Transboundary adaptive management to reduce climate-change vulnerability in the western U.S.–Mexico border region

Abstract Climate change, variability, shifting demands for freshwater, and allocation of scarce water among multiple human and ecosystem needs comprise a set of interlinked adaptation challenges. This paper addresses how organizations and stakeholders can build adaptive capacity and foster adaptive management in a complex but environmentally significant international transboundary region in order to better confront the impacts of global change. To strengthen adaptive capacity, integrated assessments address coupled natural and human drivers of, and responses to hydroclimatic variability, economic globalization, expanding urbanization, and related global-change pressures. However, such assessments have often presumed a degree of uniformity of institutional arrangements. Two allied aims of the paper are to (1) examine the complexity and heterogeneity of institutions in transboundary regions and (2) illustrate how scientists, managers, and other regional stakeholders use collaboration and integrated assessment to confront climate and water challenges. This paper's insights are based on a research initiative undertaken over more than a decade. Over this period, a binational, interdisciplinary team has conducted integrated-assessment research and established policy dialogue in the Arizona–Sonora section of the U.S.–Mexico border region. The initiative's suite of projects addresses multiple aspects of water security and have involved key U.S. and Mexican academic institutions that act as boundary organizations, bringing climate scientists together with public and private-sector stakeholders to strengthen adaptive-water-management capacity across national borders. The analysis demonstrates that transboundary adaptive management is significantly strengthened by: binationality and transborder collaboration; involvement of multiple institutions in both countries; understanding of climate information use by water-resources managers; development of easily accessible, easily understandable tools and information products; expansion of binational communities of practice and effectively addressing challenges to their functioning; and, above all, continuity of effort.

[1]  R. Varady,et al.  Rethinking integrated assessments and management projects in the Americas , 2013 .

[2]  P. Matson,et al.  Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships , 2007 .

[4]  M. Pelling,et al.  Shadow Spaces for Social Learning: A Relational Understanding of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change within Organisations , 2008 .

[5]  Christopher A. Scott,et al.  Energy and water resources scarcity: Critical infrastructure for growth and economic development in Arizona and Sonora , 2010 .

[6]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change , 2006 .

[7]  R. Pulwarty,et al.  Climate extremes and adaptive management on the Colorado River: lessons from the 1997-1998 ENSO event. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[8]  B. Morehouse A functional approach to boundaries in the context of environmental issues , 1995 .

[9]  A. Wolf,et al.  Managing and transforming water conflicts , 2009 .

[10]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[11]  L. Milich,et al.  Managing Transboundary Resources: Lessons from Ambos Nogales , 1994 .

[12]  Maria Carmen Lemos,et al.  The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments , 2003 .

[13]  C. Scott,et al.  Science-Policy Dialogues for Water Security: Addressing Vulnerability and Adaptation to Global Change in the Arid Americas , 2012 .

[14]  R. Sánchez-Rodríguez,et al.  Environmental Protection and Natural Resources , 2010 .

[15]  R. Varady,et al.  Moving Borders from the Periphery to the Center: River Basins, Political Boundaries, and Water Management Policy , 2013 .

[16]  C. Scott,et al.  Innovating resource regimes: Water, wastewater, and the institutional dynamics of urban hydraulic reach in northwest Mexico , 2011 .

[17]  R. Stouffer,et al.  Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? , 2008, Science.

[18]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  J. Endter‐Wada,et al.  Frames and Ways of Knowing: Key Considerations for Policy Responses to Climate Risk and Vulnerability , 2009 .

[20]  C. West Churchman,et al.  Science and Decision Making , 1956, Philosophy of Science.

[21]  C. Scott,et al.  The Importance of Institutional Asymmetries to the Development of Binational Aquifer Assessment Programs: The Arizona-Sonora Experience , 2011 .

[22]  K. Seto,et al.  The New Geography of Contemporary Urbanization and the Environment , 2010 .

[23]  C. Scott,et al.  Moving Forward from Vulnerability to Adaptation: Climate Change, Drought, and Water Demand in the Urbanizing Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico (Case Studies in Ambos Nogales, Puerto Penasco, Tucson, and Hermosillo) , 2012 .

[24]  C. S. Holling Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems , 1973 .

[25]  Marcela Vásquez-León Hispanic Farmers and Farmworkers: Social Networks, Institutional Exclusion, and Climate Vulnerability in Southeastern Arizona , 2009 .

[26]  C. Scott,et al.  Adapting Across Boundaries: Climate Change, Social Learning, and Resilience in the U.S.–Mexico Border Region , 2010 .

[27]  S. Woolgar Social basis of interactive social science , 2000 .

[28]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[29]  S. Rayner,et al.  Human choice and climate change , 1998 .

[30]  C. Scott,et al.  Effects of climate change and population growth on the transboundary Santa Cruz aquifer , 2012 .

[31]  J. Thornes,et al.  Firm Finances, Weather Derivatives and Geography , 2008 .

[32]  Gary Yohe,et al.  moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity , 2002 .

[33]  Amy Luers,et al.  Assessing the Vulnerability of Social-Environmental Systems , 2006 .

[34]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary-Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge , 2006 .

[35]  Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez,et al.  Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to global environmental change: challenges and pathways for an action-oriented research agenda for middle-income and low-income countries , 2010 .

[36]  J. Rodda,et al.  Strengthening Global Water Initiatives , 2008 .

[37]  Denise Lach,et al.  Maintaining the Status Quo: How Institutional Norms and Practices Create Conservative Water Organizations , 2005 .

[38]  M. Price Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems , 2003 .

[39]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Linking Knowledge and Action for Sustainable Development , 2006 .

[40]  Patricia Romero Lankao,et al.  Water in Mexico City: what will climate change bring to its history of water-related hazards and vulnerabilities? , 2010 .

[41]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Tools for Integrated Sustainability Assessment: A two-track approach , 2006 .

[42]  David W. Cash,et al.  Making short-term climate forecasts useful: Linking science and action , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[43]  M. Gibbons Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science , 2000 .

[44]  M. Tolba,et al.  Sustainable Development: Constraints and Opportunities , 1987 .

[45]  M. Lemos,et al.  Institutions and change: The challenge of building adaptive capacity in Latin America , 2010 .