Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainabilityin a public–policy–science context

K.L. Larson a,*, D.D. White b, P. Gober a, S. Harlan c, A. Wutich c

aArizona State University, Schools of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and Sustainability, Box 875302, Tempe, AZ 87287-5302, USAbArizona State University, School of Community Resources and Development, 411N. Central Ave., Ste. 550, Phoenix, AZ 85044, USAcArizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Box 875302, Tempe, AZ 85287-5302, USA

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 3

a r t i c l e i n f o

Published on line 27 August 2009

Keywords:

Risk perceptions

Environmental attitudes

Science–policy interactions

decision making

Water resource geography

a b s t r a c t

Diverging perspectives toward environmental problems, their causes, and solutions can

exacerbate controversy in participatory decision making. Past research has examined the

lay–expert divide in perceptions about diverse risks, but relatively few studies have exam-

ined multidimensional perspectives on water scarcity across expert groups with different

knowledge systems. We address this gap by examining conflicting perspectives across ‘lay’

residents and academic and policymaking ‘experts’ in Phoenix, AZ. We analyze ecological

concern about water issues, risk perceptions regarding the factors contributing to scarcity,

and policy attitudes pertaining to resource management alternatives. All three groups

expressed substantial concern for broad-scale water issues, especially drought. Residents

exhibited a heightened tendency to blame other people for water scarcity, in addition to

opposition toward stringent approaches such as water pricing. While strongly supporting

the acquisition of more supplies, policymakers exhibited lower concern about regional

water use rates while displacing blame away from anthropogenic causes compared to both

residents and academic experts. Scientists, on the other hand, stressed the need for stricter

regulation of water demand. Findings point to the challenges of meshing different knowl-

edge systems for collaborative research and policy making.

# 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

avai lable at www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

1. Introduction

Water scarcity is a critical challenge to sustaining social,

economic, and environmental amenities around the world.

Global recognition of water scarcity reached an apex in 2003

when the United Nations declared 2005–2015 the International

Decade for Action with its Water for Life initiative (UN, 2008, or

visit http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/). Even in devel-

oped nations with substantial water supplies and infrastruc-

ture, water scarcity threatens food production, population

growth, and ecosystem health. Throughout the United States,

physical shortages are most severe in the arid deserts of the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 480 727 3603.E-mail address: Kelli.Larson@asu.edu (K.L. Larson).

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservedoi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.012

Southwest (IWMI, 2006), where projected climate changes will

likely contribute to warmer, drier conditions in the future (Ellis

et al., 2008). Water scarcity, however, is not only a function of

physically available supplies, but also factors such as the

quality of water, the efficiency of various uses, and the

institutional capacity to meet rising demands (USGS, 2008). To

better understand diverse perspectives toward water scarcity

and resource governance in the American Southwest, this

paper examines multifaceted human-ecological perspectives

across the public–policy–science arenas.

Disputes over water resources commonly occur in the face

of mounting demand and dwindling supplies, with problems

d.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 3 1013

sometimes arising when public attitudes limit the range of

possible management choices (Routhe et al., 2005). As a

common cause of environmental conflicts, divergent values

and perspectives present a formidable barrier to collaborative

efforts that engage diverse stakeholders in decision making

(Ozawa, 1996; Tarrant and Cordell, 2002). While public

involvement in natural resource planning and management

is required through legislative mandates, the complexities and

uncertainties associated with environmental problems render

scientific input and technical knowledge a typical cornerstone

of the decision making process. Scientific information is often

privileged at the expense of other ways of knowing, such as

those based on local knowledge and experience or normative

information about what people value (Eden, 1998; Fischer,

2000; Steele et al., 2001; Hall and White, 2008). But as Slovic

(1987: 236) wrote in Science, ‘‘there is wisdom as well as error in

public attitudes and perceptions. . .[and] each side, expert and

public, has something valid to contribute.’’

Focusing on environmental and other risks, ample

research has shown how perceptions between lay and expert

groups diverge (Slovic, 1987; McDaniels et al., 1997; Leiser-

owitz, 2005; White and Hall, 2006). While experts emphasize

the probability of fatalities or losses in their risk assessments,

the broader public tends to make intuitive judgments

depending on risk characteristics, biased media attention,

and sociocultural influences. Beyond the lay–expert dichot-

omy, scholars widely recognize the existence of multiple

rationalities concerning risks and efforts to mitigate them

(Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Fischer, 2000; Leiserowitz,

2005). Within the expert realm, Cash et al. (2003) explain how

differences in perspectives and expectations between aca-

demic scientists and policy professionals create divergent

knowledge systems in ‘‘boundary organizations’’ that seek to

bridge the science–policy arenas for sustainable develop-

ment. Still others highlight how scientists, policymakers, and

active citizens hold divergent views about the appropriate

role of science in environmental decision making (Steele

et al., 2001, 2004). Such differing perspectives among social

groups pose challenges for risk communication and outreach

efforts aimed at minimizing human impacts on environ-

mental resources (Slovic, 1987; Sjoberg, 2000; Wakefield and

Elliot, 2003). Thus, by identifying convergent and divergent

dimensions of human-ecological judgments, our research

pinpoints areas of agreement and conflict over water scarcity

issues and informs collaborative research and decision

making among groups with different understandings, experi-

ences, and values.

Few studies have compared ‘lay’ human-ecological per-

spectives with distinct ‘expert’ groups, such as policy profes-

sionals and academic scientists, despite their importance in

democratic decision making (Yankelovich, 1991; Eden, 1998).

We address this gap by characterizing and comparing a variety

of judgments across the public–policy–science realms of

society. Specifically, we surveyed the three distinct groups

about their (1) concern about water scarcity issues, (2)

perceptions about the factors contributing to scarcity, and

(3) attitudes about potential policy approaches to mitigating

scarcity. This tripartite approach is important since unidi-

mensional concepts and measures are inadequate for captur-

ing the complexity of human judgments about ecological

matters (Castro, 2006). Furthermore, our conceptualization of

multifaceted human-ecological perspectives adds clarity to a

muddled scholarly literature that makes comparisons and

generalizations of findings across disparate studies difficult

(Dunlap and Jones, 2002).

Conducted in the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona,

this study addresses the following question: How and why do

perspectives about water scarcity and resource management

vary across the public, policy, and science arenas? The ‘‘how’’

part of the research question is addressed by identifying

statistically significant differences in survey measures among

residents, policy professionals, and academic scientists. To

address the second part, we rely on a multidisciplinary body of

literature to explain ‘‘why’’ water management perspectives

vary across these groups.

2. Theoretical approach and past research onhuman-ecological perspectives

Our conceptualization of environmental perspectives follows

from attitude theory, specifically in terms of evaluating

multifaceted affective, cognitive, and conative judgments

(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1974; Dunlap and Jones, 2002; Routhe

et al., 2005). First, affective judgments involve emotional

assessments about some phenomenon, conceived here as

concern about water scarcity. Second, the cognitive elements

represent subjective personal beliefs, specifically about the

factors contributing to water scarcity. Third, the conative

elements reflect positive–negative predispositions akin to

behavioral intent (e.g., voting), which we evaluate as

expressed support–opposition for resource management

alternatives. Following this tripartite view, we conceptualize

the underlying value basis of ecological concern, risk percep-

tions, and policy attitudes. Across the public–policy–science

spheres, we anticipated that residents (or the broad public)

will be most influenced by the value dimensions described

below.

