This article was downloaded by: [University Of Pittsburgh]On: 24 May 2013, At: 07:25Publisher: 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.tandfonline.com/loi/raag20

Water Security and Adaptive Management in the AridAmericasChristopher A. Scott a , Francisco J. Meza b , Robert G. Varady c , Holm Tiessen d , JamieMcEvoy e , Gregg M. Garfin f , Margaret Wilder g , Luis M. Farfán h , Nicolás Pineda Pablos i &Elma Montaña ja School of Geography & Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy,University of Arizonab Departamento de Ecosistemas y Medio Ambiente y Centro de Cambio Global, PontificiaUniversidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chilec Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizonad Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, São José dos Campos, Brazile School of Geography & Development, University of Arizonaf Institute of the Environment and School of Natural Resources & Environment, University ofArizonag School of Geography & Development and Center for Latin American Studies, University ofArizonah Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, La Paz, Méxicoi El Colegio de Sonora, Hermosillo, Méxicoj CONICET y Universidad Nacional-Cuyo, Mendoza, ArgentinaPublished online: 27 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Christopher A. Scott , Francisco J. Meza , Robert G. Varady , Holm Tiessen , Jamie McEvoy , GreggM. Garfin , Margaret Wilder , Luis M. Farfán , Nicolás Pineda Pablos & Elma Montaña (2013): Water Security and AdaptiveManagement in the Arid Americas, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103:2, 280-289

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754660

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone 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 doses shouldbe 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 directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Water Security and Adaptive Managementin the Arid Americas

Christopher A. Scott,∗ Francisco J. Meza,† Robert G. Varady,‡ Holm Tiessen,§ Jamie McEvoy,#

Gregg M. Garfin,¶ Margaret Wilder,£ Luis M. Farfan,¥ Nicolas Pineda Pablos,¢ and Elma Montana�

∗School of Geography & Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona†Departamento de Ecosistemas y Medio Ambiente y Centro de Cambio Global, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

‡Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona§Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil

#School of Geography & Development, University of Arizona¶Institute of the Environment and School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Arizona£School of Geography & Development and Center for Latin American Studies, University of Arizona

¥Centro de Investigacion Cientıfica y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada, La Paz, Mexico¢El Colegio de Sonora, Hermosillo, Mexico�CONICET y Universidad Nacional-Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina

Societal use of freshwater, ecosystems’ dependence on water, and hydroclimatic processes interact dynamically.Changes in any of these subsystems can cause unpredictable feedback, resulting in water insecurity for humansand ecosystems. By drawing on resilience theory, we extend current productive–destructive framings of watersecurity to better address societal–ecosystem–hydroclimatic (SEH) interactions, dynamics, and uncertaintiesthat drive insecurity but also offer response opportunities. Strengthening water security in this sense requiresstrategies that (1) conceptually and practically interlink SEH subsystems; (2) recognize extreme conditions andthresholds; and (3) plan for water security via structured exchanges between researchers and decision makers inways that account for institutions and governance frameworks. Through scrutiny of case evidence from water-scarce regions in western North America and the Central Andes, we assert that ensuring water security requiresadaptive management (interactive planning that accounts for uncertainties, initiates responses, and iterativelyassesses outcomes). Researchers and stakeholders from these regions are pursuing a multiyear series of workshopsthat promote science-based decision making while factoring in the political implications of water planning.This study briefly reviews an emerging water security initiative for the arid Americas that aims to enhanceunderstanding of adaptive approaches to strengthen water security. Finally, by synthesizing efforts in the aridAmericas, we offer insights for other water-insecure regions. Key Words: adaptive management, arid Americas,science–policy networks, social–ecological resilience, water security.

��������������������, ���������������������������,

������������, ���������������������������, ��������

�����—�����,����� �����������������—����—���� (SEH)��

������������������,���������������; (1)����������SEH��

��; (2)����������; (3)�������������������������,��������

����������������������������, ����������������

� (�����������������������) ���������������������

������, �������������, ����������������������������

��������������������, ����������������������, ���

������������, ���������������� ���: �����, �����, �

�—����,��—�����,������

El uso social del agua potable, la dependencia de los ecosistemas del agua y los procesos hidroclimaticos interactuandinamicamente. Cualquier cambio que ocurra en uno de estos subsistemas puede causar impredecibles feedbacksque resulten en inseguridad hıdrica para humanos y ecosistemas por igual. Apoyandonos en la teorıa de laresiliencia, extendemos los actuales marcos productivo–destructivos de seguridad del agua para abocar mejor lasinteracciones societarias–hidroclimaticas–ecosistemicas (SHE), la dinamica y las incertidumbres, que acarrean

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2) 2013, pp. 280–289 C© 2013 by Association of American GeographersInitial submission, October 2011; revised submission, July 2012; final acceptance, August 2012

Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

Water Security and Adaptive Management in the Arid Americas 281

inseguridad pero que tambien ofrecen oportunidades de respuesta. Para fortalecer la seguridad del agua eneste sentido se requieren estrategias que (1) entrelacen conceptual y practicamente los subsistemas SHE; (2)reconozcan las condiciones y umbrales extremos, y (3) planifiquen la seguridad del agua a traves de intercambiosestructurados entre investigadores y directivos decisores, de tal suerte que tomen en cuenta las instituciones ylos marcos de gobernanza. Mediante el escrutinio de evidencia de caso en regiones pobres en agua del oeste deNorteamerica y en los Andes Centrales, reafirmamos que para garantizar la seguridad del agua se requiere de unmanejo flexible (planificacion interactiva que tome en cuenta las incertidumbres, que inicie respuestas y quereiterativamente evalue los resultados). Los investigadores y los interesados adelantan en estas regiones una seriede varios talleres por ano que promueven la toma de decisiones con fundamentacion cientıfica, al tiempo exploranlas implicaciones polıticas de la planificacion del agua. Este estudio resena brevemente una nueva iniciativa deseguridad hıdrica para las Americas aridas que busca enaltecer la comprension de enfoques flexibles para fortaleceraquella seguridad. Finalmente, al sintetizar los esfuerzos que se hacen en las Americas, estamos ofreciendo salidasinteligentes para los problemas que tienen otras regiones inseguras desde el punto de vista hıdrico. Palabras clave:manejo flexible, Americas aridas, redes cientıfico-polıticas, resiliencia socio-ecologica, seguridad hıdrica.

Increasingly, hydrological variability that resultsfrom climate change is threatening societies andecosystems via their dependence on freshwater. Si-

multaneously, global change (including expansion ofirrigated food production, growing urban populationswith lifestyles that heighten water demand, intensifyinguse of water for power generation, and regional integra-tion into global economies) is altering hydrological pro-cesses. Stark examples of these changes include waterrationing in New Delhi and the Aral Sea dust flats. Theplanet is confronting peak water (Gleick and Palaniap-pan 2010) and ensuing uncertainties around an insecurewater future. Conversely, water in extreme excess cancause interlinked societal and ecosystem vulnerabilities(e.g., Hurricane Katrina’s destruction of communitiesand wetlands along the U.S. Gulf Coast; Wilbanks andKates 2010).

By addressing complex social and biophysical inter-dependencies on water, our article contributes tohuman–environment geography’s interdisciplinarityand grand-challenge scope (Skole 2004; current An-nals special issue series on climate change, health, water,etc.). We aim to demonstrate conceptually the dynamicnature of water security and illustrate its applicationusing case examples. Our point of departure is the un-derstanding of water as simultaneously productive anddestructive, perhaps best expressed by Grey and Sadoff’s(2007, 547–48) definition of water security: “the avail-ability of an acceptable quantity and quality of waterfor health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production, cou-pled with an acceptable level of water-related risks topeople, environments and economies.” The expandingwater security literature (e.g., Vorosmarty et al. 2010;Norman, Bakker, and Dunn 2011; Bakker 2012; Boga-rdi et al. 2012) adds much nuance and refined under-standing, especially of governance challenges (Zeitoun2011; Cook and Bakker 2012). We build on these

framings by shedding light on the dynamic nature ofsocietal–ecosystem–hydroclimatic (SEH) interactionsthat characterize insecurity and uncertainty. In turn,we advance dialogue-based, inclusive responses to wa-ter insecurity.

As shown in Figure 1, we conceptualize three-waySEH interactions that push against resilience thresh-olds (Gunderson, Allen, and Holling 2010) throughdynamics that originate in one or more subsystems butthat are highly uncertain in magnitude, duration, im-pact, and mutual feedbacks.

It is increasingly apparent in multiple locations,as described later, that interconnected systems, oncedestabilized, can rapidly threaten societal and ecosys-tem uses of water. We thus propose a unifying definition:Water security constitutes the sustainable availabilityof adequate quantities and qualities of water for re-silient societies and ecosystems in the face of uncertainglobal change. Our definition introduces the resiliencedimension as necessary, because more static conceptu-alizations of water security inadequately address mutu-ally interactive coupled human–natural dynamics andtherefore might overlook possibilities for recovery fromwater insecurity. This in turn leads to our assertion thatadaptation—both in terms of societal and ecosystemmanagement—is a corollary to defining and pursuingwater security.

