most of the households in the area are just surviving with very few options.” (Key informant interview)

Water-related coping strategies were among the most immediate and labor-intensive responses reported by households. During periods of scarcity, households prioritized water for drinking and cooking, often reducing use for hygiene, livestock, and small-scale gardening. Participants described waking earlier and walking longer distances to access water from seasonal rivers, shallow wells, or distant boreholes when nearby sources failed. These adjustments were framed as unavoidable but physically demanding, particularly for women and elderly household members.

Furthermore, most of these sources are unprotected, making the water highly unhygienic. Some villages resorted to fetching water from broken Zinwa pipes for everyday use (see Figure 3). This water is pumped directly from the river and is not treated, making it unsafe for consumption.

In an interview conducted, one participant explained:

“When the water point dries, we wake up very early to look for water. Sometimes you walk very far, but you have no choice because water comes first. We also have a few households in the area with boreholes; these are privately owned and charge a fee for water, which most households cannot afford. NGOs provided boreholes in selected areas for gardening, and programme participants are allowed to fetch at most 60 liters of water per day, which is insufficient for household water needs. Also, these gardens are far from the houses of most people, which means people walk long distances to fetch water.” (Household interview, Ward 11)

Households also reported storing water in limited containers when sources were available, although storage capacity was described as insufficient to buffer prolonged shortages. Several participants noted that borehole failures exacerbated water stress, leaving communities dependent on unsafe or unreliable water sources. These coping strategies provided short-term access to water but did not mitigate exposure to future shortages, thereby reinforcing a cycle of recurrent stress. These are consistently described as short-term and constrained responses, shaped by limited assets, labor availability, and weak institutional support. Participants emphasized that coping was largely oriented toward enduring persistent stress rather than achieving lasting security, with many strategies involving difficult trade-offs that carried longer-term social and livelihood costs.

Water-related coping strategies were among the most immediate and labor-intensive responses reported by households. During periods of scarcity, households prioritized water for drinking and cooking, often reducing use for hygiene, livestock, and small-scale gardening. Participants described waking earlier and walking longer distances to access water from seasonal rivers, shallow wells, or distant boreholes when nearby sources failed. These adjustments were framed as unavoidable but physically demanding, particularly for women and elderly household members.

One participant explained:

“When the water point dries, we wake up very early to look for water. Sometimes you walk very far, but you have no choice because water comes first.” (Household interview, Ward 11)

Households also reported storing water in limited containers when sources were available, although storage capacity was described as insufficient to buffer prolonged shortages. Several participants noted that borehole breakdowns exacerbated water stress, leaving communities dependent on unsafe or unreliable sources. These coping strategies provided short-term access to water but did not mitigate exposure to future shortages, thereby reinforcing a cycle of recurrent stress.

Energy-related coping strategies centered largely on continued reliance on biomass fuels, particularly firewood. As nearby sources became depleted, households adjusted by collecting smaller quantities more frequently, traveling longer distances, or reducing the number of meals cooked per day. Participants emphasized that energy scarcity shaped daily routines, cooking practices, and food choices, with knock-on effects for nutrition and time use. As noted above, some households have eliminated foods that require longer cooking times. Some have adopted the tsotso stove, which has been praised for its use of less firewood; in fact, it is designed to burn twigs rather than big logs, which has at least reduced the cutting down of trees. However, the community reported that this stove is ideal only for households with small numbers and requires constant feeding of twigs. They reported that if one has to sit down and do this, it would mean that other jobs will be on standby.

A woman described this adjustment:

“Firewood is fetched from fields that are far. You cannot collect a lot at once, so you make up by cooking once and saving the wood for the next day. In most instances, people prefer to cook foods like mabura/mbambaira (sweet potatoes), and they cook enough for their families to eat throughout the day, reserving wood for cooking supper in the evening. We reduced the number of meals and ensured that we make snacks we can eat during the day.” (Household interview, Ward 12)

Some households reported using crop residues, such as maguri (dried maize cobs), ndove yemombe (cow dung), and majanga-janga (dried Maize stalks), or alternative materials when firewood was unavailable. However, these substitutes were described as inefficient and undesirable. Limited access to modern energy sources meant that households had few options beyond biomass, reinforcing dependence on environmentally fragile systems. Participants consistently framed energy coping as a necessary compromise rather than a preferred strategy, highlighting its contribution to physical strain and environmental degradation.

