Search

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.

Assessing global progress on human adaptation to climate change is an urgent priority. Although the literature on adaptation to climate change is rapidly expanding, little is known about the actual extent of implementation. We systematically screened >48,000 articles using machine learning methods and a global network of 126 researchers. Our synthesis of the resulting 1,682 articles presents a systematic and comprehensive global stocktake of implemented human adaptation to climate change. Documented adaptations were largely fragmented, local and incremental, with limited evidence of transformational adaptation and negligible evidence of risk reduction outcomes. We identify eight priorities for global adaptation research: assess the effectiveness of adaptation responses, enhance the understanding of limits to adaptation, enable individuals and civil society to adapt, include missing places, scholars and scholarship, understand private sector responses, improve methods for synthesizing different forms of evidence, assess the adaptation at different temperature thresholds, and improve the inclusion of timescale and the dynamics of responses.

Abstract: This study compares projected changes of precipitation characteristics in the U.S. Northeast in two analog-based climate downscaling products, Multivariate Adaptive Constructed Analogs (MACA) and Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA). The level of similarity or differences between the two products varies with the type of precipitation metrics. For the total precipitation amount, the two products project significant annual increases that are similar in magnitude, spatial pattern, and seasonal distribution, with the largest increases in winter and spring. For the overall precipitation intensity or temporal aggregation of heavy precipitation (e.g., number of days with more than one inch of precipitation, the simple intensity index, and the fraction of annual precipitation accounted for by heavy events), both products project significant increases across the region with strong model consensus; the magnitude of absolute increases are similar between the two products, but the relative increases are larger in LOCA due to an underestimation of heavy precipitation in LOCA’s training data. For precipitation extremes such as the annual maximum 1-day precipitation, both products project significant increases in the long-term mean, but the magnitude of both the absolute and relative changes are much smaller in LOCA than in MACA, indicating that the extreme precipitation differences in the training data are amplified in future projections as a result of the analog-based downscaling algorithms. The two products differ the most in the intensity and frequency of rare extremes (e.g., 1-in-20-years events) for which MACA projects significant increases while the LOCA-projected changes are inconclusive over much of the study area.

Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil engineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assess adaptive capacity and adaptive management as measures of wastewater (WW) system resiliency using data from interviews with WW system managers (hereafter managers) impacted by past storms. Results suggest the most resilient WW systems are those with high adaptive capacities that employ an adaptive management approach to make ongoing adaptation investments over time. Greater amounts of generic adaptive capacities (i.e., skilled staff and good leadership) help smooth both day‐to‐day and emergency operations and provide a foundation for adaptive management. In turn, adaptive management helps managers both build more generic adaptive capacities, and develop and employ greater amounts and diversity of specific adaptive capacities (i.e., soft and/or hard adaptations) that are especially important for enhancing and sustaining resiliency. Adaptive management also enables managers to better understand their system's vulnerabilities, how those vulnerabilities change over time, and what specific actions may reduce those vulnerabilities. Finally, our work suggests WW system resilience critically depends on the capacities of the human systems for building resilience as much as or more so than relying only on physical infrastructure resilience. Our work contributes to filling an important gap in the literature by advancing our understanding of the human dimensions of infrastructure resilience and has practical implications for advancing resilience in the WW sector. Research Impact Statement: Wastewater systems with many diverse adaptive capacities and managers that deploy those capacities within an adaptive management framework are more resilient to storms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]