new directions in adaptive capacity and resilience in arid...
Post on 02-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ABSTRACT
This poster provides key findings from contemporary adaptive capacity literature as part of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-‐funded Climate and Society Interactions project examining climate change and water management in the arid U.S.-‐Mexico border region. These findings inform the development of a decision support tool that will be used to assess and measure adaptive capacity.
Adaptive capacity is an often-‐referenced yet ambiguous concept in the human dimensions of global climate change literature. Scholars note that adaptive capacity is difficult to measure because it is a latent potential and spatially uneven. Nonetheless, studies have demonstrated the potential of a well-‐designed regional instrument and identified common features of institutional adaptive capacity such as knowledge transfer and production, perceptions of shared risk, and capital. The challenge of assessment lies in capturing the dynamic of a contextually dependent process in a manner that is most useful to stakeholders across multiple levels of governance. “Successful” adaptations are not foregone conclusions, and it is essential to understand what components of a system influence or inhibit the ability to mobilize resources and anticipate or respond to stress.
This poster critically examines adaptive capacity literature in a concerted effort to understand the drivers of adaptation and the mechanisms that facilitate sustainable adaptations to climate variability and resource scarcity in arid, transboundary regions. Adaptive capacity is a unique system attribute that can be influenced by human action and enhanced through an iterative social learning process. Moreover, the role of governance, decision-‐making networks, and social learning are critical components of adaptive capacity and the broader institutional environment frames societal adaptive capacity. The role of institutions in facilitating sustainable adaptation warrants further research.
First, we briefly review key concepts of adaptation, resilience, and vulnerability, and the way in which these frameworks intersect and guide research in adaptive capacity. Next, we explore contemporary understandings of adaptive capacity and reference the theoretical underpinnings of how social learning, decision-‐making networks, and governance inform it. We also discuss best practices in adaptive capacity assessment and close with the implications of these findings for the arid U.S.-‐Mexico border region.
New Directions in Adaptive Capacity and Resilience in Arid RegionsJoel Correia, Sarah Kelly, Heide Bruckner, Sasha Marley, Margaret Wilder, Gregg Garfin, Marcela Vásquez-León, and Robert Varady
An Interdisciplinary Team From the University of Arizona
1. INTRODUCTION Our study informs the understanding of adaptive capacity in arid transnational contexts. The U.S.-‐Mexico border region is exemplary and considered “the frontline of climate change” (Harrison, 2009) for its increasingly high temperatures, drought conditions and rapid urban development. Moreover, it is viewed as a site of “double exposure” (Leichenko & O’Brien, 2008) where the dual pressures of climate change and globalization, experienced primarily through industrialization and population growth, exacerbate pressure on water resources (Liverman & Meredith, 2002; Ray et al., 2007; Wilder et al., 2010).
Projections for 2021-2050 in the Arizona-Sonora Region
Adapted from Wilder et al., forthcoming 2012 Chapter 16 (U.S.-‐Mexico Border, U.S. National Climate Assessment Southwest Region Report Analysis by Garfin, Muñõz-‐Arriola, and Neri.
Despite challenges in communication, governance, and collaboration in the dynamic and politically-‐charged bi-‐national context, scholars point to the importance of building collaborative, transnational adaptive capacity in the U.S.-‐Mexico border region (Wilder et al., 2010) to address water shortages and climate change. Given that this region shares aquifers and watersheds, building adaptive capacity and increasing access to climate information on both sides of the border is paramount. Developing binational communities of practice, strengthening networks, and co-‐producing knowledge are ways to build adaptive capacity within the border region (Wilder et al., 2010).
4. ASSESSING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY There are two principal ontological approaches to assessments: 1) theoretical, driven by findings from literature to select variables; 2) data-‐driven, using expert judgement or correlation with historical events to select indicators. Assessing adaptive capacity poses unique challenges due to its latent potential, context-‐specific nature, and difficulty in generalizing methods that emphasize individual case characteristics (Brown et al. 2010; Engle & Lemos, 2010; Gupta et al. 2010; Moser & Elkstrom, 2010). The table below highlights best practices noted in the current literature. We have incorporated these practices in our research via stakeholder meetings and by facilitating workshops to identify vulnerabilities and opportunities to enhance adaptive capacity in the study sites, through ethnographic and qualitative research methods, and also facilitating self-‐assessment to better understand adaptive capacity and water management in the arid U.S.-‐Mexico border region. We are currently developing a pilot adaptive capacity index to systematize assessments in arid, transnational areas.
Guiding Principles and Best Practices for Self Assessment
Select data collection methods that are appropriate for project.
Create self-‐assessment mechanisms that are consistent across regions so results can be compared.
Interview groups from different sectors and across scales of governance including formal and informal actors.
Assess what constrains or enables resource management.
Draw from historical adaptation strategies, contemporary actions, and regional climate forecasts.
Allow and encourage actors to identify and define variables, vulnerabilities, and adaptive strategies.
5. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER REGION
As noted in the introduction, the Arizona-‐Sonora region is in great risk of suffering the ill-‐effects of water shortages induced by projected and current climate change events. Our current NOAA-‐funded project, Managing Demand and Rethinking Supply: Adaptation, Conservation, and Planning in the Drought-‐prone Southwestern United States and Northwest Mexico addresses critical
issues noted in this literature review and builds off of years of University of Arizona-‐led research in the arid border region.
In efforts to enhance the adaptive capacity of communities and organizations on both sides of the border, team members are developing and disseminating a bi-‐lingual quarterly report the Transborder Climate: Adaptation Without Borders on cutting edge research and forecasts related to climate and its impacts in the study region. Furthermore, our research centers on key actor networks bringing water users and managers at various scales together for interactive stakeholder workshops to better identify, select, and weigh regional variables for adaptive capacity assessments and the development of a decision support tool that will enhance adaptive capacity. This process enhances and promotes social learning and ultimately seeks to build the adaptive capacity of participants. We are also identifying obstacles and barriers to the incorporation of climate-‐related information into decision-‐making and developing new avenues to facilitate the transfer and generation of climate information. As the “frontline of climate change” (ibid.), understanding and fortifying adaptive capacity in the U.S.-‐Mexico border region is critical to address the pressing “adaptation deficit” (Jacobs et al., 2010) faced by one of the fastest growing and environmentally-‐stressed regions in North America. By promoting a model of social-‐learning and self-‐assessment we connect theory to practical application and are moving towards a better understanding of how adaptation is experienced and enhanced in the arid U.S.-‐Mexico borderlands. This research not only adds to the literature on adaptive capacity but is beneficial to other transboundary water contexts in arid regions.
Projected Change Direction of Change
Level of Confidence
Average annual temperature (+2-‐3° F, 4-‐7 C)
Increasing High
Annual number of days with maximum temperatures > 100 F (38C)
Increasing High
Heat wave duration Increasing High
Annual precipitation Decreasing Medium High
Spring, summer, winter precipitation Decreasing
Med. Low (Sum/Winter) to Med. High
(Spring)
Drought Increasing High
2. KEY CONCEPTS
To begin, we present foundational theoretical contributions to the current understanding of adaptive capacity. These concepts intersect in novel ways to inform and guide current research in adaptive capacity. Definitions of these concepts abound, yet imprecise use of these terms remains problematic. The aim of this section is to lend theoretical precision and clarity to the understanding of these key concepts.
Vulnerability and Resilience! Vulnerability refers to the exposure to a climate-‐related hazard and the level of risk associated with exposure, given the resources available to address and reduce the risk (Adger, 2006). Vulnerability is actor-‐centric and therefore easily translatable to application and policy outcomes (Kelly & Adger, 2000). Drawing from Engle and Lemos (2010) we view resilience as “the ability to recover or adjust to change through learning and
flexibility so as to maintain or improve into a desirable state” (p. 5). Resilience is focused on processes, but difficult to translate into practices (Engle, 2010).
Adaptive capacity occurs where vulnerability and resilience intersect (Image adapted from Engle, 2011).
