In Eastern Africa, increasing climate variability and changing socioeconomic conditions are exacerbating the frequency and intensity of drought disasters. Droughts pose a severe threat to food security in this region, which is characterized by a large dependency on smallholder rain-fed agriculture and a low level of technological development in the food production systems. Future drought risk will be determined by the adaptation choices made by farmers, yet few drought risk models … incorporate adaptive behavior in the estimation of drought risk. Here, we present an innovative dynamic drought risk adaptation model, ADOPT, to evaluate the factors that influence adaptation decisions and the subsequent adoption of measures, and how this affects drought risk for agricultural production. ADOPT combines socio-hydrological and agent-based modeling approaches by coupling the FAO crop model AquacropOS with a behavioral model capable of simulating different adaptive behavioral theories. In this paper, we compare the protection motivation theory, which describes bounded rationality, with a business-as-usual and an economic rational adaptive behavior. The inclusion of these scenarios serves to evaluate and compare the effect of different assumptions about adaptive behavior on the evolution of drought risk over time. Applied to a semi-arid case in Kenya, ADOPT is parameterized using field data collected from 250 households in the Kitui region and discussions with local decision-makers. The results show that estimations of drought risk and the need for emergency food aid can be improved using an agent-based approach: we show that ignoring individual household characteristics leads to an underestimation of food-aid needs. Moreover, we show that the bounded rational scenario is better able to reflect historic food security, poverty levels, and crop yields. Thus, we demonstrate that the reality of complex human adaptation decisions can best be described assuming bounded rational adaptive behavior; furthermore, an agent-based approach and the choice of adaptation theory matter when quantifying risk and estimating emergency aid needs.
MULTIFILE
Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power-sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used.
MULTIFILE
Resilience is held as a promising concept to produce a paradigm shift from traditional flood control to an integration of flood risk management and spatial planning. Central ideas to the resilience narrative are that nothing is certain except uncertainty itself' and adaptability' is key to governing the unknown'. However, this terminology is far from clear, yet increasingly used, which raises the question how it is made sense of in practice. To answer this question, we examine two long-term flood risk management strategies in the London and Rotterdam region with a policy framing perspective (i.e. the English Thames Estuary 2100 Plan and the Dutch Delta Programme). In both strategies, uncertainties are a key concern, leading to adaptive strategic plans. Reconstructing the framing processes shows that the English adopted a scientific pragmatism' frame and the Dutch a joint fact-finding' frame. While this led to different governance approaches, there are also striking parallels. Both cases use established methods such as scenario planning and monitoring to manage' uncertainties. Similarly to previous turns in flood risk management, the resilience narrative seems to be accommodated in a technical-rational way, resulting in policy strategies that are maintaining the status quo rather than bringing about a paradigm shift.
DOCUMENT
INXCES will use and enhance innovative 3D terrain analysis and visualization technology coupled with state-of-the-art satellite remote sensing to develop cost-effective risk assessment tools for urban flooding, aquifer recharge, ground stability and subsidence. INXCES will develop quick scan tools that will help decision makers and other actors to improve the understanding of urban and peri-urban terrains and identify options for cost effective implementation of water management solutions that reduce the negative impacts of extreme events, maximize beneficial uses of rainwater and stormwater for small to intermediate events and provide long-term resilience in light of future climate changes. The INXCES approach optimizes the multiple benefits of urban ecosystems, thereby stimulating widespread implementation of nature-based solutions on the urban catchment scale.INXCES will develop new innovative technological methods for risk assessment and mitigation of extreme hydroclimatic events and optimization of urban water-dependent ecosystem services at the catchment level, for a spectrum of rainfall events. It is widely acknowledged that extreme events such as floods and droughts are an increasing challenge, particularly in urban areas. The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts pose challenges for economic and social development, negatively affecting the quality of life of urban populations. Prevention and mitigation of the consequences of hydroclimatic extreme events are dependent on the time scale. Floods are typically a consequence of intense rainfall events with short duration. In relation to prolonged droughts however, a much slower timescale needs to be considered, connected to groundwater level reductions, desiccation and negative consequences for growing conditions and potential ground – and building stability.INXCES will take a holistic spatial and temporal approach to the urban water balance at a catchment scale and perform technical-scientific research to assess, mitigate and build resilience in cities against extreme hydroclimatic events with nature-based solutions.INXCES will use and enhance innovative 3D terrain analysis and visualization technology coupled with state-of-the-art satellite remote sensing to develop cost-effective risk assessment tools for urban flooding, aquifer recharge, ground stability and subsidence. INXCES will develop quick scan tools that will help decision makers and other actors to improve the understanding of urban and peri-urban terrains and identify options for cost effective implementation of water management solutions that reduce the negative impacts of extreme events, maximize beneficial uses of rainwater and stormwater for small to intermediate events and provide long-term resilience in light of future climate changes. The INXCES approach optimizes the multiple benefits of urban ecosystems, thereby stimulating widespread implementation of nature-based solutions on the urban catchment scale.
Cities: Action-perspectives for a climate-proof, drought-resilient, and water-sensitive built environment Recurring droughts severely impacted the Dutch built Environment , causing financial, environmental, and social effects. Climate change and urban developments are expected to aggravate this. Although municipalities recognize drought as critical risk, few have prepared for it. This is due to a lack of understanding of the urban water balance under drought and the vulnerability of urban water use(r)s, ambiguity in role and responsibility, and missing action-perspectives. Thirsty Cities aims to address this by developing, collecting, connecting and delivering in a transdisciplinary approach the needed knowledge, insights, tooling, principles, designs, infrastructures and action-perspectives for a climate-proof, drought-resilient, and water-sensitive built environment.Dorstige Steden: Handelingsperspectieven voor een klimaatbestendige, droogteweerbare, en waterrobuuste bebouwde omgeving.De Nederlandse bebouwde omgeving is herhaaldelijk geraakt door droogte, met financiële, ecologische en maatschappelijke effecten. Klimaatverandering en stedelijke ontwikkelingen zullen het droogte-risico naar verwachting doen toenemen. Alhoewel overheden droogte als een risico erkennen, hebben weinigen zich daarop voorbereid. Gebrek aan inzicht in de stedelijke waterbalans onder droogte, de kwetsbaarheid van stedelijke watergebruikers, onduidelijkheid in rol en verantwoordelijkheid van betrokken actoren, en ontbrekende handelingsperspectieven liggen hieraan ten grondslag. ‘Dorstige Steden’ draagt middels trans-disciplinair onderzoek bij aan een klimaatbestendige, droogteweerbare, en waterrobuuste bebouwde omgeving door de benodigde kennis, inzichten, instrumentaria, principes en ontwerpen te ontwikkelen, verzamelen en verbinden en handelingsperspectieven te formuleren.
