Filters

20172

More filters

20202
Reset filters

Settings

search.filters.applied.f.access: openAccess × End date: 2017 × Start date: 2017 × Subject: Article × Subject: human ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Water scarcity hotspots travel downstream due to human interventions in the 20th and 21st century
    (London : Nature Publishing Group, 2017) Veldkamp, T.I.E.; Wada, Y.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Döll, P.; Gosling, S.N.; Liu, J.; Masaki, Y.; Oki, T.; Ostberg, S.; Pokhrel, Y.; Satoh, Y.; Kim, H.; Ward, P.J.
    Water scarcity is rapidly increasing in many regions. In a novel, multi-model assessment, we examine how human interventions (HI: land use and land cover change, man-made reservoirs and human water use) affected monthly river water availability and water scarcity over the period 1971-2010. Here we show that HI drastically change the critical dimensions of water scarcity, aggravating water scarcity for 8.8% (7.4-16.5%) of the global population but alleviating it for another 8.3% (6.4-15.8%). Positive impacts of HI mostly occur upstream, whereas HI aggravate water scarcity downstream; HI cause water scarcity to travel downstream. Attribution of water scarcity changes to HI components is complex and varies among the hydrological models. Seasonal variation in impacts and dominant HI components is also substantial. A thorough consideration of the spatially and temporally varying interactions among HI components and of uncertainties is therefore crucial for the success of water scarcity adaptation by HI.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ideals, practices, and future prospects of stakeholder involvement in sustainability science
    (Washington : National Academy of Sciences, 2017) Mielke, J.; Vermaßen, H.; Ellenbeck, S.
    This paper evaluates current stakeholder involvement (SI) practices in science through a web-based survey among scholars and researchers engaged in sustainability or transition research. It substantiates previous conceptual work with evidence from practice by building on four ideal types of SI in science. The results give an interesting overview of the varied landscape of SI in sustainability science, ranging from the kinds of topics scientists work on with stakeholders, over scientific trade-offs that arise in the field, to improvements scientists wish for. Furthermore, the authors describe a discrepancy between scientists’ ideals and practices when working with stakeholders. On the conceptual level, the data reflect that the democratic type of SI is the predominant one concerning questions on the understanding of science, the main goal, the stage of involvement in the research process, and the science–policy interface. The fact that respondents expressed agreement to several types shows they are guided by multiple and partly conflicting ideals when working with stakeholders. We thus conclude that more conceptual exchange between practitioners, as well as more qualitative research on the concepts behind practices, is needed to better understand the stakeholder–scientist nexus.