No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Rainwater samples were collected from rainwater harvesting (RWH) systems at seven sites located in a 30 km radius around the City of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. From October 2006 to October 2007, a total of 360 samples were collected from two sampling locations-the rainwater cistern and at the point of use-and analysed for pH, turbidity, colour, total and fecal coliforms, total organic carbon, total nitrogen and UV absorbance (254 nm). Additional parameters, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total metals, Campylobacter and Legionella were examined in selected samples. Following data collection, statistical analysis was performed to investigate the factors that influenced rainwater quality. The results of the quality assessment programme were largely consistent with those reported by several other researchers, with the exception of improved microbiological quality during periods of cold weather. Total and fecal coliforms were detected in 31% and 13% of the rainwater samples, respectively, while neither Campylobacter nor Legionella were detected above 1 CFU/100 ml detection limits. The results indicate that, while quality can be expected to vary with environmental conditions, the rainwater from a RWH system can be of consistently high quality through the selection of appropriate catchment and storage materials and the application of post-cistern treatment.

Community‐based adaptation (CBA) has emerged over the last decade as an approach to empowering communities to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change. While such approaches have been widely advocated, few have critically examined the tensions and challenges that CBA brings. Responding to this gap, this article critically examines the use of CBA approaches with Inuit communities in Canada. We suggest that CBA holds significant promise to make adaptation research more democratic and responsive to local needs, providing a basis for developing locally appropriate adaptations based on local/indigenous and Western knowledge. Yet, we argue that CBA is not a panacea, and its common portrayal as such obscures its limitations, nuances, and challenges. Indeed, if uncritically adopted, CBA can potentially lead to maladaptation, may be inappropriate in some instances, can legitimize outside intervention and control, and may further marginalize communities. We identify responsibilities for researchers engaging in CBA work to manage these challenges, emphasizing the centrality of how knowledge is generated, the need for project flexibility and openness to change, and the importance of ensuring partnerships between researchers and communities are transparent. Researchers also need to be realistic about what CBA can achieve, and should not assume that research has a positive role to play in community adaptation just because it utilizes participatory approaches. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:175–191. doi: 10.1002/wcc.376For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.