Based on the value-belief-norm and cognitive hierarchy

models (see Stern, 2000 and Whitaker et al., 2006 for reviews),

we view multidimensional values and orientations as the

underlying basis for more specific affective, cognitive, and

conative judgments. Basic values, or the principles determining

what is important in life broadly, provide the foundation on

which more concrete judgments are made about particular

environmental matters (Larson, 2009a). Building on Schwartz’s

(1994) theoryofvalues,prominent scholarshave illustratedhow

self-centered (egocentric) and self-transcendent (altruistic)

values as well as traditional (conservative) and open-to-change

(liberal) values influence a variety of attitudes and actions

concerning the environment (Stern and Dietz, 1994; Stern et al.,

1995; Stern, 2000). In particular, altruistic (self-transcendent)

values combine with biocentric (as opposed to anthropocentric)

orientations to positively influence judgments about nature,

wildlife, and environmental conservation or protection. Mean-

while, conservative (traditional) values relate to social-political

orientations and beliefs, with emphasis on the status quo and

the free-market economy. By contrast, people who are

open-to-change are more likely to express heightened support

for new or innovative social and political actions to remedy

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 31014

environmental problems. These basic value dimensions

inform our approach to evaluating affective, cognitive, and

conative elements, which respectively involve concern about

local and regional water issues, perceptions about anthropo-

genic and natural causes of scarcity, and attitudinal support for

voluntary and regulatory policy alternatives.

2.1. Ecological concern

First, we examine how affective concern about water scarcity

issues varies at local and regional scales due to the

‘‘hyperopia effect’’ (Uzzell, 2000; Lima and Castro, 2005;

Castro, 2006). The hyperopia effect is a term used to describe

the tendency for people to view broad, distal environmental

problems as more severe than proximate ones. Although it

seems logical that personal connections and attachments to

particular places would result in enhanced concern at

relatively small, local scales, the opposite has been found

in several studies (Uzzell, 2000; Lima and Castro, 2005; Garcia-

Mira et al., 2005). For instance, the public expressed greater

concern for global- and national-scale environmental pro-

blems relative to town- and individual-level impacts in a

multi-national survey of Ireland, England, Slovakia, and

Australia (Uzzell, 2000). Another study showed variations in

local- and global-scale concern due to cultural rationales and

social orientations (Lima and Castro, 2005). While individu-

alists exhibited similar levels of concern across geographic

scales, egalitarians were more concerned about global

problems compared to local ones.

Broadly, altruistic values may result in concern about distal

problems with impacts on other people or wildlife. Meanwhile,

individualistic values and personal interests might lead to

downplaying proximate ecological issues to maintain a

positive self-perception. In other words, personal identifica-

tion with local places explains diminished concern about

environmental problems at relatively small scales of human–

environment interactions. This explanation seems to hold

true in the weakened concern evident for local compared to

global-scale problems (Uzzell, 2000; Lima and Castro, 2005;

Garcia-Mira et al., 2005), in addition to the tendency for people

to distance themselves from water scarcity problems (Askew

and McGuirk, 2004).

For this study, we expected to find heightened concern

about broader scale regional water issues compared to the

local neighborhood level, especially among residents who are

likely to be more influenced by their values than expert

groups. By focusing on a range of multidimensional judgments

about water scarcity across three social groups, this study

complements previous research on people’s concerns about

diverse environmental problems (Uzzell, 2000; Garcia-Mira

et al., 2005; Castro, 2006) as well as research on how

perceptions vary depending on the characteristics of risks

(such as their dread or familiarity, see Slovic, 1987 and Sjoberg,

2000). We place special attention on relatively small scales,

because although perceived responsibility for ecological

problems may be strongest at local levels such as the

neighborhood (Uzzell, 2000), attenuated concern at proximate

scales may have critical implications for establishing a sense

of efficacy to spur individual environmental actions (Lima and

Castro, 2005).

2.2. Risk perceptions

Cognitive perspectives involve subjective understanding

about the causes of water scarcity. The propensity for people

to blame ecological problems on other people or causes

reflects a perceived lack of control or responsibility, which has

negative implications for encouraging conservation or pro-

environmental behaviors (Stern, 2000; Trumbo and O’Keefe,

2004; Garcia-Mira et al., 2005). In an Australian study, for

example, Askew and McGuirk (2004) reported that residents

exhibited an ‘‘othering’’ effect wherein resource problems

were distanced from household uses of water by invoking a

national consciousness about drought.

