Spatial, network and temporal dimensions of the determinants of adaptive capacity in poor urban areas

Waters, James; Adger, W. Neil

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.011

Cited by 62 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vulnerability is often conceptualized as including three interlinking elements: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Adger, 2006). While exposure relates to the degree and type of the perturbation, adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of individuals or groups to manage and influence their resources and risks in the face of a perturbation (Waters & Adger, 2017). Both the degree of exposure and adaptive capacity shape a system's sensitivity to that perturbation.…”

Section: Icts Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Smallholder farmers' use of mobile phone services in central Kenya

Krell

Giroux

Guido

et al. 2020

Climate and Development

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information and services delivered through mobile phones, 'm-services', have transformative potential to provide rural African farmers with important agro-meteorological information. However, a greater understanding is needed regarding the types of m-services available to farmers, how farmers access that information, and possible factors affecting m-service use. With a study of smallholder farming communities in central Kenya, we examine factors affecting the likelihood of Kenyan farmers' adoption of m-services specifically related to agriculture and livestock information, buying and selling products, and alerts about agricultural or livestock activities. According to a survey of 577 farming households, 98% of respondents own a mobile phone. Approximately 25% use it to access information about agriculture and livestock, 23% access information about buying and selling products, and 18% receive alerts. Personal smartphone ownership increases the likelihood of m-services use (p < .001), as does membership in farmer organizations (p < .001). We find that age and income are not significantly related to m-service use, and we discuss this result in terms of intersections between smartphone ownership, gender, and education. Consistent with prior qualitative research, our quantitative results further support the need for m-services providers to design for basic or feature phone users for improved dissemination of agro-meteorological information. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Icts Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Smallholder farmers' use of mobile phone services in central Kenya

Krell

Giroux

Guido

et al. 2020

Climate and Development

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clear gaps exist in understanding if and how subjective modes of measurement differ across contexts. For example, though subjective measurement tools have been applied in both developing (Béné, Frankenberger, et al, ; Jones & Samman, ; Nguyen & James, ; Waters & Adger, ) and developed (Lockwood et al, ; Marshall, ; Seara et al, ) country contexts, more can be done to understand how differences in environmental, sociocultural and cognitive factors shape people's responses. More importantly, while a wide body of literature exists exploring normative and societal influences on people's response to risk (Paton, ), as well as the importance of heuristics in decision‐making and human behaviors (Kahneman & Tversky, ), few resilience measurement toolkits have accounted for these in their approaches and warrants further exploration.…”

Section: Knowledge Gaps and Avenues For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience isn't the same for all: Comparing subjective and objective approaches to resilience measurement

Jones

2018

WIREs Climate Change

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robust resilience measurement can improve our understanding of how people and societies respond to climate risk. It also allows for the effectiveness of resiliencebuilding interventions to be tracked over time. To date, the majority of measurement tools use objective methods of evaluation. Broadly speaking, these relate to approaches that solicit little, if any, judgment on behalf of the subject in question. More recently, subjective methods of evaluation have been proposed. These take a contrasting epistemological view, relying on people's self-assessments of their own capacity to deal with climate risk. Subjective methods offer some promise in complementing objective methods, including: factoring in people's own knowledge of resilience and what contributes to it; more nuanced contextualization; and the potential to reduce survey length and fatigue. Yet, considerable confusion exists in understanding subjectivity and objectivity. Little is also known about the merits and limitations of different approaches to measurement. Here, I clarify the conceptual and practical relationships between objective and subjective forms of measuring resilience, aiming to provide practical guidance in distinguishing between them. In reviewing existing toolkits, I propose a subjectivity-objectivity continuum that groups measurement approaches according to two core tenets: (a) how resilience is defined and (b) how resilience is evaluated. I then use the continuum to explore the strengths and weaknesses of different types of toolkits, allowing comparison across each. I also emphasize that there is no one-size fits all approach to resilience measurement. As such, evaluators should carefully consider: their epistemology of resilience; core objectives for measurement; as well as resource and data constraints, before choosing which methods to adopt.

show abstract

“…However, intraurban heterogeneity can be significant with different urban water resilience regimes within the same city, as we demonstrated for Ulaanbaatar's split water system, where 60% of the population with low adaptive capacity lives under conditions of high insecurity. Adaptation (or coping) for meeting demands is often left to the urban poor, both on a daily basis and in response to disasters (Béné et al, ; Brown & Westaway, ; Waters & Adger, ), and the relative cost incurred to these communities is disproportionate (Chelleri et al, ). While the system dynamics model demonstrated here does not quantify the cost of adaptation (economic, health, social, etc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience Dynamics of Urban Water Supply Security and Potential of Tipping Points

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cities are the drivers of socioeconomic innovation and are also forced to address the accelerating risk of failure in providing essential services such as water supply today and in the future. Here, we investigate the resilience of urban water supply security, which is defined in terms of the services that citizens receive. The resilience of services is determined by the availability and robustness of critical system elements or “capitals” (water resources, infrastructure, finances, management efficacy, and community adaptation). We translate quantitative information about this portfolio of capitals from seven contrasting cities on four continents into parameters of a coupled system dynamics model. Water services are disrupted by recurring stochastic shocks, and we simulate the dynamics of impact and recovery cycles. Resilience emerges under various constraints, expressed in terms of each city's capital portfolio. Systematic assessment of the parameter space produces the urban water resilience landscape, and we determine the position of each city along a continuous gradient from water insecure and nonresilient to secure and resilient systems. In several cities stochastic disturbance regimes challenge steady‐state conditions and drive system collapse. While water insecure and nonresilient cities risk being pushed into a poverty trap, cities which have developed excess capitals risk being trapped in rigidity and crossing a tipping point from high to low services and collapse. Where public services are insufficient, community adaptation improves water security and resilience to varying degrees. Our results highlight the need for resilience thinking in the governance of urban water systems under global change pressures.

show abstract

Spatial, network and temporal dimensions of the determinants of adaptive capacity in poor urban areas

Cited by 62 publications

References 64 publications

Smallholder farmers' use of mobile phone services in central Kenya

Smallholder farmers' use of mobile phone services in central Kenya

Resilience isn't the same for all: Comparing subjective and objective approaches to resilience measurement

Resilience Dynamics of Urban Water Supply Security and Potential of Tipping Points

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About