Adaptive management, which first emerged fromecosystems theory and practice (Holling 1978), rapidlygained appeal in the analysis of social–ecologicalsystems (Berkes and Folke 1998) and coupledhuman–natural resilience (Nelson, Adger, and Brown2007). Adaptive water management accounts foruncertainty through flexible planning, knowledgesharing—especially between scientists and decisionmakers—and enhanced capacity to respond reflex-ively to multiple and uncertain processes of change

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

282 Scott et al.

Figure 1. Water security based onthe stability of societal–ecosystem–hydroclimatic (SEH) interactions.ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscilla-tion. (Color figure available online.)

(Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Although the concept ofadaptive management has been lauded in water policycircles, two critiques center on (1) assumptions byproponents that key decisions over water allocation,infrastructure, and outcomes are apolitical (Voß andBornemanne 2011); and (2) ambiguity over the endgoal of adaptive management (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007).

We argue first that the science–policy interactiveprocess cannot be blind to the political nature of de-cision making (this is discussed in further detail in thenext section). Second, our framing of water securityin SEH terms requires a clearer end goal to guidescience–policy discussions. Based on our experienceworking with stakeholders, we consider it fundamentalto align the definition of adaptive management withwater security as an outcome goal, albeit one that mustbe understood in dynamic and reflexive terms. Ourdefinition follows: Adaptive water management is thescience–policy process to plan interactively for societal,ecosystem, and hydroclimatic uncertainties; initiateresponsive action; and iteratively assess water securityoutcomes in societal and ecosystem resilience terms.

In this article, we meld water security and adaptivemanagement to account for dynamism and uncertaintyin SEH interactions, while providing feasible andpolitically practicable opportunities to respond toreal problems and challenges. We contextualize ourconceptual approach by presenting and assessing caseevidence from an evolving science–policy initiativeacross the Americas. This effort confronts threatsto water security and adaptively responds to recoverSEH stability. The article is organized as follows: Thisintroductory section on key concepts is followed by areview of current understanding of security (includingwater security), its shortcomings, and our alternativedynamic and reflexive approach. We then considercase examples from western North America and theCentral Andes to uncover common water-securitychallenges and generic lessons. Next we elucidate thearid-Americas challenge for the emerging AQUASECinitiative. We conclude by assessing the utility oflinking adaptive management and water securityand by posing future directions for geographicalscholarship.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

Water Security and Adaptive Management in the Arid Americas 283

Security, Water, and Science–PolicyNetworks

The term security has historically been used to re-fer narrowly to national security in terms of militaryor intelligence threats. Since the Cold War, the termhas been expanded to include other threats to hu-man well-being (Ullman 1983), including natural disas-ters, resource conflicts, and environmental degradation.Some transboundary water and environmental threatsmight exhibit state security dimensions (Mustafa 2010).Liverman (1999) argued, however, for the need tomove beyond apocalyptic constructions and insteadconsider environmental security as a cause and goalfor cooperation—a call echoed for water resources byWolf (2007) and others. An expanded understandingof security has been applied to vital sectors such as food,energy, and water (Gleick 1993; Falkenmark 2001). Inthis context, geography plays multiple bridging roles,especially between physical and social sciences and be-tween critical theory and policy perspectives.

There is growing recognition of the importance ofinstitutions and water governance, especially to ad-dress trade-offs inherent in water security. Researchersand policymakers have been called on to collaboratein science–policy networks that produce usable sci-ence and effective, research-based policy (Lemos andMorehouse 2005; Jacobs et al. 2010; Wilder et al. 2010).The goal of these networks is to generate scientificknowledge oriented toward stakeholders’ needs whileexerting influence before and during policy formulation(Scott et al. 2012).

In an ideal world, science–policy networks are sym-metrical, balanced, and equally endowed with resourcesand influence, with participants who are altruistic, in-corruptible, scientifically literate, and able to commu-nicate perfectly with each other in the pursuit of closelyaligned outcomes. National interests, regional loyalties,political preferences, and disciplinary differences areabsent. Rationality, efficiency, and attention to pub-lic welfare prevail. Clearly, scientists, policymakers, re-source managers, or any of the other stakeholders whomight participate in science–policy networks or theirconstituent dialogues live in such a world. National in-terests, domestic politics, economic imperatives, com-munication gaps, varying perspectives and values, andpersonality differences can and do emerge during suchdialogues (Ingram 2011; Gerlak and Wilder 2012).

But, as our case studies indicate, the decade-and-a-half experiences of our research team have shown

that even in the sometimes turbulent crucible of theU.S.–Mexico border region, common water manage-ment objectives can trump dissimilar interests. Thescientists, decision makers, officials, and others—fromboth sides of the border—have generally demonstratedthat they can overcome cultural, legal, administrative,and infrastructural disparities. At their most successful,such sessions have yielded agreement on the need forbinational cooperation, more and better data and infor-mation, harmonized scientific protocols, collaborativeresearch, and mutually acceptable priorities for con-fronting water insecurity resulting from drought andflood extremes, ecosystem change, and rising humandemand for water. Facilitated by team members, thedialogues were extended to Argentine and Chilean sci-entists and officials who met with community membersand agreed to work to reduce threats to Andean watersecurity—by alleviating drought damage and address-ing social inequity in the agricultural sector—even asglaciers continue to recede at alarming rates.

Over the course of 2010 through 2012, facilitated bya vibrant network of researchers funded by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI),our team has developed and launched AQUASEC,1 theCenter of Excellence for Water Security. The regionalemphasis is on arid and semiarid regions of the Amer-icas (the U.S.–Mexico border region, northern Chileand Argentina, northeastern Brazil, parts of the An-des in Bolivia and Peru, and inland western Canada).AQUASEC aims to promote water security throughgovernance and management approaches that are in-novative and adaptive and that identify and take ad-vantage of policy windows, opportunities presented bynatural or human events that provide openings or re-newed impetus for interactive planning.

Arid Americas Context and the WaterSecurity Challenge

In the arid Americas, water scarcity shapes thelandscape, constrains socioeconomic development,and determines ecosystem function. Our focus onwestern North America (U.S.–Mexico border) and theCentral Andes (Chile and Argentina)—see Figure 2—illustrates fundamental water security challenges.Each region considered individually represents a richlaboratory where SEH interactions in a global-changecontext can be observed and lessons learned. Together,they constitute the foundation for an operational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

284 Scott et al.

Figure 2. Arid Americas showing casestudy locations. (Color figure availableonline.)

approach to water security that seeks to enhancethe resilience of ecosystems and societies. Climatechange, resource exploitation, and land-use changecombined with water governance structures, institu-tional arrangements, societal values, and developmentpathways can threaten water security. Here we char-acterize the dynamics of these drivers and the reflexivescience–policy approach that is emerging to link watersecurity and adaptive management to global change.

SEH dynamics include increased water use across thearid Americas resulting from global economic integra-tion, which is driven by neoliberal transition that hasaccelerated growth and urbanization in this region. TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)projects drier conditions in 60 percent of Latin Americaand desertification of 50 percent of its agricultural lands(Bates et al. 2008). The El Nino-Southern Oscillation(ENSO) is the most profound hydroclimatic driver in

the arid Americas. El Nino episodes bring warm and wetwinter conditions to North America’s deserts and muchof South America’s west coast but dry conditions tonortheast Brazil; La Nina produces the opposite effects.These episodes affect snowpack and stream flow as indi-cated in Figure 1, with La Nina reducing annual streamflow and decreasing water supply reliability in the tworegions we consider. The IPCC notes that the Americascurrently lack adequate adaptive capacity to meet pro-jected future water demands. Adaptive capacity—therelative ability of communities or institutions to antici-pate and respond to stresses in ways that lead to desirableoutcomes (including water security)—is key to adap-tive management and effective governance more gen-erally. Decision makers will increasingly have to cometo terms with growth-driven urban, agricultural, andpower-generation water requirements, added to ecosys-tem needs, all under rising hydroclimatic variability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

Water Security and Adaptive Management in the Arid Americas 285

Case Examples of Scientist–StakeholderCollaborations Toward Adaptive WaterManagement

Adaptive water management is challenging to carryout in complex, real-world contexts. One importantcomponent of the AQUASEC initiative is the inter-action among scientists and stakeholders, who mightbe water or land managers, water-rights holders (e.g.,irrigators, indigenous groups), civil society members(neighborhoods, nongovernmental organizations), anddecision makers (agency directors, elected officials,community leaders). Case examples from our experi-ences in building institutional adaptive capacity of di-verse stakeholders illustrate the benefits and challengesof collaborative approaches.

The U.S.–Mexico border region has exhibiteda history of transboundary collaboration on sharedwater and environmental resources (Fischhendler andFeitelson 2003) as well as legal frameworks that supportsuch collaboration (La Paz Agreement of 1983; Minute306 addition to 1944 U.S.–Mexico water treaty, in2000). Avoidable water-insecurity risk has resulted,however, when the United States or Mexico optednot to collaborate; this represents a societal thresholdpotentially crossed (Figure 1). An example is the 2008impoundment of floodwaters causing damage in Mexicowhen the United States extended the border fencewithout adequate consideration of local hydrology.

A hallmark of recent AQUASEC efforts hasbeen the emergence of science–policy networks thataddress water security planning in an adaptive process.Since 2007, scientist–policymaker networks involvingclimate scientists, water managers, and disaster reliefplanners have conducted five binational workshopswith nearly 400 total participants (Scott et al. 2012).The workshop series aimed to create new adaptivecapacity through interactive feedback on regional cli-mate and water resource forecasts, an online bilingualnewsletter, and webinars (Wilder et al. 2010). Adap-tive management requires such sustained, iterativeapproaches to contribute effectively to water security.

One of the most successful examples of buildingscientist–decision maker collaboration to effect policychange leading to water-secure SEH outcomes isfound in the Colorado River delta. There, binationalcollaboration among scientists, policymakers, andnongovernmental environmental organizations pro-motes and secures ecological flows vital to sustainingcritical wetlands and species habitat (Zamora-Arroyo

and Flessa 2009). The first phase of a joint scientificprocess to monitor impacts of a desalination plant onthe wetlands showed no harm to the wetlands (i.e.,ecological thresholds had not, for the time being,been violated). Infrastructure can be an adaptivetool—in this case to meet environmental water qualityobjectives—but taken to extremes, it can threatenwater security (e.g., unplanned brine disposal fromdesalination). The delta case usefully illustrates the rolethat researchers can have in informing a policy processthat seeks adaptive water management solutions. In sodoing, this exemplifies how a sustained and iterativemultistakeholder negotiation process addressed thethree vertices of the SEH triangle (Figure 1) to findsolutions that meet both societal (cities and irrigators)and ecosystem (wetlands) demands for water underdifficult hydroclimatic conditions.

Also in this region, the U.S.–Mexico TransboundaryAquifer Assessment Program (TAAP) represents a sus-tained effort to bring together federal, state, and localgovernment agencies from the two nations, key borderuniversities, and the International Boundary and WaterCommission. They share data on transboundary aquifersand improve scientific knowledge about groundwaterresources (Scott 2011). Scientists and decision makersfrom both countries have strengthened networks to ad-dress knowledge asymmetries through a tightly scriptedformal process for binational data exchange, and in theprocess they have promoted cooperation on groundwa-ter security.

Some SEH dynamics in the region require adaptiveresponses but offer few direct opportunities to influenceunderlying causes. Emblematic examples are wildfires(O’Connor et al. 2011) and massive tree mortality(van Mantgem et al. 2009) that have resulted fromthe combination of increasing temperatures, severesustained drought, and bark beetle life cycles (together,an example of hydroclimatic drivers resulting in ecosys-tem thresholds being crossed). As response measures,forest and watershed management practices and zoningof human settlements represent only indirect means toreestablish SEH stability and strengthen water security.

Although drought and water scarcity, as alreadydescribed, are the principal drivers of water insecurityin arid regions, rainfall can also represent a hazard.During the warm season, from July to September andDecember to February in the northern and southernhemispheres, respectively, rainfall tends to occur overlarge areas of complex terrain. This American monsoonsystem (Vera et al. 2006) can cause flooding even inhyperarid regions. In North America, tropical cyclones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

286 Scott et al.

that develop in the western Atlantic or eastern PacificOceans provide significant moisture and convection tothe coastal areas, which can lead to flooding and land-slides. Storm track information from the U.S. NationalHurricane Center, rainfall data from Mexico’s NationalMeteorological Service, and disaster indicators fromthe EM-DAT database (Centre for Research on theEpidemiology of Disasters 2011) reveal that during thelast forty years the events with the greatest impact onnorthwestern Mexico’s population and environmentoccurred under a combination of intense cyclones atlandfall, high population density, and high rainfallrates (Farfan, Alfaro, and Cavazos forthcoming).Rainfall amount, which is the best indicator of floodingimpact in this context, is also the region’s water supplylifeline. What can be a short-term, localized hazard issimultaneously a resource when considered over longertime frames and at larger spatial scales.

The Central Andes present challenges that aredistinct regionally but share similarities with westernNorth America. The latitudinal gradient from theAtacama, the planet’s most arid desert, to a temperate-humid climate with abundant vegetation leaves centralChile’s transitional ecosystem subject to threshold shiftsfrom Mediterranean to semiarid, particularly as climatechange increases pressure on water resources. Climatechange models project a marked warming tendency(particularly at higher elevations) and a reductionin precipitation of up to 30 percent. Rivers alreadyexhibit changes, not only in total flow but also in thetiming of discharge (Rubio-Alvarez and McPhee 2010),especially the ones with snowmelt regimes (Vicuna,Garreaud, and McPhee 2011). Storage infrastructurepartly addresses these SEH interactions, even thoughits construction simultaneously increases sedimentloads and water treatment needs downstream. Watersecurity impacts in the agricultural sector (Meza, Silva,and Vigil 2008) and the potential for urban–rural waterconflicts are especially pronounced (Meza et al. 2012).

Studies in the Maipo, Limarı, and Maule river basinsin Chile serve as long-term experiments for collabora-tive modeling of SEH interactions and identification ofadaptation strategies. In all three basins, the adaptivemanagement conceptual framework is used, empha-sizing interactions among hydroclimatic processes,ecosystems, and societal water use (Figure 1) to commu-nicate impacts and evaluate options with stakeholders.The Maipo study analyzes climate change, vegetationand land-use change, and fluctuating availability ofwater that could push urban and agricultural waterusers into conflict. Because water is allocated based on

use rights, the study assesses the ability of rights-basedwater allocation to address water insecurity. Re-searchers, farmers, and the main utility company havecollaboratively evaluated the validity of the results.The Limarı study analyzes the effects of climate changeon the seasonality and magnitude of river dischargesand assesses the reservoir system’s performance inreducing water insecurity of the irrigation associationand agricultural communities while meeting riparianecological flows. Finally, the Maule study addresses theimpacts of climate change for hydropower generationand the conflicts between irrigation communities as aconsequence of a changing climate. All three examplesprovide valuable knowledge to understand the complexSEH dimensions of water security in the Andes.

Although limited water availability threatens watersecurity, the combination of economic stressors andsocial vulnerability has synergistic effects—a clearexample of SEH interactions. This entails focusingdecision-making efforts on SEH processes. Lack of earlywarning systems and inadequate institutional supportconstrain adaptive capacity to deal with drought andflood causes of water insecurity. Coping with crisisrequires the active collaboration of scientific andsociopolitical institutions and ongoing participationof stakeholders. The creation of permanent workinggroups with the participation of different stakeholdersis a fundamental task. These groups meet regularly todiscuss new findings, provide feedback on simulations,and assess the validity of assumptions. Collaborativework with Chile’s National Irrigation Commission,the General Directorate of Water, the Ministry ofEnvironment, utility companies, and farmer associ-ations constitutes interactive planning and adaptivemanagement to address water security.

Work in the Maipo, Limarı, and Maule basins hasbroader implications in Chile. For example, the SecondNational Communication to IPCC, which members ofour team are involved in, produced a synthesis report onclimate change impacts, adaptation, vulnerability, andtotal emissions. The report has caught the attention ofthe private sector and the general public. This repre-sents a policy window to pursue integrated assessmentson the water security themes we outline in this arti-cle, specifically, the societal vulnerabilities and sectoralimpacts of water insecurity.

Building on the Chilean and North American expe-riences, AQUASEC is currently extending the adaptivemanagement approach to a multicountry set of An-dean basins experiencing water insecurity—Mendoza(Argentina), Choquecota (Bolivia), and Elqui

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

Water Security and Adaptive Management in the Arid Americas 287

(Chile)—where social and ecological resilience is underthreat and development is potentially constrained. Forstakeholders to better cope with emerging challenges,AQUASEC is providing training, exchange visits, andother capacity-building opportunities.

Conclusions

Conceptually, water security integrates SEH pro-cesses. Water insecurity can result from instabilitiesgenerated within one or more SEH subsystems (e.g.,the U.S.–Mexico border wall that exacerbated flood-ing). Adaptive management based on science–policyprocesses permits proactive efforts to maintain systemswithin water security thresholds. As observed withthe binational workshop series, this requires sustainedeffort.

Further work by geographers, allied scholars, andpractitioners is needed on two conceptual questions:(1) how SEH thresholds are defined and operational-ized and (2) the relative effectiveness in water securityterms of adaptive responses that directly or indirectlyaddress causes. Additionally, the case examples raisethree conundrums. First, water is both a resource anda hazard, as reflected in the American monsoon exam-ple. Second, infrastructure simultaneously represents anadaptation tool and a threat to water security; this wasidentified in the Colorado delta desalination and Chilereservoir examples. Third, the urgency of many globalchange challenges militates against the drawn-out plan-ning time frame needed for broad-based science–policyprocesses, as identified with reference to Andean glacialmelt. These challenges can only be resolved by facili-tating adaptive management over multiple and oftenoverlapping sectoral domains (e.g., the coupling of wa-ter and energy infrastructure in the Maule, Chile, exam-ple) and over extended time frames and broad spatialscales. The challenge of responding to crises throughoften protracted and deliberate collaborative processescan be aided by policy windows resulting from institu-tional thresholds such as public attention to wildfire inNorth America or glacial melt in the Andes. Finally, theregional water security mandate of AQUASEC buildson local initiatives, institutional processes, and emerg-ing science–policy results to develop and sustain newforms of adaptive management to strengthen water se-curity across the Americas. Initiating adaptive man-agement without posing water security as an outcomegoal would not have had the galvanizing effect evi-dent in the western North America and Central An-

des cases presented. The shared learning approach tocollectively develop responses to water security threatsacross the arid Americas also has broader relevance forother regions—sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East,and South Asia, among others—with disparate institu-tions for decision making but analogous water securitychallenges.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the supportof the Inter-American Institute for Global ChangeResearch, via project SGP-CRA #005, which is sup-ported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)Grant No. GEO-1138881; NSF Grant DEB-1010495;the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration’s Climate–Society Interactions Program; theMorris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation; and theU.S.–Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Pro-gram. We would like to thank Robert Meredith forediting support in the preparation of the article. Finally,this work in progress would not be possible without thecommitment of numerous research partners and stake-holders across the Americas.

