annals of the association of american geographers adapting...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 16 September 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789363144]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Annals of the Association of American GeographersPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352614

Adapting Across Boundaries: Climate Change, Social Learning, andResilience in the U.S.-Mexico Border RegionMargaret Wildera; Christopher A. Scottb; Nicolás Pineda Pablosc; Robert G. Varadyd; Gregg M. Garfine;Jamie McEvoyf

a Latin American Studies and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, b Schoolof Geography and Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, c

Public Policy Studies, El Colegio de Sonora, d Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University ofArizona, e Institute of the Environment and School of Natural Resources and Environment, Universityof Arizona, f School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona,

First published on: 15 September 2010

To cite this Article Wilder, Margaret , Scott, Christopher A. , Pablos, Nicolás Pineda , Varady, Robert G. , Garfin, Gregg M.and McEvoy, Jamie(2010) 'Adapting Across Boundaries: Climate Change, Social Learning, and Resilience in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100: 4, 917 — 928, First published on: 15September 2010 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2010.500235URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.500235

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352614

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.500235

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Adapting Across Boundaries: Climate Change,Social Learning, and Resilience in the U.S.–Mexico

Border RegionMargaret Wilder,∗ Christopher A. Scott,† Nicolas Pineda Pablos,‡ Robert G. Varady,§ Gregg M. Garfin,¶

and Jamie McEvoy#

∗Latin American Studies and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona†School of Geography and Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona

‡Public Policy Studies, El Colegio de Sonora§Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona

¶Institute of the Environment and School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Arizona#School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona

The spatial and human dimensions of climate change are brought into relief at international borders where climatechange poses particular challenges. This article explores “double exposure” to climatic and globalization processesfor the U.S.–Mexico border region, where rapid urbanization, industrialization, and agricultural intensificationresult in vulnerability to water scarcity as the primary climate change concern. For portions of the westernborder within the North American monsoon climate regime, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeprojects temperature increases of 2 to 4◦C by midcentury and up to 3 to 5◦C by 2100, with possible decreases of5 to 8 percent in precipitation. Like the climate and water drivers themselves, proposed societal responses canalso be regionalized across borders. Nevertheless, binational responses are confronted by a complex institutionallandscape. The coproduction of science and policy must be situated in the context of competing institutionaljurisdictions and legitimacy claims. Adaptation to climate change is conventionally understood as more difficultat international borders, yet regionalizing adaptive responses could also potentially increase resilience. Weassess three cases of transboundary collaboration in the Arizona–Sonora region based on specific indicators thatcontribute importantly to building adaptive capacity. We conclude that three key factors can increase resilienceover the long term: shared social learning, the formation of binational “communities of practice” among watermanagers or disaster-relief planners, and the coproduction of climate knowledge. Key Words: adaptive capacity,climate change, U.S.–Mexico border, vulnerability, water.

Las dimensiones espaciales y humanas del cambio climatico se hacen particularmente relevantes en lasfronteras internacionales, lugares donde el cambio climatico genera retos especiales. Este artıculo explorala “doble exposicion” de los procesos climaticos y globalizadores para la region fronteriza EE.UU.–Mexico,donde la rapida urbanizacion, industrializacion e intensificacion agrıcola resultan en vulnerabilidad porescasez de agua, como la preopcupacion primaria por el cambio climatico. En porciones de la fronteraoccidental ubicada dentro del regimen climatico del monzon norteamericano, el Panel Intergubernamentalde Cambio Climatico proyecta incrementos de las temperaturas de 2◦ a 4◦C para mediados de siglo yde hasta 3◦ a 5◦C para el 2100, junto con una posible disminucion de la precipitacion de 5 al 8 porciento. De la misma manera que ocurre con lo concerniente a clima y agua, las respuestas sociales que seproponen tambien pueden regionalizarse a traves de las fronteras. Sin embargo, las respuestas binacionales seven confrontadas con un paisaje institucional complejo. La coproduccion de ciencia y polıticas debe situarse en el

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4) 2010, pp. 917–928 C© 2010 by Association of American GeographersInitial submission, July 2009; revised submission, October 2009; final acceptance, January 2010

Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC.

Downloaded By: [University of Arizona] At: 16:18 16 September 2010

918 Wilder et al.

contexto de jurisdicciones institucionales en competencia y reclamos de legitimidad. La adaptacion al cambioclimatico se la entiende convencionalmente como mas difıcil en fronteras internacionales, pero regionalizarlas respuesta adaptativas tambien puede aumentar potencialmente la resiliencia. Evaluamos tres casos de co-laboracion transfronteriza en la region Arizona-Sonora, con base en indicadores especıficos que contribuyende modo importante a construir capacidad adaptativa. Nuestra conclusion es que hay tres factores claves quepueden incrementar la resiliencia a largo plazo: aprendizaje social compartido, la formacion de “comunidades depractica” binacionales entre administradores del agua y planificadores de alivio por desastres y la coproduccionde conocimiento sobre el clima. Palabras clave: capacidad adaptativa, cambio climatico, frontera EE.UU.–Mexico,vulnerabilidad, agua.

International borders bring into relief the complexand diverse spatial and human dimensions of cli-mate change. The U.S.–Mexico border region is

both emblematic—many countries share transbound-ary climatic regimes—and exceptional—infrequentlydoes an international border juxtapose neighbors withsuch differing, highly uneven development, althoughsome other border areas bear important similarities. Forcountries sharing land borders, the impacts of and adap-tation to climate change in the transboundary con-text pose significant challenges (Pavlakovich-Kochi,Morehouse, and Wastl-Walter 2004). An increasingbody of scholarship has emerged on the specter ofglobal insecurity due to unstable and inequitable en-vironmental governance practices. This research callsfor a greater awareness of the security challenges—broadly interpreted—associated with managing scarcewater and other resources in the context of climatechange (Gerlak, Varady, and Haverland 2009; O’Brien,St. Clair, and Kristofferson 2010). Water security, par-ticularly in a transboundary context, must increasinglyconsider climate change, hydrologic, economic, and in-stitutional dimensions of access to and reliability ofsupply of water for expanding populations. Interna-tional fora, referred to as “global water initiatives” byVarady et al. (2008, 1), have been established specif-ically to address this multidimensionality. Avoiding“hydroschizophrenia” and promoting “hydrosolidarity”among countries competing over contested and increas-ingly scarce water resources are principal goals of thisbody of work (Falkenmark 2001; Jarvis et al. 2005). Yetnational aspects of these challenges typically remainthe focus of policymaking and scholarship. We suggestthat explicit attention to transboundary challenges ofclimate change could yield fresh and beneficial insights.

In the case of the United States and Mexico, develop-ing national adaptive responses to climate change, with-out reference to political and social regimes across the2,000-mile border, has often yielded less-than-optimal,even harmful outcomes. For example, when in 2008the U.S. Department of Homeland Security extended

its border wall at Nogales, without consulting Mexi-can officials, subsequent thunderstorm runoff flowingnorthward into Arizona became trapped and backedup, flooding numerous stores and homes in Mexico andcausing significant property damage. Similar problemshave occurred along the border, as when the UnitedStates unilaterally limited seepage losses in the All-American Canal, which conveys Colorado River waterto San Diego, by lining the channel along the bor-der west of Yuma, Arizona. In response, Mexico filedsuit in international court to seek redress for the lossof groundwater recharge (from the canal seepage) thathad for many decades served a major irrigation districtand sustained critical wetlands habitat. In another ex-ample, Mexico’s nonpayment of its water debt to theUnited States, per terms of the 1944 treaty governingsharing the waters of the Rio Grande, erupted in 2002into a major geopolitical dispute.

In the past, such failures to address transbound-ary issues cooperatively have often characterizedbinational relations. Despite this history, recent ini-tiatives in collaborative, transboundary environmentalmanagement—particularly for water and wastewater—have become more common, with the emergence ofbinational institutions such as the Border EnvironmentCooperation Commission.

This article argues for a transboundary approachto improve the adaptive capacity to climate change,especially for water resources management, in theArizona–Sonora region. Adaptation to climate changeis conventionally understood to be more difficult at in-ternational borders. Yet we maintain that regional adap-tive responses across borders could increase resilienceand decrease vulnerability to climatic changes. Suchcross-border approaches can emerge through shared so-cial learning and knowledge, by creating binationalcommunities of practice, such as among water managersor disaster-relief planners, and by addressing inequitiesresulting from uneven development. We suggest thatthe strengthening of institutional networks and thecoproduction of climate knowledge across borders


Climate Change, Social Learning, and Resilience in the U.S.–Mexico Border Region 919

enhance a binational region’s long-term adaptive ca-pacity and resilience.

Theoretical Approach

Although climate change introduces uncertainty andrisk for water management, a process-oriented analysisfocused on social learning—common understandings ofchallenges among individuals or institutions—allows abetter understanding of this dynamism and uncertainty.Milly et al. (2008) questioned the validity of decisionmaking based on static definitions of the bounds of cli-matic and hydrologic variability. Within transboundarycontexts, adaptive responses to climate change arecomplicated. Risk and vulnerability, socially con-structed concepts, are differentially conceived withincultures and across borders. Our Arizona–Sonoraempirical analysis suggests that binational responses towater resources management must consider the contextof competing institutional jurisdictions and legitimacyclaims.

In seeking the key to the creation of sustainablepolicy informed by the best science, some scholarsemphasize the process of knowledge transmission (Cashet al. 2003), whereas others focus on the creation ofscientist–stakeholder networks (Lemos and Morehouse2005; Pelling et al. 2008). Cash et al. (2003) arguedthat three criteria are key to mobilizing science andtechnology to achieve sustainability: the salience, orrelevance of scientific information to decision makers;the credibility, or scientific adequacy of the informa-tion; and the legitimacy of the information or degree towhich it reflects diverse stakeholder values and beliefsand is seen as unbiased. Cash et al. (2003) identified,in turn, three “functions” that lead to effective linkagesbetween scientific knowledge and the production ofsustainable policy, including the effectiveness of thecommunication of knowledge to policymakers, thetranslation (literal and figurative) of the knowledgein the scientist–decision maker interaction, and themediation of conflicts to ensure transparency andrule enforcement. Lemos and Morehouse (2005)emphasized that the effective coproduction of scientificknowledge and the potential for developing meaningfulpolicy relies on a synergistic relationship among stake-holders and researchers. In their interactions, thesenetworks ideally move beyond discussion to adapt andtransform processes (Lemos and Morehouse 2005, 61).Sustained and dynamic interactions among these net-works can create “usable science” and effective policy.

