Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:40:47.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Envisioning the Future of Water Governance: A Survey of Central Arizona Water Decision Makers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2015

Dave D. White ,
Lauren Withycombe Keeler ,
Arnim Wiek  and
Kelli L. Larson
Dave D. White*
Affiliation:
Co-Director, Decision Center for a Desert City, Associate Professor, School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona
Lauren Withycombe Keeler
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Decision Center for a Desert City, Phoenix, Arizona
Arnim Wiek
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Kelli L. Larson
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, School of Sustainability and School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
*
Address correspondence to: Dave D. White, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004; (phone) 602-496-0154; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

The future of the American West depends on sustainable water resource governance. A variety of uncertainties associated with limited freshwater supplies, population growth, land use change, drought, and climate change impacts present substantial challenges. To inform decision making, managers are adopting new techniques such as scenario planning to understand how water resources might change and what practices can support economic, environmental, and social sustainability. Scenario planning can be informed by understanding the normative future preferences of a variety of stakeholders, including decision makers, who influence water governance. This article presents a survey of central Arizona decision makers to understand their visions for a desirable future for the water system in terms of supply, delivery, demand, outflow, and crosscutting activities. Principle components analysis is used to identify patterns underlying responses about preferences for each domain of the system and correlation analysis is used to evaluate associations between themes across the domains. The results reveal two distinct visions for water in central Arizona—one in which water experts and policy makers pursue supply augmentation to serve metropolitan development, and another in which broadened public engagement is used in conjunction with policy tools to reduce water consumption, restore ecosystem services, and limit metropolitan expansion. The results of this survey will inform the development of a set of normative scenarios for use in exploratory modeling and anticipatory governance activities.