Past research has shown that while some people attribute

risks to human or technical factors, many others blame nature

or natural processes for environmental problems such as

water scarcity (Bandyopadhyay, 1987; Sonnett et al., 2006). In a

study concerning climate change, Leiserowitz (2005) char-

acterized interpretive communities based on people’s percep-

tions of ‘‘global warming.’’ Specifically, conservative

‘‘naysayers’’ blamed natural forces or see climate change as

random and uncontrollable, therefore supporting the status

quo or a ‘do nothing’ policy approach. On the other hand,

liberal ‘‘alarmists’’ perceived humans as significantly impact-

ing the environment, thus mandating immediate action to

minimize and mitigate climate changes. In short, socio-

cultural values and worldviews influence risk perceptions

and policy preferences (Leiserowitz, 2006).

By evaluating judgments in relation to diverse targets

(Sjoberg, 2000), the current study examines how cognitive

beliefs about the causes of risk vary along a theoretical

continuum emphasizing self-interested values and anthro-

pocentric orientations. Specifically, the causes of water

scarcity risks conceptually span residents’ activities as self-

targeted human causes through to human activities as

collective anthropogenic causes and climatic factors as

natural causes. Accordingly, residents’ judgments were

expected to reflect egocentric values and anthropocentric

orientations due to the tendency for people to blame risks on

other people and natural causes, respectively, rather than

seeing themselves and human activities as contributing

substantially to water scarcity problems.

2.3. Policy attitudes

With respect to policy alternatives, conative attitudes are

conceptualized as a gradient ranging from strict regulatory

measures with direct impacts on residents through to voluntary

management efforts among society as a whole. Policy attitudes,

thus, reflect selfish interests in not being regulated or otherwise

affected by resource management options relative to collective

efforts with minimal direct impacts on residents. Past research

has illustrated greater support for voluntary measures

compared to regulatory ones (Larson, 2009a).

Carman (1998) suggests environmental policy support is

largely a function of judgments about resource conditions as

well as economic impacts and government regulations. At

least partly due to economic impacts, previous studies have

illustrated substantial public opposition to increasing water

prices as a particular means of reducing demand or managing

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 3 1015

resources (Gearey and Jeffrey, 2005; Harlan et al., 2007). In a

study of lay–expert perceptions, moreover, experts exhibited

stronger judgments about the need to regulate activities

compared to the broader public (McDaniels et al., 1997). As a

whole, conservative values combine with individualist orien-

tations to determine policy attitudes (opposition) toward

regulatory policies involving government control of economic

and other activities (Larson, 2009a).

In our study, we expected stronger support for voluntary

efforts to mitigate water scarcity compared to regulatory

policies among lay residents, along with more agreement

among residents, policy professionals, and academic

researchers for non-regulatory water management

approaches. Generally, while perspectives among the broad

public are likely to be more strongly influenced by these value-

based dimensions compared to experts, the next section

further explains the professional forces that may sway

policymakers and academics’ views of human-ecological

problems and their resolution.

3. Expert judgments: divergences from thebroader public

Since expert judgments tend to be predicated on technical

knowledge and empirical assessments emphasizing the like-

lihood of particular consequences (Slovic, 1987; Leiserowitz,

2005), we expected both policymakers and scientists’ per-

spectives to deviate from the theoretical value continua

described above. Overall, compared to residents, we antici-

pated that experts would be more prone to: (1) express

heightened concern about local water scarcity issues relative

to broad-scale issues; (2) attribute scarcity to residential uses

of water, instead of blaming nature and other people; and, (3)

support regulatory policy alternatives that directly impact

residents, that is, relative to voluntary efforts. We also

theorize that political and organizational forces uniquely

sway the views of public policymakers, while empirical

research and scientific traditions specially affect judgments

among academic researchers.

3.1. Policymaker perspectives

The organizational culture of decision making institutions

reflects and reinforces the views, norms, and expectations of

resource managers and policy professionals. The reliable

delivery of inexpensive water is a foremost priority among

water managers in the Western U.S., who commonly think

their customers are unwilling to change their water use

behaviors (Lach et al., 2005). Because organizations operate

based on established norms and shared expectations, more-

over, conservative institutions tend to maintain the status

quo. In particular, many water resource professionals cling to

‘‘the unshakeable belief. . .that large, centralized systems are

the only way to meet unrelenting growth in demand’’ (Gleick,

2002: p. 373).