Adaptation!! Adaptation has been defined as “the ability of a resource governance system to first alter processes and if required convert structural elements as response to experienced or expected changes in the societal or natural environment” (Pahl-‐Wostl, 2009, p. 355). Following Pahl-‐Wostl (2009), Pelling (2008), Lemos and Morehouse (2005) and Cash et. al. (2003), we use a process-‐oriented definition of “adaptation” that regards scientist-‐stakeholder collaboration as integral and that centers on:
1) dynamic processes that are responsive and flexible in the context of climate uncertainty and nonstationarity
2) iterative scientist-‐stakeholder interactions focused on specific vulnerabilities
3) integrating social learning in resource governance processes. We also recognize that adaptation does not take place in a vacuum, is influenced by institutional and social contexts (Vincent, 2007), and is multi-‐scalar in nature (Nelson et al., 2007). Finally, like Nelson et al. (2009), we envisage that adaptation emphasizes human agency as resistance, flexibility, and creativity.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Principal Investigator Dr. Margaret Wilder, mwilder@u.arizona.edu, (520) 626-‐4349
www.udallnoaacsi.org
ResilienceVulnerability
Adaptive Capacity
3. UNDERSTANDING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY! Adaptive capacity is an often-‐referenced yet ambiguous concept in the human dimensions of global climate change literature. Nevertheless, it refers to the existing or potential capability of an institution, community, or household to respond effectively to reduce the vulnerability associated with global environmental change and socioeconomic factors. Effective collaborative governance with the existence of peer-‐to-‐peer and scientist-‐decision maker networks are believed to increase adaptive capacity while stimulating appropriate use of climate knowledge and products in operations and planning. The Inter-‐Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptive capacity as “the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.” However, drawing from selected literature on adaptive capacity (Adger et al., 2007; Brooks & Adger, 2005; Carpenter & Brock, 2008; Eakin & Lemos, 2005; Eakin et al., 2010; Engle, 2010, 2011; Gallopin, 2006; IPCC, 2001; Kuriakose et al., 2009; Lemos, 2007, 2011; Sorrenson, 2006; Vincent, 2007; Ziervogel, 2010) we identified contemorary themes and important lessons about adaptive capacity. By synthesizing these attributes we posit the following working definition that move the understanding of adaptive capacity further.
Working definition of adaptive capacity: The specific ability or property of a social or environmental system to respond to and recover from internal and external demands of environmental change, cope with related consequences, and take advantage of possible opportunities through a mulit-‐level process of social learning that leads to deep transformation and a desirable system state resulting in diminished vulnerability across varying scales of governance and institutional arrangements.
! Contemporary literature illustrates key characteristics that can enhance, fortify, or diminish the potential adaptive capacity of individuals, groups, institutions, or regions. Whereas adaptation can lead to negative outcomes (i.e. maladaptation), adaptive capacity is understood by some (Engle, 2011) as “a universally positive attribute” (p. 652) and a desirable system property. Incorporating elements of vulnerability and resilience, adaptive capacity can lead to system-‐maintaining or system-‐altering outcomes. Other scholars (Eakin & Lemos, 2005) note that adaptive capacity is realized by the intersection of the state, policy, and administrative capacities, which are considered iterative and interdependent. The literature emphasizes that adaptive capacity is scalar and distributive. For example, at one scale policy changes or interventions can increase the adaptive capacity of one group, while also negatively influencing the adaptive capacity of
another (Adger et al., 2007; Lemos et al., 2007; Vincent, 2007). Furthermore, it is a system property that can be changed through human activity and influenced by both social and ecological systems (Engle, 2011). Adaptive capacity is not uniform. Lemos et al. (2007) distinguish between notions of “specific” and “general” with the former indicating “assets and entitlements that build the ability of different systems to cope and respond with a range of stressors” and the later equating preparations that enable coping and recovery from specific events (p.6). Assumptions suggest that there is an additive property of adaptive strategies resulting in greater adaptive capacity and that interactions between adaptive strategies may lead to potential tradeoffs for adaptive capacity (Below et al., 2011).