Taken together, the findings indicate that household responses to WEF insecurity were characterized by short-term adjustment rather than transformative adaptation. Coping strategies enabled households to manage immediate scarcity but often did so at the expense of future capacity, health, and livelihood sustainability. These patterns underscore the limits of household-level adaptation in the absence of supportive institutional environments and highlight adaptive capacity as a critical, yet constrained, dimension of vulnerability in the study context.

5.4 Institutional perspectives on WEF insecurity and response constraints

Institutional actors interviewed for this study, including local government officials, extension officers, and representatives of development organizations, largely confirmed household accounts of interconnected water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurity. At the same time, their perspectives highlighted the structural and institutional constraints that shape local responses to these challenges. Officials consistently described WEF insecurity in the study area as persistent and multi-dimensional, but emphasized that their ability to respond was limited by resource shortages, fragmented mandates, and weak coordination across sectors.

Water service provision emerged as a central concern. Institutional respondents acknowledged frequent borehole breakdowns and limited capacity for maintenance and repair, particularly during prolonged dry periods. Budgetary constraints, shortages of spare parts, and reliance on external support were cited as major barriers to ensuring reliable water access. Several officials noted that even where infrastructure was in place, sustaining its functionality over time remained a challenge.

One key informant explained:

“The boreholes are there in some villages, but maintenance is the problem. When they break down, it can take a long time to repair them because there is a lack of funds or necessary equipment. Most of these boreholes were funded by the government, while others were funded by NGOs, with the expectation that if breakdowns occur, the communities using the source would be responsible for their repair. This is problematic since these communities have limited resources.” (Key informant interview)

Energy access was similarly described as constrained by broader infrastructural and economic limitations. Institutional actors noted that rural electrification coverage remained low and that alternative energy options were largely unaffordable for most households. As a result, dependence on biomass energy persisted, despite awareness of its environmental and social costs. Officials emphasized that while cleaner energy solutions were often promoted at the policy level, implementation at the ward level was slow and uneven.

As one respondent noted:

“We talk about renewable energy, but on the ground, people still depend on firewood. The challenge is cost and support; there are no programmes for renewable energy adoption that reach everyone. The renewable energy infrastructure also requires funds that are beyond the capacity of most households in the area.” (Key informant interview)

Food insecurity was described by institutional actors as closely linked to both climatic stress and limited agricultural support. Extension officers highlighted declining productivity in rain-fed agriculture, constrained access to inputs, and limited irrigation as key challenges. While food assistance programmes and agricultural projects were reported to be present in these wards, respondents emphasized that these initiatives were often short-term, project-based, and insufficient to meet widespread need.

An institutional respondent stated:

“NGOs help with food or inputs, but it is not continuous. Projects come and go, and they do not reach all households. In most instances, they are targeted at special groups of people. Even the government has made efforts to provide households with agricultural inputs through the Presidential Input Programme and the Pfumvudza Programme. These have been constrained by poor rainfall due to climatic changes” (Key informant interview)

A recurring theme across institutional interviews was fragmentation in governance and service delivery. Water, energy, and agriculture were managed through separate departments and programmes, with limited coordination at the local level. Officials noted that this fragmentation made it difficult to address interconnected WEF challenges holistically, leading to partial or misaligned interventions. Several respondents acknowledged that households were left to manage interlinked resource pressures largely on their own.

One official reflected:

“Each sector works on its own. Water has its plans, agriculture has its own, and energy is somewhere else. But for the community, these problems come together, and there is a need for co-creation of solutions for the WEF nexus challenges.” (Key informant interview)

Institutional actors also recognized the limits of household coping strategies, cautioning against interpreting continued survival as evidence of resilience. They noted that repeated reliance on short-term coping masked deeper vulnerability and placed increasing strain on households and the environment. Several respondents emphasized that without sustained investment in infrastructure, services, and coordination, local coping efforts would remain constrained.

These institutional perspectives reinforced the view that WEF insecurity in the study area is shaped not only by environmental stress but by systemic governance and capacity constraints. While officials were often aware of the interconnected nature of local challenges, limited resources, fragmented mandates, and project-based interventions restricted their ability to support households in moving beyond short-term coping. These findings highlight the importance of situating household experiences of WEF insecurity within the broader institutional contexts that shape both exposure and adaptive capacity. To enhance transparency in the qualitative analysis, Tables 1 and 2 summarize the key thematic codes identified among community participants and institutional informants, along with their relative frequencies.