Especially in the arid western U.S., water reclamation

projects and supply augmentation through technocratic and

structural approaches have been a long-standing tradition

(White, 1998). Even though ‘‘water is no longer used to

promote population growth as envisioned in the Reclamation

Act,’’ water is used ‘‘to sustain growth’’ such that population

projections justify the need for new water development

projects (Chan, 1981: p. 125). In the Phoenix area, water

managers consider the reduction of risk and uncertainty an

essential aspect of their jobs, and accordingly, strive to ensure

that water is supplied to customers regardless of demand

(White et al., 2008). Therefore, despite calls to increase water

use efficiency and thereby reduce water demand (Gleick, 2002),

policy professionals are likely to underscore supply-side

strategies while deemphasizing demand-site alternatives

relative to scientists.

In a previous study, decision makers (politicians) empha-

sized the natural causes (flooding) of a bridge collapse,

whereas scientists stressed the social causes of the disaster

(Stallings, 1990). This indicates that policymakers minimize

the blame placed on their constituents, which is consistent

with the proclivity of water managers to deemphasize

customers’ water use behaviors. Since decisions to regulate

water use are ‘‘fundamentally political’’ (Hill and Polsky, 2007:

p. 293), and since water managers overwhelmingly judge their

career success by the lack of publicity or political attention

(Lach et al., 2005), policymakers may very well exhibit lower

support for unpopular regulatory approaches compared to

academics. In fact, political circumstances help explain why in

the middle of a long-run drought, the Phoenix region is among

very few cities who have not implemented water use

restrictions (Kunzig, 2008). Instead, managers have relied on

increased pumping of non-renewable groundwater to meet

water demands.

In sum, policy professionals are prone to minimize the

blame placed on residential customers and other social causes

of water scarcity due to the organizational and political

context of decision making. Policymakers are also expected to

downplay demand-side water issues and approaches to

resource management while exhibiting lower support for

publically opposed alternatives (such as increasing water

prices) compared to scientists.

3.2. Academic judgments

Although not immune to value-based judgments about water

scarcity, academic researchers’ perspectives are strongly

influenced by available scientific information and empirical

studies indicating the probability or likelihood of risks or

related phenomena. Recently, research has focused on the

impacts of climate variability on both water supply and

demand (Balling and Gober, 2006; Ellis et al., 2008), as well as

the substantial role that residential and outdoor water uses

play in determining total municipal demand (Guhathakurta

and Gober, 2007; Wentz and Gober, 2007). Consequently,

academics are expected to stress demand-side aspects of

water issues compared to policy experts and the broader

public, especially residents outdoor uses in pools and irrigated

yards, while also emphasizing the impacts of drought and

global climate change on water scarcity.

Although many studies have focused on how experts

perceive risks in relation to the ‘lay’ public (Slovic, 1987;

McDaniels et al., 1997; Tunstall et al., 2000), relatively few have

examined perspectives across the public–policy–science

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 31016

spheres. McDaniels et al. (1997) employed a psychometric

approach to examine perceptions about a wide variety of

water risks, illustrating that experts differed from the lay

public for one-third of the ecological risks examined. In

particular, experts viewed population growth and urban

development as more risky and natural hazards such as

drought as less risky. However, this study combined university

and agency scientists as a single expert group, thereby

masking potential distinctions between academic and policy

professionals. Our study builds upon this research by

evaluating human-ecological perspectives across residents

and both academic researchers and policy professionals,

which represent two expert groups with different knowledge

systems and organizational cultures.

4. Study area: Phoenix, AZ

Sustainable water use and governance is of vital importance to

the semi-arid metropolitan region of Phoenix, AZ, which

typically receives less than eight inches of annual precipita-

tion (Gober, 2006). In addition to the local Salt and Verde River

watersheds, the Phoenix area receives water from the Color-

ado River and augments these supplies by withdrawing non-

renewable groundwater. A diverse portfolio of water has

allowed Phoenix to develop as a lush oasis with well-watered

landscapes saturated by plentiful lush-green lawns and golf

courses as well as human-created water features including

pools, fountains, and lakes. Heavy outdoor water use has

created an urban environment that is at odds with the notion

of Phoenix as a desert city (Gober, 2007), while resulting in high

water use rates relative to other cities including nearby Tucson

(Larson, 2009b).

Readily available water has facilitated an economy and

society built on land development and real-estate construc-

tion. According to the Arizona Republic (2004), one out of every

three dollars in the Phoenix economy comes from some aspect

of the home-building industry, which accounts for an

estimated 20% of jobs involving developers, architects,

contractors, construction workers, landscapers, real-estate

agents, mortgage loan officers, and title companies (Gober,

2006). The need for growth is firmly embedded in the economic

elite and the local political culture, such that the question of

whether there is enough water to support future growth is

subjugated to how and where growth will occur.

Since 2000, Phoenix has been the nation’s second fastest

growing large (>1 million) metropolitan area, after Las Vegas

(U.S. Census 2008). The region currently houses 4.2 million

people, and by 2050, the state expects more than 9 million

residents (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2008). The

current growth model favors heavy use of water because

new development is dominated by single-family detached

homes with private yards. A recent study by Wentz and Gober

(2007) underscored the role of exterior, residential water uses

in predicting Phoenix demand, since three of the four

significant factors driving neighborhood water use reflect

outdoor consumption: pools, irrigated lawns, and lot size.

Depending on municipal location, 60–75% of residential water

is used for outdoor purposes. Overall, residential uses

comprise the majority of municipal demand, which is

expected to surpass agricultural uses as the dominant sector

of regional demand by 2025 (Jacobs and Megdal, 2005).

The prospect of climate change jeopardizes the vision of

Phoenix as a place with limitless water supplies and unlimited

growth potential. Ellis et al. (2008) demonstrated the uncer-

tainty associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and global climate models

and their implications for water flows in the regional Salt and

Verde Watersheds. With a range of positive to negative

impacts on surface runoff, the average model run produced

flows at about 80% of historical levels. Meanwhile, findings for

the Colorado River Basin indicate that human-induced climate

change will produce a warmer, drier future and that the shift

to new climatic conditions is already underway (Seager et al.,

2007; Barnett et al., 2008; Barnett and Pierce, 2008). In short, the

region’s history and geography provide a unique context for

the emergence of multifaceted judgments about water use,

climate change, and a variety of other factors associated with

water scarcity and resource management.

5. Survey methods and analyses

The data for this study were collected from three coordinated

social surveys during 2006–2007. Residents’ views were

assessed through the Phoenix Area Social Survey (PASS),

which is a longitudinal study of human-environment

dynamics in central Arizona (Harlan et al., 2007). Two

supplementary surveys were administered to academic

scientists and policy professionals using a subset of PASS

questions. Both ‘expert’ groups were affiliated with Arizona

State University (ASU)’s Global Institute of Sustainability

(GIOS), since they are most likely to be involved in collabora-

tive projects pertaining to environmental research and related

decision making initiatives.

5.1. The broad residential survey

PASS employed a two-stage stratified sampling design in

which a systematic sample of neighborhoods and a random

sample of households within each neighborhood were

targeted to participate in the survey. The forty neighborhoods,

represented by Census block groups, were selected to

represent the full range of neighborhood types in the region.

Thus, they vary widely in income, ethnicity, age, homeowner-

ship, and their location in urban, suburban, and fringe areas of

the metropolitan region (Harlan et al., 2007). Within each

neighborhood, forty random addresses (including single - and

multi-family dwellings) were selected from county tax-

assessor records. The final response rate was 51% (n = 808),

with 10% of the surveys completed in Spanish. Respondents

completed the questionnaire in an online survey (59%), a

scheduled telephone survey (35%), or an in-person survey (7%).

Using the 2000 Census data as a benchmark, 35% of both the

neighborhood populations and the PASS sample had a high

school education or less and 21% were over 65 years old.