Critical Components of Adaptive Capacity
Social LearningSocial learning can lead to adaptation and by extension is related to enhancing adaptive capacity. Social learning is
conceived of as a process based on participation of different levels of informal and formal actors and is considered necessary for deeper learning, transformation, and adaptation (Akamani and Wilson 2011; Armitage et al. 2005; Birkenholtz 2009; Gupta et al. 2010; Huntjens et al. 2012; Löf 2010; Pahl-‐Wostl 2009). “Adaptation can thus be understood in terms of single-‐ and double-‐loop learning, whereas transformation requires triple-‐loop learning” (Löf, 2010, p. 532). Learning is not a linear process; information needs to be shared vertically as well as horizontally for double and triple loop learning to occur (ibid). Employing the learning framework developed by Pahl-‐Wostl (2009) to gauge institutional learning contributes to a comprehensive diagnostic approach of overall adaptive capacity. We see see this form of learning as leading to paradigmatic shifts in thinking and practice. Huntjens et al. (2011) also focus on the concept of social learning, finding that it leads to higher levels of adaptation. Developing an understanding of how decision-‐making networks can lead to enhanced transformational learning is key to research focused on sharing climatic information.
Decision-Making NetworksThe role networks play in social learning, communication, and building adaptive capacity is stressed in the literature (Noteboom, 2006). Informal and formal networks are necessary for effective governance, adaptation, and transformational learning, and are considered adaptive when they lead to deep social learning (Birkenholtz, 2009; Folke et al., 2007; Muñoz-‐Erickson et al., 2010; Pahl-‐Wostl, 2009; Ray et al., 2006; Reed & Bruyneel, 2010; Stein et al., 2011). Networks serve as conduits to share information, understand social and power dynamics, and develop contextual
understandings of governance, and can enhance adaptive capacity. Scholars suggest identifying key actors across different scales of governance within regional networks. When communication is supported and climate information endorsed between these actors, long term planning about distribution of climate information can facilitate adaptive capacity (Ray et al., 2006). Birkenholtz (2009) also elucidates that it is necessary to identify areas within existing networks where climate change information could be useful and to determine nodes of insertion for such information. Stein et al. (2011) note success in building upon existing networks to enhance adaptive capacity, though underscore the importance of incorporating informal actors as well and across different levels of governance (Pahl-‐Wostl, 2009). It is necessary to understand the rules that guide practices and interpersonal and institutional power dynamics. Hence, governance plurality leads us to understand that formal and informal networks must be strengthened to increase social learning and build adaptive capacity .
Governance A broad and comprehensive definition of governance is widely adopted in the literature, with hybrid and multi-‐level polycentric forms emerging as two conceptualizations of pluralistic governance (Bakker, 2010; Huntjens et al., 2012; Lemos & Agrawal, 2006; Löf, 2010; Pahl-‐Wostl, 2009; Reed & Bruyneel, 2010). Literature on adaptive capacity also points to collaborative governance models that are knowledge-‐based (Fish et al., 2010). Scholars recognize that governance failure can inhibit social learning, adaptation, and constrain adaptive capacity.
Context OutcomesActionsFrames
Reframing
TransformingTriple-‐Loop Learning
Single-‐Loop Learning
Double-‐Loop Learning
Adapted from Pahl-‐Wostl (2009)
Incremental improvements of established routines
Determinants Of Adaptive Capacity
Capital and Entitlements: Economic, Human, Technological, Social, Political, Material Resources and Infrastructure
Accessible Information: Triple-‐Loop Learning, Transfer and Production of Knowledge
Shared perception of source of stress and significance of exposure
Supportive Policies, Organizations, and Institutions
Representative Governance and Participation Across Scales
Sources: Adger et al., 2007; Brooks et al., 2005; Carpenter & Brock, 2008; Lemos, 2005; Eakin et al., 2010; Engle, 2011; Engle & Lemos, 2010; Engle et al., 2011; IPCC, 2001; Kuriakose et al., 2009; Lemos, 2007; Lemos et al., 2011; Yohe & Tol, 2002
Inter-‐basin Water Transfers
Wastewater Re-‐useDesalting Plants
REGIONAL ADAPTATION INITIATIVES
Conservation
Lined Irrigation Canals
UDALL NOAA CSI PROJECT STUDY SITES
Works Cited:Complete citation list available online at: www.udallnoaacsi.org
top related