Table 1. Summary of key themes from community participants.

Table 2. Summary of key themes from institutional informants.

The patterns presented in Table 1 indicate that community participants most frequently emphasized interconnected exposure to climate variability, water scarcity, and food shortages as central drivers of livelihood stress. The high occurrence of themes related to biomass energy dependence and livelihood sensitivity further highlights the structural nature of WEF insecurity in the study area. Coping-related themes, such as rationing, labor reallocation, and reliance on wild foods, were also widely reported, underscoring the constrained and short-term nature of household adaptive responses.

Table 2 indicates that institutional informants consistently highlighted infrastructure breakdowns, funding limitations, and fragmented governance as key constraints shaping WEF insecurity. The frequent reference to limited energy access and short-term intervention programmes further reflects systemic capacity challenges at the local level. These findings reinforce the view that household vulnerability is closely linked to broader institutional and service delivery constraints.

6 Discussion

This study examined how water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurity is experienced, managed, and constrained in semi-arid rural Zimbabwe using vulnerability theory to interpret household and institutional perspectives. The findings show that WEF insecurity is not encountered as separate sectoral challenges but as a compounded and cumulative livelihood condition shaped by interacting resource pressures, social differentiation, and governance constraints. Water scarcity, energy poverty, and food insecurity were experienced as mutually reinforcing processes: water shortages constrained domestic use and agricultural production, dependence on biomass energy shaped labor allocation and dietary practices, and food insecurity undermined nutrition and productive capacity. These cascading interactions reflect patterns of chronic livelihood stress rather than episodic shocks, consistent with vulnerability literature in semi-arid contexts (IPCC, 2022; Scoones et al., 2018), and reinforce the argument that WEF insecurity is best understood as a dynamic process of livelihood risk rather than a technical problem of resource availability.

Vulnerability theory provides a useful lens for explaining these dynamics by highlighting the interaction among exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Households faced persistent exposure to climatic variability, unreliable infrastructure, and limited energy access, while sensitivity remained high due to dependence on rain-fed agriculture, biomass fuels, and informal water sources. Adaptive capacity was constrained by poverty, limited assets, weak service provision, and fragmented institutional support, reflecting broader regional patterns where climate stress interacts with structural vulnerability to produce cumulative livelihood risk (Conway et al., 2015; Eriksen et al., 2011). The findings therefore support the view that insecurity persists not because households fail to adapt, but because adaptation options are structurally limited. The study also demonstrates pronounced social differentiation in vulnerability. Gendered divisions of labor placed women at the center of resource provisioning, intensifying time poverty and physical burdens, while children, particularly girls, and elderly household members experienced distinct vulnerabilities linked to labor demands, nutrition, and mobility. These findings align with feminist political ecology and development scholarship, showing how environmental scarcity translates into unequal vulnerability through socially embedded power relations (Agarwal, 1997; Doss et al., 2018).

Although households demonstrated considerable agency through coping strategies such as rationing water and food, reliance on biomass energy, seasonal use of wild foods, labor reallocation, and asset sales, these responses were largely oriented toward short-term survival rather than sustained adaptation. Seasonal reliance on wild foods provided temporary nutritional support but remained environmentally dependent and increasingly constrained by ecological change. Such coping strategies often carry long-term costs, including asset depletion, environmental degradation, and declining health, reinforcing critiques that equate coping with resilience while overlooking cumulative vulnerability (Adger, 2006; Eriksen et al., 2011; IPCC, 2022). Institutional perspectives further highlighted the limits of household responses. Local officials recognized the interconnected nature of WEF challenges but reported persistent constraints, including funding shortages, weak infrastructure maintenance, low rural electrification coverage, and fragmented sectoral mandates. Project-based interventions were described as important but insufficient and unevenly distributed, consistent with governance critiques within WEF nexus scholarship that highlight the gap between integrative policy ambitions and institutional capacity on the ground (Allouche et al., 2015; Urbinatti et al., 2020).

Taken together, the findings highlight that addressing rural WEF insecurity requires integrated approaches that strengthen water, energy, and food systems simultaneously while addressing social differentiation and institutional capacity. Investments in infrastructure, affordable energy options, and climate-resilient agricultural support must be accompanied by attention to gendered labor burdens, time poverty, and governance coordination. The study also demonstrates the value of qualitative, household-centered research for advancing WEF nexus scholarship by revealing how resource interdependencies are experienced and negotiated in practice. By applying vulnerability theory to nexus analysis, this research contributes a socially grounded and analytically coherent understanding of rural WEF insecurity as a relational and cumulative condition shaped by environmental stress, inequality, and institutional constraints.

7 Study limitations

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the research focused on two wards within Chivi District, which limits the generalisability of the results to other geographic contexts. Second, the qualitative design relied on a relatively small sample intended to provide in-depth insight rather than statistical representation. Third, the findings are based primarily on participants' reported experiences and perceptions, which may be influenced by recall bias and contextual factors. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable context-specific insights into the interconnected nature of water, energy, and food insecurities in semi-arid rural settings.

8 Conclusion

This study examined water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurity in semi-arid rural Zimbabwe through a vulnerability-oriented lens, integrating household and institutional perspectives to understand how interconnected resource pressures are experienced and managed in everyday life. The findings demonstrate that WEF insecurity is not a set of isolated sectoral challenges but a systemic and cumulative livelihood condition shaped by interacting risks, social differentiation, and governance constraints. Households experienced water scarcity, energy poverty, and food insecurity as mutually reinforcing processes that accumulated over time, while coping strategies such as rationing, labor intensification, reliance on biomass energy, seasonal use of wild foods, and asset sales enabled short-term survival but often undermined long-term well being and livelihood sustainability. These patterns highlight WEF insecurity as a chronic livelihood condition rather than an episodic shock. The study further revealed pronounced social differentiation in vulnerability, with gendered divisions of labor placing women at the center of resource provisioning, intensifying time poverty and physical burdens, while children and elderly household members faced distinct risks linked to labor demands, nutrition, and mobility. These findings underscore the importance of recognizing intra-household inequalities in WEF nexus analysis.

Institutional perspectives showed that household coping occurs within a context of fragmented governance, weak infrastructure maintenance, limited rural electrification, and short-term project-based interventions, all of which constrain adaptive capacity. Although institutional actors recognized the interconnected nature of WEF challenges, limited resources and sectoral fragmentation restricted coordinated responses, reinforcing structural vulnerability. Vulnerability theory provided a robust framework for integrating these dynamics by linking exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to broader social and institutional conditions, thereby strengthening the social and governance dimensions of WEF nexus analysis. From a policy perspective, the findings highlight the need for integrated, cross-sectoral interventions that simultaneously strengthen water, energy, and food systems while addressing gendered labor burdens, time poverty, and institutional coordination. Methodologically, the study demonstrates the value of qualitative, household-centered research for advancing nexus scholarship by revealing how resource interdependencies are lived and negotiated in practice. Overall, the study contributes a socially grounded, context-sensitive understanding of WEF insecurity, emphasizing the need for equitable, institutionally supported approaches to addressing interconnected resource challenges in semi-arid rural contexts.

9 Recommendations

Addressing interconnected water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurities in Chivi District requires coordinated and context-specific institutional responses. At the district level, Rural District Councils (RDCs) and District Development Coordinators (DDCs) should institutionalize regular cross-sector coordination meetings within existing planning structures to align water, energy, and agricultural interventions and reduce fragmented programming. At the national and local levels, the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development, in collaboration with RDCs, should prioritize routine rehabilitation and maintenance of existing boreholes, wells, and small dams in drought-prone wards to improve the long-term functionality of infrastructure. Similarly, the Rural Electrification Agency (REA), working with development partners, should expand decentralized renewable energy solutions, particularly solar-powered systems for water pumping, irrigation, and food processing, to reduce dependence on biomass energy and alleviate labor burdens. In the agricultural sector, AGRITEX, in collaboration with NGOs and farmer groups, should strengthen extension support for drought-tolerant crops, small-scale irrigation, and soil and water conservation practices suited to semi-arid conditions. Finally, community-based organizations and traditional leadership structures should prioritize support for women-headed, elderly, and resource-poor households in local WEF interventions to ensure that institutional responses complement household coping strategies.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. The author used generative artificial intelligence tools to assist with language refinement and clarity during the preparation of this manuscript. The use of these tools was limited to improving readability, grammar, and coherence. All ideas, analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are the author's own, and the author takes full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Naser Valizadeh, Shiraz University, Iran

Reviewed by: Latif Haji, Shiraz University, Iran

Tatenda Sukulao, Midlands State University Faculty of Social Sciences, Zimbabwe