Following Pelling et al. (2008), we ask how insti-tutions shape capacity to build adaptive organizationswithin the Arizona–Sonora border region. We under-stand adaptive capacity to be a dynamic process basedon social learning between and within institutions,rather than a static condition or set of attributes andoutcomes (Pahl-Wostl 2007; Pelling et al. 2008).Shared social learning in a transboundary setting refersto the development of common conceptual understand-ings of climate challenges and regional vulnerabilityintegrated over multiple institutional scales, fromindividuals and local agencies to state, federal, andbinational actors and authorities. In their analysis ofthe processes associated with effective knowledge shar-ing between experts and decision makers, Cash et al.(2003) illuminated key aspects of the social learningprocess that are referenced in the following individualcases. Social learning can take place by individualsoperating within a formal institution or collectively byinstitutions. Within professional communities (suchas water managers, disaster-relief planners), informalcommunities of practice develop based on trust oversustained, iterative interactions and collaborative,peer-to-peer learning (Pelling et al. 2008). A sustained,dynamic, social learning process can stimulate adaptivecapacity in regional water management institutions.Adaptive management itself is constructed—or verystrongly conditioned—institutionally. By its verynature as an evolutionary, interactive (“learning”-based), and assimilative process, adaptation dependson how challenges are defined and desired outcomesset. Resilience refers to the capacity of socio-ecologicalsystems to self-organize and to build capacity to learnand adapt, to undergo change while retaining the samefunctions and structures (Folke, Hahn, and Olsson2005; Resilience Alliance, http://www.resalliance.org,last accessed 4 March 2010).

Communities are associations based on shared iden-tity in which common values and practices arereinforced (Wenger 1999). Networks are informal con-stellations that cross boundaries of community identityand create new vehicles for information flow withinor between organizations. Together, communities andnetworks can form communities of practice (Wenger1999) that connect due to bridging ties of social capital(e.g., boundary people who bring different communitiestogether into networks, and boundary objects, meetingsor documents that join communities into a linked net-work). Communities of practice can develop adaptivepathways—new institutional priorities or ways of car-rying out activities—within and among organizations.


920 Wilder et al.

One such pathway would be created if an organiza-tion changes its management structure or practices toaccommodate different strategies needed to address cli-mate change.

We first examine the challenges of vulnerability inthe Arizona–Sonora region, targeting the area’s di-verse institutional composition and the problems posedfor developing adaptive capacity. Second, we considercases of innovation in regionalized practices that at-tempt to bridge the transboundary divide. Many of theseare nascent in this region, responding to an evolvingunderstanding of shared cross-border climate and waterchallenges. As a result, we address potential outcomesand emerging results, as all three cases presented are inearly stages of development. Among the authors, one ormore of us has been involved in these different collab-orations or in researching them; thus, this assessmentof adaptive potential also serves to illuminate the more(and less) adaptive aspects of these ongoing collabora-tive processes and may help to improve them as theydevelop. This assessment is not intended as a reportcard on outcomes of any of these processes, but rather,an exploration of the question: what components of bi-national collaboration are most critical to developingsuccessful adaptation? Because all three cases possess themultiple climate–water–institutions dimensionality re-ferred to earlier, assessment of their adaptive-capacitypotential (hereafter, adaptive potential) permits us toapply social learning theory and transboundary analysisas central to science–policy coproduction within eachof the three cases and to derive more generic under-standing relevant for other cases. Evaluation of adaptivepotential considers (1) augmentation strategies (Black-more and Plant 2008) relying on water transferred fromdistant sources or using high-cost technologies and in-frastructure, (2) information flows and data sharing, and(3) regionalized coproduction of knowledge and policy.Via our process-based understanding of adaptive po-tential, we employ three indicators, or measures: (1)dynamic, structured opportunities for social learning;(2) emergence of formal and informal networks; and(3) potential for development of adaptive pathways.These indicators permit us to assess the adaptive poten-tial in three regionalized transboundary cases. In con-clusion, we consider the implications of these regionalstrategies in three contexts: (1) coproduction of sci-ence and policy across national borders, (2) building oftransboundary communities of practice, and (3) devel-opment of shared platforms for social learning withininstitutions.

Vulnerability in the U.S.–Mexico BorderRegion

Vulnerability is conditioned by socioeconomic,institutional, and political as well as environmentalfactors, including climate (Adger et al. 2006). As-sessing vulnerability requires consideration not onlyof exposure to climate change but also of the riskassociated with that exposure and the capacity of anindividual, community, or nation to adapt to impactsof climate change (Adger et al. 2006). Vulnerabilityin the border region’s water sector is thus a functionof intensified socioeconomic processes—rapid growth,accelerated globalization—and environmental change.Socioeconomic vulnerability is also conditioned by age,ethnicity, gender, or class. For example, elderly peopleand African Americans in poor neighborhoods weremost at risk to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina(Verchick 2008). In the border region, the highconcentration of Hispanics, especially in poor U.S.counties and in unplanned Mexican colonias, increasesvulnerability for these populations. People might be athigher risk to drought if water becomes scarce and there-fore more expensive, if they lack sufficient resources toaccess or purchase nontraditional water sources. Afterstorms, water trucks (pipas) that service marginal neigh-borhoods might not have access to homes via floodedstreets. The region’s capacity to respond to these andother high-vulnerabililty water-related challengesdepends largely on its water management institutions.

The U.S.–Mexico border region—as a vulnera-ble area undergoing urbanization, industrialization,and agricultural intensification—is a textbook case of“double exposure” (Leichenko and O’Brien 2008) toclimatic and globalization processes (Liverman andMerideth 2002; Ray et al. 2007). The U.S. Southwestand northwest Mexico, where global climate modelsproject severe precipitation decreases and temperatureincreases, has been called “the front line of ongoing cli-mate change” (Harrison 2009, 1; see Figure 1). Antic-ipated probable impacts include longer, more extremedroughts, higher water and energy demand, decreasedinflows to rivers and streams, and increased urban–agricultural conflict over water (IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change 2007; Seager et al. 2007).