Environmental Practice 17: 25–35 (2015)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 25 - 35
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, W.M., Brockington, D., Dyson, J., and Vira, B.. 2003. Managing Tragedies: Understanding Conflict over Common Pool Resources. Science 302(5652):1915–1916.Google Scholar
The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2011. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th edition. AAPOR, Deerfield, IL.Google Scholar
Archie, K.M., Dilling, L., Milford, J.B., and Pampel, F.C.. 2012. Climate Change and Western Public Lands: A Survey of US Federal Land Managers on the Status of Adaptation Efforts. Ecology and Society 17(4):20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., and Guston, D.H.. 2007. Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, eds., 3rd edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 979–1000.Google Scholar
Beniston, M., Stoffel, M., and Hill, M.. 2011. Impacts of Climatic Change on Water and Natural Hazards in the Alps: Can Current Water Governance Cope with Future Challenges? Examples from the European “ACQWA” Project. Environmental Science & Policy 14(7):734–743.Google Scholar
Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Study Report. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV, 89.Google Scholar
Cockerill, K. 2013. The Water Supply is Fine: Decision‐maker Perceptions of Water Quantity and Supply‐side Management. Water and Environment Journal 28(2):242–251. doi: 10.1111/wej.12029.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 567 pp.Google Scholar
Flake, J. 2014. Arizona’s Junior Senator: I’m Ready to Lead a Yearlong Conversation on Water Use. Arizona Republic, March 17. Available at http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2014/03/17/flake-time-talk-water/6539059/ (accessed March 22, 2014).Google Scholar
Gibson, R.B. 2006. Sustainability Assessment: Basic Components of a Practical Approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24(3):170–182.Google Scholar
Gleick, P.H. 2003. Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science 302(5650):1524–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gober, P. 2013. Getting Outside the Water Box: The Need for New Approaches to Water Planning and Policy. Water Resources Management 27(4):955–957.Google Scholar
Gober, P., and Kirkwood, C.W.. 2010. Vulnerability Assessment of Climate-Induced Water Shortage in Phoenix. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(50):21295–21299.Google Scholar
Gober, P., Kirkwood, C.W., Jr.Balling, R.C., Ellis, A.W., and Deitrick, S.. 2010. Water Planning Under Climatic Uncertainty in Phoenix: Why We Need a New Paradigm. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(2):356–372.Google Scholar
Gober, P., Larson, K.L., Quay, R., Polsky, C., Chang, H., and Shandas, V.. 2012. Why Land Planners and Water Managers Don’t Talk to One Another and Why They Should! Society & Natural Resources 26(3):356–364.Google Scholar
Guston, D.H. 2008. Innovation Policy: Not Just a Jumbo Shrimp. Nature 454(7207):940–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hering, J.G., and Ingold, K.M.. 2012. Water Resources Management: What Should Be Integrated? Science 336(6086):1234–1235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirt, P., Gustafson, A., and Larson, K.L.. 2008. The Mirage in the Valley of the Sun. Environmental History 13(3):482–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, K., Garfin, G., and Buizer, J.. 2009. The Science-Policy Interface: Experience of a Workshop for Climate Change Researchers and Water Managers. Science and Public Policy 36(10):791–798.Google Scholar
Jacobs, K., and Holway, J.M.. 2004. Managing for Sustainability in an Arid Climate: Lessons Learned from 20 Years of Groundwater Management in Arizona, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 12(1):52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R.L., Kirkwood, C.W., and Jones, N.S.. 2010. Assessing Stakeholder Evaluation Concerns: An Application to the Central Arizona Water Resources System. Systems Engineering 13(1):58–71.Google Scholar
Kemp, R., Parto, S., and Gibson, R.B.. 2005. Governance for Sustainable Development: Moving from Theory to Practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1):12–30.Google Scholar
Lach, D., Ingram, H., and Rayner, S.. 2005. Maintaining the Status Quo: How Institutional Norms and Practices Create Conservative Water Organizations. Texas Law Review 83(7):2027–2053.Google Scholar
Larson, K.L., Ibes, D.C., and White, D.D.. 2011. Gendered Perspectives About Water Risks and Policy Strategies: A Tripartite Conceptual Approach. Environment and Behavior 43(3):415–438.Google Scholar
Larson, K.L., White, D.D., Gober, P., Harlan, S., and Wutich, A.. 2009. Divergent Perspectives on Water Resource Sustainability in a Public-Policy-Science Context. Environmental Science & Policy 12(7):1012–1023.Google Scholar
Larson, K.L., Wiek, A., and Withycombe Keeler, L.. 2013. A Comprehensive Sustainability Appraisal of Water Governance in Phoenix, AZ. Journal of Environmental Management 116:58–71.Google Scholar
Larson, K.L., Wutich, A., White, D., Muñoz-Erickson, T.A., and Harlan, S.L.. 2011. Multifaceted Perspectives on Water Risks and Policies: A Cultural Domains Approach in a Southwestern City. Human Ecology Review 18(1):75–87.Google Scholar
Middel, A., Quay, R., and White, D.D.. 2013. Water Reuse in Central Arizona. Decision Center for a Desert City Technical Report 13-01, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 42 pp.Google Scholar
Milly, P.C.D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.M., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lettenmaier, D.P., and Stouffer, R.J.. 2008. Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science 319(5863):573–574.Google Scholar
Nadeau, J., and Megdal, S.B.. 2012. Arizona Environmental Water Needs Assessment Report: A University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Project. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 60 pp.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2007. Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to Hydroclimatic Variability. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 222 pp.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325(5939):419–422.Google Scholar
Overpeck, J., and Udall, B.. 2010. Dry Times Ahead. Science 328(5986):1642–1643.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C. 2002. Towards Sustainability in the Water Sector–The Importance of Human Actors and Processes of Social Learning. Aquatic Sciences-Research Across Boundaries 64(4):394–411.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. Transitions Towards Adaptive Management of Water Facing Climate and Global Change. Water Resources Management 21(1):49–62.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., and Taillieu, T.. 2007. Social Learning and Water Resources Management. Ecology and Society 12(2):5.Google Scholar
Quay, R. 2010. Anticipatory Governance: A Tool for Climate Change Adaptation. Journal of the American Planning Association 76(4):496–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, S., Lach, D., and Ingram, H.. 2005. Weather Forecasts are for Wimps: Why Water Resource Managers Do Not Use Climate Forecasts. Climatic Change 69(2):197–227.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. 2003. Future Subjunctive: Backcasting as Social Learning. Futures 35(8):839–856.Google Scholar
Schneider, F., and Rist, S.. 2013. Envisioning Sustainable Water Futures in a Transdisciplinary Learning Process: Combining Normative, Explorative, and Participatory Scenario Approaches. Sustainability Science 9:1–19. doi: 10.1007/s11625-013-0232-6.Google Scholar
Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H-P., Harnik, N., Leetmaa, A., Lau, N-C., Li, C., Velez, J., and Naik, N.. 2007. Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America. Science 316(5828):1181–1184.Google Scholar
Sheehan, K.B. 2001. E‐mail Survey Response Rates: A Review. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 6(2). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x.Google Scholar
Smith-Heisters, S. 2014. Analyzing constraints on adaptation: Application of an institutional analysis framework to risk perception. Poster presented at: AAAS 2014 Annual Meeting: Meeting Global Challenges: Discovery and Innovation. February 13-17, 2014. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Swart, R.J., Raskin, P., and Robinson, J.. 2004. The Problem of the Future: Sustainability Science and Scenario Analysis. Global Environmental Change 14(2):137–146.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.R., Wiek, A., Swanson, F.J., Carpenter, S.R., Fresco, N., Hollingsworth, T., Spies, T.A., and Foster, D.R.. 2012. Scenario Studies as a Synthetic and Integrative Research Activity for Long-Term Ecological Research. BioScience 62(4):367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenberth, K. 2010. More Knowledge, Less Certainty. Nature Reports Climate Change 4(2):20–21.Google Scholar
Van Den Hove, S. 2006. Between Consensus and Compromise: Acknowledging the Negotiation Dimension in Participatory Approaches. Land Use Policy 23(1):10–17.Google Scholar
Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. 1998. Water in the West: Challenge for the Next Century. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 378 pp.Google Scholar
White, D.D., Corley, E.A., and White, M.S.. 2008. Water Managers’ Perceptions of the Science–Policy Interface in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for an Emerging Boundary Organization. Society and Natural Resources 21(3):230–243.Google Scholar
White, D.D., Wutich, A., Larson, K.L., Gober, P., Lant, T., and Senneville, C.. 2010. Credibility, Salience, and Legitimacy of Boundary Objects: Water Managers’ Assessment of a Simulation Model in an Immersive Decision Theater. Science and Public Policy 37(3):219–232.Google Scholar
Wiek, A., and Iwaniec, D.. 2014. Quality Criteria for Visions and Visioning in Sustainability Science. Sustainability Science 9(4):497–512. doi: 10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6.Google Scholar
Wiek, A., and Larson, K.L.. 2012. Water, People, and Sustainability—A Systems Framework for Analyzing and Assessing Water Governance Regimes. Water Resources Management 26(11):3153–3171.Google Scholar
Wiek, A., Withycombe Keeler, L., Schweizer, V., and Lang, D.. 2013. Plausibility Indications in Future Scenarios. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 9(2/3/4):133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar