Search

Climate solutions related to mitigation and adaptation vary across the United States and India, given their unique current socio-political–technological abilities and their histories. Here, we discuss results from online face-to-face interviews undertaken with 33 U.S.-based climate experts and 30 India-based climate experts. Using qualitative grounded theory, we explore open-ended responses to questions related to mitigation and adaptation and find the following: (1) there is broad agreement among experts in both countries on the main mitigation solutions focused on the decarbonization of energy systems, but (2) there are a diversity of views between experts on what to prioritize and how to achieve it. Similarly, there is substantial agreement that adaptation solutions are needed to address agriculture, water management, and infrastructure, but there is a wide variety of perspectives on other priorities and how best to proceed. Experts across both countries generally perceived mitigation as needing national policies to succeed, while adaptation is perceived as more local and challenging given the larger number of stakeholders involved in planning and implementation. Our findings indicate that experts agree on the goals of decarbonization, but there was no consensus on how best to accomplish implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractWater quality impairment from fertilizer runoff remains a major source of urban-agricultural conflicts when it leads to serious health risks. In this paper, we analyze the role of watershed organizations in Iowa, USA, that include both agricultural and urban stakeholders to address water quality challenges. We conducted three focus group discussions with 14 coordinators representing these watershed organizations to analyze what policy tools these organizations are using to address urban-agricultural conflicts and what outcomes have resulted from their efforts. We used qualitative coding to apply an existing set of policy tools already established in the literature. Coordinators’ responses showed that who participates in these organizations has a major impact on the level of problem solving. There were limited instances of joint urban-agricultural engagement strategies, but these were promising in changing individual’s perspectives and indicate that strategic targeting of watershed participants may be crucial to overcoming conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative governance has been promoted for decades as a means to tackle complex water management problems worldwide. Yet, watershed based efforts often lack interdependent consequences that can motivate participation, given upstream–downstream asymmetries. Additionally, watershed collaborations often have limited legal authority to take action, which can be due to political conflicts. While local governments often participate in collaborations, few studies have examined their motivations or how local governments could use existing legal authority to enact projects or change policies. This paper focuses on four cases in Iowa, USA, where local governments self‐organized to form watershed management authorities and undertake collaborative planning and management. We conduct a qualitative study to examine why local governments participate in collaborative governance and how they use their existing legal authorities. We found that local governments participated primarily to leverage external funding opportunities, while the advantage of multijurisdictional collaboration to reduce flooding and water quality was important but secondary. Using legal authorities to form agreements occurred in two cases to address flooding, but in all four cases collaboratives largely avoided water quality because of political tensions. We discuss the implications for how local governments might address the challenges of generating commitments and issues of legitimacy to act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]