Advertisement

Boundary Organizations and Objects Supporting Stakeholders for Decision Making on Sustainable Water Management in Phoenix, Arizona USA

  • Dave D. White
  • Kelli L. Larson
  • Amber Wutich
Chapter
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)

Abstract

Integrating divergent knowledge systems among scientists and other stakeholders with diverse values and interests presents a major obstacle for collaboration to inform sustainability in social-ecological systems. This integration has been hampered by, among other issues, unrealistic expectations about the ability of science to inform policy decisions, differences in scientific and political understandings of uncertainty, difficulty achieving scientific consensus on complex topics, different time scales for scientific and political processes, and social and cultural differences between scientists and policy makers. Boundary organizations theory presents one promising approach for overcoming these barriers and enhancing the linkages between science and decision making. Boundary organizations provide institutional structure, space, bilateral knowledge translators, and incentives for the creation of boundary objects such as maps, models, and decision support systems. Boundary organizations and objects can help to structure the relationships between multiple stakeholders. This chapter examines the design and functions of the Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC) at Arizona State University and the use of the WaterSim and the Decision Theater as examples of effective use of boundary organization principles. We discuss these concepts in the context of water resources management in the Phoenix metropolitan area in arid southwestern United States.

References

  1. Arizona Department of Water Resources (2010) Arizona Water Atlas, Active Management Area Planning Area, vol 8. http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ActiveManagementAreas/documents/Volume_8_final.pdf
  2. Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, & Palutikof JP (2008) Climate change and water. Technical paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC secretariat, Geneva. Climate change policy with a renewed environmental ethic, 21, 85–101Google Scholar
  3. Cash DW (2001) “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):431–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castle SL, Thomas BF, Reager JT, Rodell M, Swenson SC, Famiglietti JS (2014) Groundwater depletion during drought threatens future water security of the Colorado River basin. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061055
  6. Cayan DR, Das T, Pierce DW, Barnett TP, Tyree M, Gershunov A (2010) Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(50):21271–21276.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912391107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. City of Phoenix (2011) Water resource plan. City of Phoenix Water Services Dept, Phoenix, 89ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p 200900231Google Scholar
  9. Crona B, Parker J (2008) All things to all people: an assessment of DCDC as a boundary organization. Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  10. Crona BI, Parker JN (2011) Network determinants of knowledge utilization preliminary lessons from a boundary organization. Sci Commun 33(4):448–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutts BB, White DD, Kinzig AP (2011) Participatory geographic information systems for the co-production of science and policy in an emerging boundary organization. Environ Sci Pol 14(8):977–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Girod B, Wiek A, Mieg H, Hulme M (2009) The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environ Sci Pol 12(2):103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gober P, Trapido-Lurie B (2006) Metropolitan Phoenix: place making and community building in the desert. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gober P, Sampson DA, Quay R, White DD, Chow WT (2016) Urban adaptation to mega-drought: anticipatory water modeling, policy, and planning for the urban southwest. Sustain Cities Soc 27:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirt P, Gustafson A, Larson K (2008) The mirage in the valley of the sun. Environ Hist 13(3):482–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoppe R (2005) Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis Prax 3(3):199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs KL, Holway JM (2004) Managing for sustainability in an arid climate: lessons learned from 20 years of groundwater management in Arizona, USA. Hydrogeol J 12(1):52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: scientific advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones SA, Fischhoff B, Lach D (1999) Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research. Clim Chang 43(3):581–599Google Scholar
  22. Larson KL, White DD, Gober P, Wutich A (2015) Decision-making under uncertainty for water sustainability and urban climate change adaptation. Sustainability 7(11):14761–14784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Chang 15(1):57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (2014) Highlights of climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Middel A, Quay R, White DD (2013) Water reuse in central Arizona. Decision Center for a Desert City, Arizona State University. Technical Report 13–01Google Scholar
  26. Overpeck J, Udall B (2010) Dry times ahead. Science 328(5986):1642–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pielke RA (1995) Usable information for policy – an appraisal of the U.S. global change research program. Policy Sci 28(1):39–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quay R, Larson KL, White DD (2013) Enhancing water sustainability through university–policy collaborations: experiences and lessons from researchers and decision-makers. Water Resour IMPACT 15(2):17–19Google Scholar
  29. Sampson DA, Quay R, White DD (2016) Anticipatory modeling for water supply sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Environ Sci Pol 55:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shackley S, Wynne B (1996) Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Sci Technol Hum Values 21(3):275–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. White DD (2013) Framing water sustainability in an environmental decision support system. Soc Nat Resour 26(11):1365–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White DD, Corley EA, White MS (2008) Water managers’ perceptions of the science–policy interface in Phoenix, Arizona: implications for an emerging boundary organization. Soc Nat Resour 21(3):230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White DD, Wutich A, Larson KL, Gober P, Lant T, Senneville C (2010) Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci Public Policy 37(3):219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White DD, Wutich AY, Larson KL, Lant T (2015) Water management decision makers’ evaluations of uncertainty in a decision support system: the case of WaterSim in the decision theater. J Environ Plan Manag 58(4):616–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability – a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 26(11):3153–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wutich A, Lant T, White DD, Larson KL, Gartin M (2010) Comparing focus group and individual responses on sensitive topics: a study of water decision makers in a desert city. Field Methods 22(1):88–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave D. White
    • 1
  • Kelli L. Larson
    • 1
  • Amber Wutich
    • 1
  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations