An official website of the United States government
Abstract The concept of adaptive capacity has received significant attention within social-ecological and environmental change research. Within both the resilience and vulnerability literatures specifically, adaptive capacity has emerged as a fundamental concept for assessing the ability of social-ecological systems to adapt to environmental change. Although methods and indicators used to evaluate adaptive capacity are broad, the focus of existing scholarship has predominately been at the individual- and household- levels. However, the capacities necessary for humans to adapt to global environmental change are often a function of individual and societal characteristics, as well as cumulative and emergent capacities across communities and jurisdictions. In this paper, we apply a systematic literature review and co-citation analysis to investigate empirical research on adaptive capacity that focus on societal levels beyond the household. Our review demonstrates that assessments of adaptive capacity at higher societal levels are increasing in frequency, yet vary widely in approach, framing, and results; analyses focus on adaptive capacity at many different levels (e.g. community, municipality, global region), geographic locations, and cover multiple types of disturbances and their impacts across sectors. We also found that there are considerable challenges with regard to the ‘fit’ between data collected and analytical methods used in adequately capturing the cross-scale and cross-level determinants of adaptive capacity. Current approaches to assessing adaptive capacity at societal levels beyond the household tend to simply aggregate individual- or household-level data, which we argue oversimplifies and ignores the inherent interactions within and across societal levels of decision-making that shape the capacity of humans to adapt to environmental change across multiple scales. In order for future adaptive capacity research to be more practice-oriented and effectively guide policy, there is a need to develop indicators and assessments that are matched with the levels of potential policy applications.
more »
« less
Comparing Societal Impact Planning and Evaluation Approaches across Four Urban Living Labs (in Food-Energy-Water Systems)
Achieving societal impact, as opposed to academic impact, is a growing area of focus for the research community globally. Central to this changing mission is the focus on multiple interconnected complex systems and the need for research that is not just interdisciplinary, but also transdisciplinary and grounded in stakeholder co-production. This document compares multiple approaches to impact planning and evaluation across four newly formed urban living labs in Sao Paolo (Brazil), Western Cape (South Africa), Bristol (UK) and Rotterdam (Netherlands), each of which sought to address societal issues linked to the food-energy-water nexus. A comparison matrix and a disaggregated impact table are derived from a comprehensive review of key definitions. These new tools were completed by each ULL alongside a post hoc pathway to impact statements. Comparisons are presented and discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of this approach are considered and opportunities for improvement in societal impact planning and evaluation are provided. Our main findings include the importance of establishing clear shared definitions while accepting plural understandings, the need to acknowledge resource as a critical factor in impact delivery and the headline need for far greater focus in this area from both funders and research groups.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1830104
- PAR ID:
- 10428193
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Sustainability
- Volume:
- 15
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 2071-1050
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 5387
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Rivers that cease to flow are globally prevalent. Although many epithets have been used for these rivers, a consensus on terminology has not yet been reached. Doing so would facilitate a marked increase in interdisciplinary interest as well as critical need for clear regulations. Here we reviewed literature from Web of Science database searches of 12 epithets to learn (Objective 1—O1) if epithet topics are consistent across Web of Science categories using latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling. We also analyzed publication rates and topics over time to (O2) assess changes in epithet use. We compiled literature definitions to (O3) identify how epithets have been delineated and, lastly, suggest universal terms and definitions. We found a lack of consensus in epithet use between and among various fields. We also found that epithet usage has changed over time, as research focus has shifted from description to modeling. We conclude that multiple epithets are redundant. We offer specific definitions for three epithets (non-perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) to guide consensus on epithet use. Limiting the number of epithets used in non-perennial river research can facilitate more effective communication among research fields and provide clear guidelines for writing regulatory documents.more » « less
-
This research synthesizes recent literature about the ways the informal learning field is engaging with social issues, with a specific focus on the position of STEM knowledge in those efforts. Through a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles, research reports, and graduate theses, we found many topics highly ranked in public surveys were being addressed, with many notable exceptions. Much of the research examined presents social issues isolated from complex, intertwined societal structures, although some emerging efforts did focus on the societal context of social issues. Our analysis suggests a strong role for the field as knowledge brokers for understanding social issues but also a need to broaden the range of topics and to more deliberately and transparently include the societal context and structural nature of social issues. The review concludes with a call for more cross-disciplinary and cross-sector efforts.more » « less
-
The term research impact is variously defined in academic scholarship, by national and international research funding bodies, publishers, and other relevant entities, although common definitional elements exist. Concise definitions describe the term as relating to academic research that directly and or indirectly guides policymaking processes, by enabling evidence-based decision-making and or improving understanding of a given subject area or areas [1] . Underlying this and all definitions of research impact is the fundamental assumption that the outcome(s) of university research will serve the “public good” [2, p. 1368] .more » « less
-
This paper focuses on enhancing researchers’ ability to articulate and achieve societal impacts in their work using the ARIS Broad Impact (BI) Toolkit as a jumping off point. The authors conducted a survey of UNM researchers to understand their approach to societal impact and relationship-building in research projects. The key findings suggest that 1) researchers across disciplines and funding sources value societal impacts in their work; 2) most UNM researchers engage in collaborative relationships as part of their efforts to achieve broader societal impacts; and 3) while researchers feel confident in conceptualizing and carrying out activities related to broader societal impacts, they are less confident in writing BI statements for NSF proposals. Based on these findings, the authors recommend that research development professionals 1) emphasize the importance of finding meaning in research through its broader social impacts; 2) develop tools to support more intentional relationship-building in research projects; and 3) provide resources to help researchers translate their ideas into effective BI statements for proposals. The paper concludes by highlighting areas for further research, including student engagement, mentorship, and institutional questions about BI project development and evaluation. The authors argue that addressing these areas is crucial for enhancing the societal value and effectiveness of scholarly work, ultimately driving significant positive change through research.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065387