Note1. See http://aquasec.org, http://www.uc.cl/es/la-universi-dad/noticias/6042-la-uc-y-la-universidad-de-arizona-lanzan-el-centro-aquasec-sobre-seguridad-hidrica-en-las-americas,and http://www.uanews.org/node/47483.

ReferencesBakker, K. 2012. Water security: Research challenges and

opportunities. Science 337:914–15.Bates, B. C., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. P. Palutikof, eds.

2008. Climate change and water. Geneva, Switzerland: In-tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Secretariat.

Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecologicalsystems: Management practices and social mechanisms forbuilding resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Bogardi, J. J., D. Dudgeon, R. Lawford, E. Flinkerbusch, A.Meyn, C. Pahl-Wostl, K. Vielhauer, and C. Vorosmarty.2012. Water security for a planet under pressure: In-terconnected challenges of a changing world call forsustainable solutions. Current Opinion in EnvironmentalSustainability 4:35–43.

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters.2011. EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database.Brussels, Belgium: Universite Catholique de Louvain.http://www.em-dat.net/ (last accessed 30 September2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

288 Scott et al.

Cook, C., and K. Bakker. 2012. Water security: Debating anemerging paradigm. Global Environmental Change 22 (1):94–102.

Falkenmark, M. 2001. The greatest water problem: The in-ability to link environmental security, water security andfood security. International Journal of Water Resources De-velopment 17 (4): 539–54.

Farfan, L. M., E. J. Alfaro, and T. Cavazos. Forthcoming.Tropical cyclone impact over the population in westernMexico: 1970–2010. Atmosfera.

Fischhendler, I., and E. Feitelson. 2003. Spatial adjustmentas a mechanism for resolving river basin conflicts: TheUS–Mexico case. Political Geography 22:557–83.

Gerlak, A., and M. Wilder. 2012. Exploring the texturedlandscape of water insecurity and the human right towater. Environment 54 (2): 4–17.

Gleick, P. H. 1993. Water and conflict: Fresh water resourcesand international security. International Security 18 (1):79–112.

Gleick, P. H., and M. Palaniappan. 2010. Peak water limits tofreshwater withdrawal and use. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 107 (25): 11155–62.

Grey, D., and C. W. Sadoff. 2007. Sink or swim? Watersecurity for growth and development. Water Policy 9 (6):545–71.

Gunderson, L. H., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling, eds. 2010.Foundations of ecological resilience. Washington, DC:Island Press.

Holling, C. S., ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessmentand management. New York: Wiley.

Ingram, H. M. 2011. Beyond universal remedies for goodwater governance: A political and contextual approach.In Water for food in a changing world, ed. A. Garrido and H.M. Ingram, 241–61. London and New York: Routledge.

Jacobs, K., L. Lebel, J. Buizer, L. Addams, P. Mat-son, E. McCullough, P. Garden, G. Saliba, and T.Finan. 2010. Linking knowledge with action in thepursuit of sustainable water-resources management.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.0813125107.

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

Liverman, D. M. 1999. Geography and the global environ-ment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers89 (1): 107–20.

Meza, F. J., D. Silva, and H. Vigil. 2008. Climate changeimpacts on irrigated maize in Mediterranean climates.Evaluation of double cropping as an emerging adaptationalternative. Agricultural Systems 98:21–30.

Meza, F. J., D. S. Wilks, L. Gurovich, and N. Bambach. 2012.Impacts of climate change on irrigated agriculture inthe Maipo Basin, Chile: Reliability of water rights andchanges in the demand for irrigation. Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management 138:421–30.

Mustafa, D. 2010. Social construction of hydropolitics: Thegeographical scales of water and security in the Indusbasin. The Geographical Review 97 (4): 484–501.

Nelson, D. R., W. N. Adger, and K. Brown. 2007. Adaptationto environmental change: Contributions of a resilienceframework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources32 (1): 395–419.

Norman, E. S., K. Bakker, and G. Dunn. 2011. Recent devel-opments in Canadian water policy: An emerging watersecurity paradigm. Canadian Water Resources Journal 36(1): 53–66.

O’Connor, C. D., G. M. Garfin, D. A. Falk, and T. W. Swet-nam. 2011. Human pyrogeography: A new synergy offire, climate and people is reshaping ecosystems acrossthe globe. Geography Compass 5 (6): 329–50.

Pahl-Wostl, C., J. Sendzimir, P. Jeffrey, J. Aerts, G. Berkamp,and K. Cross. 2007. Managing change toward adaptivewater management through social learning. Society andEcology 12 (2): 30. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/ (last accessed 14 January 2013).

Rubio-Alvarez, E., and J. McPhee. 2010. Patterns of spatialand temporal variability in streamflow records in southcentral Chile in the period 1952–2003. Water ResourcesResearch 46:W05514.

Scott, C. A. 2011. The water-energy-climate nexus: Re-sources and policy outlook for aquifers in Mexico. WaterResources Research 47:W00L04.

Scott, C. A., R. G. Varady, F. Meza, E. Montana, G. B. deRaga, B. Luckman, and C. Martius. 2012. Science-policydialogues for water security: Addressing vulnerability andadaptation to global change in the arid Americas. Envi-ronment 54 (3): 30–42.

Skole, D. L. 2004. Geography as a great intellectual meltingpot and the preeminent interdisciplinary environmentaldiscipline. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-phers 94 (4): 739–43.

Ullman, R. H. 1983. Redefining security. International Security8 (1): 129–53.

van Mantgem, P. J., N. L. Stephenson, J. C. Byrne, L. D.Daniels, J. F. Franklin, P. Z. Fule, M. E. Harmon,A. J. Larson, J. M. Smith, A. H. Taylor, and T. T.Veblen. 2009. Widespread increase of tree mortalityrates in the Western United States. Science 323:521–24.

Vera, C., W. Higgins, J. Amador, T. Ambrizzi, R. Garreaud,D. Gochis, D. Gutzler, et al. 2006. Toward a unified viewof the American monsoon systems. Journal of Climate 19(20): 4977–5000.

Vicuna, S., R. Garreaud, and J. McPhee. 2011. Climatechange impacts on the hydrology of a snowmelt drivenbasin in semiarid Chile. Climatic Change 105 (3–4):469–88.

Vorosmarty, C. J., P. B. McIntyre, M. O. Gessner, D. Dud-geon, A. Prusevich, P. Green, S. Glidden, S. E. Bunn,C. A. Sullivan, C. Reidy Liermann, and P. M. Davies.2010. Global threats to human water security and riverbiodiversity. Nature 467 (7315): 555–62.

Voß, J. P., and B. Bornemanne. 2011. The politics of reflexivegovernance: Challenges for designing adaptive manage-ment and transition management. Ecology and Society 16(2): 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss2/art9(last accessed 14 January 2013).

Wilbanks, T. J., and R. W. Kates. 2010. Beyond adapting toclimate change: Embedding adaptation in responses tomultiple threats and stresses. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 100 (4): 719–28.

Wilder, M., C. A. Scott, N. Pineda Pablos, R. G.Varady, G. M. Garfin, and J. McEvoy. 2010. Adaptingacross boundaries: Climate change, social learning, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3

Water Security and Adaptive Management in the Arid Americas 289

resilience in the U.S.–Mexico border region. Annals ofthe Association of American Geographers 100 (4): 917–28.

Wolf, A. T. 2007. Shared waters: Conflict and cooperation.Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32:241–69.

Zamora-Arroyo, F., and K. W. Flessa. 2009. Nature’s fairshare: Finding and allocating water for the Colorado

River delta. In Conservation of shared environments:Learning from the U.S. and Mexico, ed. L. Lopez-Hoffman,E. D. McGovern, R. G. Varady, and K. W. Flessa, 23–38.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Zeitoun, M. 2011. The global web of national water security.Global Policy 2 (3): 286–96.

Correspondence: School of Geography & Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721, e-mail: cascott@email.arizona.edu (Scott); Departamento de Ecosistemas y Medio Ambiente y Centro de Cambio Global, Ponti-ficia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, e-mail: fmeza@uc.cl (Meza); Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, Universityof Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, e-mail: rvarady@email.arizona.edu (Varady); Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, SaoJose dos Campos, SP, Brasil, e-mail: htiessen@dir.iai.int (Tiessen); School of Geography & Development, University of Arizona, Tucson,AZ 85721, e-mail: jmcevoy@email.arizona.edu (McEvoy); Institute of the Environment and School of Natural Resources & Environment,University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, e-mail: gmgarfin@email.arizona.edu (Garfin); School of Geography & Development and Centerfor Latin American Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, e-mail: mwilder@email.arizona.edu (Wilder); Centro de Investi-gacion Cientıfica y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada, La Paz, BCS, Mexico, e-mail: farfan@cicese.mx (Farfan); El Colegio de Sonora,Hermosillo, Son., Mexico, e-mail: npineda@colson.edu.mx (Pineda); CONICET y Universidad Nacional-Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina, e-mail:emontana@mendoza-conicet.gob.ar (Montana).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 0

7:25

24

May

201

3