Metrics for assessing adaptive capacity and water security: Common challenges, diverging contexts, emerging consensus
Name:
Garfin-etal_Metrics_accepted_UA.pdf
Size:
150.8Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Publisher
ELSEVIER SCI LTDCitation
Garfin, G. M., C.A. Scott, M. Wilder, R.G. Varady, and R. Merideth (2016). Metrics for assessing adaptive capacity and water security: common challenges, diverging contexts, emerging consensus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 21: 86-89.Rights
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
The rapid pace of climate and environmental changes requires some degree of adaptation, to forestall or avoid severe impacts. Adaptive capacity and water security are concepts used to guide the ways in which resource managers plan for and manage change. Yet the assessment of adaptive capacity and water security remains elusive, due to flaws in guiding concepts, paucity or inadequacy of data, and multiple difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of management prescriptions at scales relevant to decision-making. We draw on conceptual framings and empirical findings of the articles in this special issue and seek to respond to key questions with respect to metrics for the measurement, governance, information accessibility, and robustness of the knowledge produced in conjunction with ideas related to adaptive capacity and water security. Three overarching conclusions from this body of work are (a) systematic cross-comparisons of metrics, using the same models and indicators, are needed to validate the reliability of evaluation instruments for adaptive capacity and water security, (b) the robustness of metrics to applications across multiple scales of analysis can be enhanced by a “metrics plus” approach that combines well-designed quantitative metrics with in-depth qualitative methods that provide rich context and local knowledge, and (c) changes in the governance of science-policy can address deficits in public participation, foster knowledge exchange, and encourage the co-development of adaptive processes and approaches (e.g., risk-based framing) that move beyond development and use of static indicators and metrics.Note
24 month embargo; Available online 28 November 2016.Version
Final accepted manuscriptSponsors
The guest editors, and authors of this paper, would like to thank the editors and editorial board of Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability for their encouragement of this special issue. We are grateful to our funders including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [grant number NA11OAR4310143] and Climate Assessment for the Southwest, Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, for their support. We gratefully acknowledge partial support from the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) for project CRN3056, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant GEO-1128040, and from the International Water Security Network, funded by Lloyd’s Register Foundation, a charitable foundation in the United Kingdom helping to protect life and property by supporting engineering related education, public engagement, and the application of research. Additional support was provided by NSF grant DEB-1010495 and by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) via the Himalayan Adaptation, Water and Resilience (HI-AWARE) consortium under the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA) with financial support from the UK Government's Department for International Development and the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada; and by the Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.Additional Links
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187734351630077Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.007