Since the 1980s, the border region has grown fasterthan each country’s national average. In the UnitedStates, an expanding leisure class of retirees, seasonaltourists, and other “amenity seekers” are influencingwater management decisions about consumption and



Figure 1. Projected change in precipi-tation: 1950–2000 to 2021–2040: Pro-jected change in precipitation for the2021–2040 period minus the aver-age over 1950–2000 as a percent-age of the 1950–2000 precipitation.Results are averaged over simula-tions with nineteen different climatemodels. Source: Figure by GabrielVecchi, Geophysical Fluid DynamicsLaboratory, National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration.

conservation. In Mexico, rapid urban growth, drivenby availability of jobs created by hundreds of foreign-owned maquiladoras, has shifted water-use prioritiesaway from the past farming and ranching economy.Although agriculture remains the largest user of waterin Arizona (70 percent of total demand; Arizona De-partment of Water Resources 2009) and Sonora (86percent of consumptive use; Comision Nacional delAgua 2008), growth patterns are driving a shift of waterto urban areas. In Mexico’s northwest, one quarter ofaquifers are severely overdrafted. In Sonora 95 percentof the population has potable water supply and 84 per-cent has sewerage service (Comision Nacional del Agua2008). Many households that have hookups experiencedaily interruptions to water service, however, and tapwater is generally not of drinking quality.

Complex Binational InstitutionalLandscape

Water management in the border region is frag-mented and complex with disparate characteristics in

the two countries. The geopolitical relationship be-tween the United States and Mexico complicates co-operation and agreement on water management. Forexample, U.S. immigration control or drug-traffickingpolicies often are made with little consultation withMexico and exacerbate the geopolitical context withinwhich binational water resources issues are considered.

Even otherwise uncomplicated tasks such as con-structing a regional database are more difficult in thisregion, which lacks comparable data and a history ofsharing such information (Comrie 2003). Over the pastcentury, the two national governments have establishedseveral joint institutions for managing transboundarywaters—such as the International Boundary and Wa-ter Commission (IBWC) and its Mexican counterpart,CILA; the La Paz Treaty of 1983; and the post-NAFTABorder Environment Cooperation Commission—butthese institutions have only a narrow range of responsi-bility, much of it involving infrastructure construction(Varady and Ward 2009).

In Mexico, water management remains highlycentralized in the National Water Commission,


922 Wilder et al.

Table 1. Indicators for assessment of potential adaptive capacity building in regionalized transboundary initiatives

Potential to develop Overall assessment ofSocial Formal Informal adaptive pathways potential adaptive

Transboundary regionalized initiatives learning networks networks within institutions capacity

Augmentation strategies: Desalination proposals Low Low None Low LowData sharing and improved information flows: TAAP High High Low Medium MediumCoproduction of science and policy: Binational Climate

Summary and urban/coastal vulnerabilityassessments and planning

High High High Medium High

Note: TAAP = U.S.–Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program.

headquartered in the capital (Scott and Banister 2008;Varady and Ward 2009). Despite more than a decadeof transferring water management formally to local mu-nicipalities and water user associations in irrigationdistricts, the impact of decentralization has been un-even and limited by lack of revenue-generating author-ity (Pineda 2002; Wilder and Romero-Lankao 2006;Wilder 2010). In spite of regional variations in waterand climatic conditions, the federal government im-poses a uniform administrative and management struc-ture. Urban water managers have very limited accessto the climate information necessary to plan moreadaptively for climate change (Browning-Aiken et al.2007). Although many rigorous environmental laws ex-ist, their enforcement is uneven. Most seriously, in aweak economy, lack of funding constrains all levels ofresource management. Short municipal terms, limitedto three years, and lack of a civil service cause high per-sonnel turnover, making sustained planning difficult toachieve over a multiyear horizon (Pineda 2002).

On the U.S. side, most water management insti-tutions are decentralized, with multiple instances ofoverlapping missions and jurisdiction among variousfederal, state, and local agencies. Emblematically, damand reservoir management and allocation is shared bythe Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal powermarketing agencies, state and local water managemententities, public utilities, and irrigation districts (U.S.Climate Change Science Program 2009).

Given the challenges of socioeconomic and climaticvulnerability—increasing water demand, greater com-petition among users for a shrinking supply, and increas-ing economic intensification—water managers in theArizona–Sonora border region are seeking ways bothto augment and conserve water sources to ensure thatsupply can meet projected demand.

Next, we examine three cases of regionalized adap-tation to transboundary water management (ranging

in adaptive potential from low to high) based onthe indicators we have identified—dynamic, structuredopportunities for social learning; existence of formaland informal networks; and potential for developingadaptive pathways. The assessments are summarized inTable 1.

Case 1: Desalination as a Water AugmentationStrategy (Low Adaptive Potential)

Desalination of seawater has attracted both attentionand financing by those who see it as a failproof source ofwater in the study region (Kohlhoff and Roberts 2007).As the cost of desalination has decreased, its appealfor augmentation has risen. Nevertheless, desalinationdoes not rank high in our measures of adaptive poten-tial. Although desalination, as a technological inno-vation, could meet increasing demand, it is unlikelyto prompt sustainable change in water users’ behaviorsunder climate change. In fact, desalination, if not cou-pled with conservation measures, enables a business-as-usual water culture—averse to social learning—anddiscourages sustainable water use. The region’s majorurban areas would become dependent on both desali-nation technology and good relations between U.S.and Mexican authorities—each of which could proveunreliable.

In the study region, desalination has important trans-boundary implications. For example, the municipalityof Puerto Penasco, a booming coastal resort town, plansto construct a desalination plant (Figure 2). There aretwenty resorts in Puerto Penasco, with approved per-mits for eighty-six more (Interview with desalinationproject coordinator, 10 November 2008). With limitedaccess to surface water and exhausted aquifers, PuertoPenasco must turn to desalination to sustain itself andenable growth.

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency financeda feasibility study for the desalination project, in part



Figure 2. Arizona–Sonora region ofthe U.S.–Mexico border. Credit:Rolando Diaz Caravantes.

due to the economic promise the $35 million planthas for U.S. consultants and contractors. States in theSouthwestern United States are interested in more thanfeasibility studies, however; they favor transboundaryarrangements offering access to the desalinated water.Arizona and Sonora have partnered to commission astudy of a binational desalination plant, also in PuertoPenasco, as a part of both states’ future water augmenta-tion strategies (HDR 2009). Nevada water augmenta-tion plans speak of a similar strategy (Southern NevadaWater Authority 2009). The plans variously offer to payfor desalination plants in Mexico in exchange for sharesof Mexico’s Colorado River allocations or to convey wa-ter to points of use in Sonora and across the border inthe United States (Glennon and Pearce 2007; Kohlhoffand Roberts 2007).

Many consequences of the proposed desalination—including the effects of brine “reject” discharge—are

not known, and the results of an environmental im-pact study scheduled for completion in December 2008have not been released. No existing federal law reg-ulates how a desalination plant operates in Mexico(Lopez-Perez 2009). Although developing new sourcesof fresh water to augment existing groundwater sourceswould protect aquifers and potentially allow them torecover to nearer equilibrium levels, perceived limitlesssupplies of water likely would encourage urban growth.There could be additional impacts on the fragile es-tuaries and fisheries of the Gulf of California and po-tential disruption of significant ecosystems where theproposed aqueduct would traverse the desert. More-over, because Arizona and Nevada would continueto use their full allotments plus desalinated supply—without reducing current use—no net gains to theaquifers or to Colorado River allocations likely would berealized.


924 Wilder et al.

Overall, then, we assess the augmentation strategiesof desalination to be of low adaptive potential. Assessedagainst the identified indicators, the desalination pro-posals do not involve structured opportunities for sociallearning or changes in institutional culture or policy pri-orities. Data sharing would be in the context of formalcontract-based exchanges, rather than more permeable,fluid, relational kinds of knowledge exchanges such asthose identified by Cash et al. (2003). New communi-ties of practice are not anticipated to emerge from de-salination strategies and binational relationships will bestraitjacketed within a bounded legal framework. Thedesalination strategies are not only unlikely to add toadaptive capacity, but they could lead to more of the en-trenched, legalistic relations that have sometimes ham-pered cooperative, binational water management in thepast. Absent a conservation strategy, these strategies en-able a status quo water culture that views desalinatedseawater as a limitless substitute for fresh water. Iron-ically, increased interdependence will ensue under theproposed desalination strategies, requiring improved co-operation between the United States and Mexico, yetthese strategies do little to foster better communica-tion and enhanced collaboration and therefore couldactually increase vulnerability.

Case 2: Data Sharing and Improved InformationFlows (Medium Adaptive Potential)

Within the border region, lack of data comparabilityand data sharing have long been challenges that hindertransboundary cooperation. Scientific knowledge aboutgroundwater aquifers is particularly sparse. The U.S.–Mexico surface water treaty of 1944 and the com-mission structure to enforce it created institutionsfor water quantity allocation and water-quality mon-itoring. Transboundary groundwater, by contrast, hasproved more difficult to govern (Feitelson 2006).

An emerging initiative, the U.S.–Mexico Trans-boundary Aquifer Assessment Program (TAAP), seeksto overcome these institutional and water-resourcechallenges through binational collaboration. Autho-rized by U.S. federal law and funded by annual budgetappropriations, TAAP is implemented by the U.S. Ge-ological Survey and the state water resources researchinstitutes of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, withcollaboration from Mexican federal, state, and localcounterparts as well as IBWC and CILA. Three essen-tial steps characterize TAAP: (1) building shared vi-sion through joint setting of objectives and prioritizedoutcomes, a process based on learning among bound-

ary people; (2) scientific assessment of groundwater re-sources; and (3) dual adaptive-management strategiesthat conform to each country’s institutional environ-ment while expanding binational information flows anddata exchange.

Over TAAP’s brief lifetime, mutually defined pri-orities for Arizona’s and Sonora’s common Santa Cruzand San Pedro aquifers have been identified as vehiclesfor water for growth, adaptation to climate change,local aquifer-recharge programs, and institutionalassessment of groundwater management asymmetries.These priorities reflect fulfillment of two of the effectiveknowledge transmission criteria identified by Cashet al. (2003), as both salience (relevance of informa-tion shared) and credibility (scientific adequacy ofthe information) appear to be fully satisfied by TAAPprocesses for data sharing. It is explicitly recognizedthat binational aquifer assessment will support eachnation’s management of its share of transboundaryaquifers. One implication is that water quality hasreceived diminished attention, given that, upstream,Mexico considered it disadvantageous to identifysources of groundwater pollution. Additionally, TAAPtakes a regional approach by emphasizing aquifer-levelpriority setting and assessment that account fordifferences between participating states on the U.S.side. However, the principal boundary object in thiscase (the physical aquifer spanning the border) is notsubject to a shared learning approach to managementas a result of contrasting laws and regulations forgroundwater in the United States and Mexico.

Sharing of information—both as inputs to thescientific assessments and outputs from binationalactivities—is a critical social-learning feature of TAAPthat confers it adaptive potential; however, much hasyet to be realized. A negotiation process is underwaywithin the IBWC/CILA umbrella, leading to a bina-tional agreement to identify aquifers for assessment,permit exchange of information, initiate assessmentactivities, and disseminate results. In the UnitedStates, where groundwater is managed and regulatedby state and local entities, a flexible mechanismwas sought for direct cross-border collaboration withhomologue entities. In Mexico, by contrast, federalauthority regulates groundwater, and as a result ofthis asymmetry, agreement was sought within theIBWC/CILA framework. Operating within this insti-tutional arrangement will present challenges for someTAAP stakeholders who are accustomed to pursuingwater resources and institutional analyses unfettered bya commission structure and the need to review results



prior to dissemination. Nevertheless, TAAP is alreadygenerating successful, binational examples of exchangeof transboundary aquifer information; for Santa Cruz,a bilingual database of existing studies and reports hasbeen created, and a similar one is in development forSan Pedro. To date, users have been other stakeholdersdirectly engaged in the TAAP process; a version forpublic, Web-based release is planned for the nearfuture.

Such data sharing and improved information flowstrategies rank in our assessment as of medium adap-tive potential. For TAAP, they require substantial so-cial learning and involve sustained interactions amongprimarily formal organizations. In this sense, the inter-actions among professional communities for the expresspurpose of data sharing take place within a more pas-sive and bounded framework of interaction, with littleemphasis on organic, informal network formation ora shared platform of ongoing social learning—henceour assessment that TAAP has medium, albeit verypositive, adaptive potential. TAAP could lead to im-portant improvements in sharing of climate and ground-water information across national boundaries and couldpotentially develop more systematic incorporation ofnew information sources into organizations’ planningpractices.

Case 3: Coproduction of Science and Policy withBinational Stakeholders (High Adaptive Potential)

The U.S.–Mexico border region is a fruitful place forcollaboration among stakeholders and scientists whoshare a common interest in developing adaptive capac-ity to respond to climate change in the water sector.We focus this analysis on just two of several impor-tant stakeholder-based science initiatives within thebinational Arizona–Sonora region that potentially cancontribute in new ways to building adaptive capacity inthe water sector.

The first is the development of a binational and bilin-gual climate outlook newsletter and Web site, calledthe Border Climate Summary/Resumen del Clima de laFrontera (henceforth BCS).1 The BCS is based on theSouthwest Climate Outlook, produced by the ClimateAssessment of the Southwest program for over sevenyears (Jacobs, Garfin, and Lenart 2005). The BCS is be-ing developed as part of collaborative research betweenclimate and social scientists in Arizona and Sonora,in consultation with border-region stakeholders. Cur-rently in its fifth quarterly edition, the BCS has threegoals: (1) to give scientists a tangible foundation from

which they can engage stakeholders in dialogues abouthydroclimate data and information needs for decisionmaking; (2) to integrate, in one place, value-added hy-droclimate information from disparate sources in theUnited States and Mexico; and (3) to convey new sci-ence findings on topics germane to the interests of re-gional stakeholders.

The binational research team engages urban watermanagers and disaster-relief planners in a series of work-shops that elicit stakeholders’ feedback and suggestionsto test and refine the BCS and to learn about otherregion-specific data, information, and research needs,such as a comprehensive hydroclimate information por-tal for the border region. Participants in a 2008 Sonoranworkshop noted that they are keen to understand moreabout North American Monsoon dynamics, tropical cy-clone prediction, groundwater resources, and other in-formation that can be provided through BCS featurearticles (Coles, Scott, and Garfin 2009). At the work-shops, stakeholders iteratively provide feedback to theresearchers, to inform and help create the science prod-ucts and delineate the specific information they need toplan more adaptively for climate challenges. Workshopthemes have focused on urban issues, national perspec-tives, and coastal vulnerabilities.

The BCS newsletter is a form of coproduction ofknowledge that informs policy by increasing access torecent science results (in layperson-friendly language),building capacity for regional stakeholders to use cli-mate information, involving them in the developmentof the content, and increasing coordination betweeninformation providers in both nations.

In related regional research, the binational teamis working with regional stakeholders to developvulnerability assessments for each participating urbanarea, taking into account the impacts of climate changeon future water supply. Although planning towardmid- and long-term horizons (five, ten, or twenty years)is a well-developed practice among the Arizona watermanagers, very little planning is conducted in equallyvulnerable Sonora urban areas due to lack of resourcesand inaccessibility of appropriate data. By working withstakeholders to jointly develop appropriate climatedata (in part via the BCS) and understanding of urbanvulnerabilities, to future water demand needs—via iter-ative workshops, surveys, and interviews—researchershope to develop communities of practice, or informaltransboundary networks of water and emergencymanagement professionals. These networks ultimatelymight rely on common or shared sources of climatedata, common understandings of urban vulnerability


926 Wilder et al.

within the region, and best practices for planningadaptively to meet climate-related challenges.

All of these regionalized, transboundary processesto engage the scientific, stakeholder, and policymakingcommunities are ongoing, making it difficult to assessthe ultimate level of achievement they will attain inyielding more adaptive regional solutions. We assess theBCS and the urban vulnerability–stakeholder engage-ment initiatives to be of high adaptive potential, dueto the dynamic and structured social learning opportu-nities, the development of professional networks, andthe coproduction of scientific knowledge (especially inthe BCS) that could lead to new adaptive pathwayswithin the participating institutions. Both the BCS andthe urban vulnerability case studies engage iterativelywith stakeholders via surveys and workshops that aredesigned explicitly to develop knowledge-sharing pro-cesses and products that meet the standards of salience,credibility, and legitimacy (Cash et al. 2003). Theresponse and participation of stakeholders has beenpromising. For example, some 130 stakeholders repre-senting twenty-one agencies and management institu-tions attended workshops held over the last eighteenmonths. About 1,500 persons receive the BCS/RCF.A formal initial evaluation of the BCS newsletter in-dicated that it fills a gap in needs for region-specificinformation, particularly by making bilingual informa-tion more accessible.

Conclusions

The regionalized approaches we have assessed havethe potential to stimulate adaptive planning and man-agement over a long term. On the other hand, theborder region’s convoluted and often divisive institu-tional arrangements, coupled with the legalistic frame-work that guides most decision making, can complicateand impede collaboration and cooperation. Althoughthe literature on scientific knowledge transmission foreffective policy offers helpful guideposts for evaluatingthe quality of social learning and knowledge-sharingprocesses (e.g., Cash et al. 2003; Pelling et al. 2008),it is challenging to identify objective measures of ad-vances in social learning. Loose networks of stakehold-ers might come together for a time and coalesce arounda shared platform of understanding and concepts aboutvulnerability and adaptation, only to be disrupted byelections that place new individuals in key stakeholderroles, or might be aided by a major occurrence (such asa hurricane) that underscores the vulnerability of com-

munities within the region. Researchers rely on time-limited funding sources, making researcher interactionsalso part of the fragile fabric of scientist–stakeholdernetworks. In the transboundary U.S.–Mexico region,adaptations such as binational desalination plans couldpotentially reduce water supply vulnerability in theSouthwestern United States while potentially increas-ing environmental vulnerability in Mexico. The trans-boundary nature of developing sustainable solutions isparticularly difficult.

Nevertheless, we find that two of the three initiativesdiscussed hold promising adaptive potential. Thesestrategies, if pursued, could increase social learningamong urban water managers, emergency-preparednessplanners, and coastal-resources planners. Both formaland informal networks are being advanced throughsustained and iterative interactions among differentresource managers within the Arizona–Sonora region,facilitated both by boundary people (e.g., the researchteam and local stakeholders in each site who planand facilitate meetings) and by boundary objects (e.g.,the workshops and the binational climate summary).Working together to produce and refine the binationalclimate summary with a regional focus on a sharedclimate regime (e.g., the monsoon) illustrates the co-production of scientific knowledge that can influencepolicy within the region and encourage more sustain-able planning. In the end, new communities of practicemight emerge that institutionalize regional climatescience and “climatic thinking” into their current andfuture water management practices, share institutionaldata within the community, and are committed tocollaboration.

Moving beyond the entrenched patterns of divisiveand bounded dealings on water management might in-crease regional resilience and offer communities morecapacity to face looming changes. The obstacles associ-ated with transboundary engagement are steep but theconsequences of noncooperation are dire. Transbound-ary scientist–stakeholder collaboration might holdthe key to confronting climate change in vulnerableborderlands.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the major fund-ing sources that supported this research, includingthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion (NOAA) Sectoral Applications Research Program(Grant NA080AR4310704); the Climate Assessment



for the Southwest Program (Grant NA16GP2578) atthe University of Arizona, supported by the NOAAClimate Program Office; and the U.S.–Mexico Trans-boundary Aquifer Assessment Project, with fundingfrom the U.S. Geological Survey. This research wasalso made possible in part under a grant from the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI)project SGP-HD #005, which is supported by the U.S.National Science Foundation (Grant GEO-0642841).In addition, the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. UdallFoundation has provided support since the mid-1990sfor much of the environmental policy work underly-ing this article. At the Udall Center for Studies inPublic Policy, we thank Robert Merideth for his edi-torial guidance.

Note1. The Border Climate Summary is available in English

and in Spanish (Resumen del Clima de la Frontera) athttp://www.climas.arizona.edu/forecasts/border/summary.html. Links to the BCS are found on the Colegio deSonora (www.colson.edu.mx) and Centro de Investi-gacion Cientıfica y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada,Baja California (CICESE) Web sites (http://usuario.cicese.mx/∼tcavazos/).

References

Adger, W. N., J. Paavola, S. Huq, and M. J. Mace, eds. 2006.Fairness in adaptation to climate change. Cambridge, MA:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 2009. Statewidewater demand in 2001–2005 and 2006. Phoenix: ArizonaDepartment of Water Resources, Office of Resources As-sessment Planning, Statewide Planning.

Blackmore, J. M., and R. A. J. Plant. 2008. Risk and re-silience to enhance sustainability with application tourban water systems. Journal of Water Resources Planningand Management 134 (3): 224–33.

Browning-Aiken, A., B. J. Morehouse, A. Davis, M. Wilder,R. Varady, D. Goodrich, R. Carter, D. Moreno, andE. D. McGovern. 2007. Climate, water management,and policy in the San Pedro basin: Results of a surveyof Mexican stakeholders near the U.S.-Mexico border.Climatic Change 85 (3–4): 323–41.

Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N.Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jager, and R. B. Mitchell. 2003.Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (14):8086–91.

Coles, A. R., C. A. Scott, and G. Garfin. 2009.Weather, climate, and water: An assessment ofrisk, vulnerability, and communication on the U.S.–Mexico border. Extended Abstract 1.4, FourthSymposium on Policy and Socio-Economic Re-search, American Meteorological Society 89th an-

nual meeting, Phoenix, AZ. http://ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/techprogram/paper 149938.htm (last ac-cessed 3 March 2010).

Comision Nacional del Agua [National Water Commission].2008. Estadısticas del agua en Mexico [Water statistics inMexico]. Mexico City, Mexico: CONAGUA.

Comrie, A. C. 2003. Climate doesn’t stop at the border:U.S.–Mexican climatic regions and causes of variabil-ity. In Climate and water: Transboundary challenges in theAmericas, ed. H. F. Dıaz and B. J. Morehouse, 291–316.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Falkenmark, M. 2001. The greatest water problem: The in-ability to link environmental security, water security,and food security. Water Resources Development 17 (4):539–54.

Feitelson, E. 2006. Impediments to the management of sharedaquifers: A political economy perspective. HydrogeologyJournal 14:319–29.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, and P. Olsson. 2005. Adaptive gover-nance of socio-ecological ecosystems. Annual Review ofEnvironment and Resources 30 (8): 18–33.

Gerlak, A. K., R. G. Varady, and A. C. Haverland. 2009.Hydrosolidarity and international water governance. In-ternational Negotiation 14 (21): 311–28.

Glennon, R., and M. J. Pearce. 2007. Transferring mainstemColorado River water rights: The Arizona experience.Arizona Law Review 49 (2): 235–56.

Harrison, J. 2009. New report outlines current, future im-pacts of climate change. UA News Web site, inter-view with Jonathan Overpeck. Tucson: University ofArizona. http://uanews.org/node/26043 (last accessed 16June 2009).

HDR. 2009. Investigation of binational desalination for thebenefit of Arizona, United States and Sonora, Mexico:Final report to Central Arizona Project and Salt RiverProject, Phoenix, AZ, June 5.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climatechange 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the In-tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S. Solomon,D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Av-eryt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, 1–996. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, K., G. Garfin, and M. Lenart. 2005. More than justtalk: Connecting science and decisionmaking. Environ-ment 47 (9): 6–21.

Jarvis, T., M. Giordano, S. Puri, K. Matsumoto, and A. Wolf.2005. International borders, ground water flow, and hy-droschizophrenia. Ground Water 43 (5): 764–70.

Kohlhoff, K., and D. Roberts. 2007. Beyond the ColoradoRiver: Is an international water augmentation consor-tium in Arizona’s future? Arizona Law Review 49:257–95.

Leichenko, R., and K. L. O’Brien. 2008. Environmental changeand globalization: Double exposures. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Lemos, M. C., and B. J. Morehouse. 2005. The co-productionof science and policy in integrated climate assessments.Global Environmental Change 15:57–68.

Liverman, D. M., and R. Merideth. 2002. Climate and so-ciety in the U.S. Southwest: The context for a regionalassessment. Climate Research 21:199–218.

Lopez-Perez, M. 2009. Desalination plants in Mexico: Op-eration, issues, and regulation. Paper presented at the


928 Wilder et al.

Arizona-Mexico Commission Water Committee Sum-mer Plenary, Phoenix, AZ, June 5.

Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch,Z. W. Kundzewicz, D. P. Lettenmaier, and R. J. Stouffer.2008. Stationarity is dead: Whither water management?Science 319:573–74.

O’Brien, K. L., A. St. Clair, and B. Kristofferson, eds. 2010.Climate change, ethics, and human security. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. Transitions towards adaptive manage-ment of water facing climate and global change. Journalof Water Resources Management 21 (1): 49–62.

Pavlakovich-Kochi, V., B. J. Morehouse, and D. Wastl-Walter, eds. 2004. Challenged borderlands: Transcendingpolitical and cultural boundaries. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Pelling, M., C. High, J. Dearing, and D. Smith. 2008.Shadow spaces for social learning: A relational un-derstanding of adaptive capacity to climate changewithin organizations. Environment and Planning A 40:867–84.

Pineda, P. N. 2002. La polıtica urbana de agua potable enMexico: Del centralismo y los subsidios a la munici-palizacion, la autosuficiencia y la privatizacion [Urbandrinking water policy in Mexico: From centralizationand subsidies to municipalization, self-sufficiency, andprivatization.]. Region y Sociedad 14 (24): 41–69.

Ray, A. J., G. M. Garfin, M. Wilder, M. Vasquez-Leon, M.Lenart, and A. C. Comrie. 2007. Applications of mon-soon research: Opportunities to inform decisionmakingand reduce regional vulnerability. Journal of Climate 20(9): 1608–27.

Scott, C. A., and J. M. Banister. 2008. The dilemma of watermanagement “regionalization” in Mexico under central-ized resource allocation. International Journal of WaterResources Development 24 (1): 61–74.

Seager, R., M. Ting, I. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi,H.-P. Huang, et al. 2007. Model projections of an immi-nent transition to a more arid climate in SouthwesternNorth America. Science 316 (5828): 1181–84.

Southern Nevada Water Authority. 2009. Water re-source plan 09. http://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/wr planchapter2.pdf (last accessed 3 March 2010).

United States Climate Change Science Program. 2009.Decision-support experiments and evaluations usingseasonal-to-interannual forecasts and observational data: Afocus on water resources. Washington, DC: U.S. ClimateChange Science Program.

Varady, R. G., K. Meehan, J. Rodda, E. McGovern, and M.Iles-Shih. 2008. Strengthening global water initiatives.Environment 50 (2): 18–31.

Varady, R. G., and E. Ward. 2009. Transboundary conser-vation in context: What drives environmental change?In Conservation of shared environments: Learning fromthe United States and Mexico, ed. L. Lopez-Hoffman, E.McGovern, R. G. Varady, and K. W. Flessa, 9–22.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Verchick, R. M. 2008. Katrina, feminism, and environmentaljustice. Cardozo Journal of Law and Gender 14 (2): 791–800.

Wenger, E. 1999. Communities of practice: Learning, mean-ing and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Wilder, M. 2010. Water governance in Mexico: Politicaland economic apertures and the shifting state-citizenrelationship. Ecology and Society 15(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art22/ (last accessed 11July 2010).

Wilder, M., and P. Romero-Lankao. 2006. Paradoxes of de-centralization: Neoliberal reforms and water institutionsin Mexico. World Development 34 (11): 1977–95.

Correspondence: Center for Latin American Studies/Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, e-mail:[email protected] (Wilder); School of Geography and Development/Udall Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, e-mail:[email protected] (Scott); El Colegio de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, 83000, Mexico, e-mail: [email protected] (Pineda); UdallCenter for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, e-mail: [email protected] (Varady); Institute for theEnvironment/School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, e-mail: [email protected](Garfin); School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; e-mail: [email protected] (McEvoy).


annals of the association of american geographers adapting...

Documents