Median income level for the sample – in the $60,000 range –

was also equivalent to the study neighborhoods. The majority

of the sample was White, but nearly one in five respondents

self-identified as Latino/Hispanic.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 3 1017

5.2. Survey of academic scientists

We compiled the sampling frame to reach academic scientists

from mailing lists maintained by ASU’s Global Institute of

Sustainability. Mailing lists were scrutinized to select an array

of Ph.D. researchers, including postdoctoral associates,

research faculty, tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well

as academic administrators. We use the term academic

scientists broadly to include biophysical scientists and

engineers as well as researches in the social sciences and

humanities.

The target audience of 156 potential respondents received a

confidential internet survey, with up to three follow-up

reminders. A total of 108 scientists (70% response rate)

completed the online questionnaire. All had doctoral degrees,

72% were men, and the mean income level was around

$120,000. Most (87%) were White, 3% were Asian, and 3% were

Latino, with the rest reporting some other ethnicity. In terms

of disciplinary expertise, just over one-third of academic

respondents were in each the biological/physical sciences or

social/behavioral sciences, with an additional 8% in engineer-

ing, 7% in planning, and a few other disciplines represented by

the sample.

5.3. Survey of policy professionals

Similar to the scientists, we targeted public policy profes-

sionals through contact lists maintained by ASU’s GIOS. The

sampling frame included 189 planning and policymaking

professionals employed with government or public agencies at

the local (municipal and county), state (Arizona) and federal

(U.S.) levels. The sample excluded elected officials and

administrative assistants, and instead, targeted trained staff

who support decision making on a variety of sustainability

issues in the greater Phoenix area, including water resources

as well as other domains such as air quality and wildlife

conservation.

We initiated the web-based survey via email, with three

follow-up contacts and an offer of a $20 gift certificate for

participating professionals. Fifty percent responded, with a

total of 90 completed questionnaires. Two-thirds of respon-

dents had graduate degrees, and just under one-third had a

Bachelor’s degree. Men accounted for 68% of the sample.

Similar to the researchers, the vast majority (90%) were White/

Anglo, while 8% were Asian. On average, the income level of

the policymakers was around $120,000. With regard to the

nature of their professional positions, a variety of planning

domains were represented, from land use and transportation

planning to urban development and public lands manage-

ment. About 30% deal with water resources specifically in their

occupational duties.

5.4. Questionnaire items on water resources

We asked all three survey samples identical questions about

environmental conditions and resource management alter-

natives in the ‘‘Valley,’’ a colloquial term commonly used for

the broader Phoenix metropolitan region of central Arizona

(see the Appendix in the Supplementary Information pub-

lished online for verbatim survey questions).

Closed-ended survey questions measured ‘‘concern’’ about

four water resource scarcity issues identified as most critical

among an interdisciplinary research team (see Fig. 1 and the

online Appendix). Specifically, we asked about people’s concern

about the ‘‘amount of water used’’ at both the regional and local

scales. One additional regional-scale question referred to

concern about the impacts of long-term drought on ‘‘the

Valley,’’ and another local-scale question asked about concern

for the safety of drinking water in ‘‘your neighborhood.’’ A four-

point ordinal response scale measured affective judgments

ranging from ‘‘very’’ to ‘‘not at all’’ concerned. In our analysis,

higher numbers equate to greater concern.

Similar closed-ended questions evaluated cognitive percep-

tions in terms of how much different factors contribute to water

scarcity, along with conative attitudes involving the degree to

which residents support (or oppose) alternative approaches to

mitigating scarcity (see Figs. 2 and 3 and the survey Appendix

published online). Ten-point ordinal response scales ranged

from contributes ‘‘not at all’’ (1) to ‘‘a lot’’ (10) for rating potential

causes, and from ‘‘strongly oppose’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly support’’

(10) for rating the policy remedies.

In comparing the three types of judgments across the

public, policymaker, and scientist samples, we employed

descriptive statistics and one-way Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc tests. Given the ordinal nature

of data and unequal variance between samples in some

cases, we also ran non-parametric Kruskal Wallis tests to

double-check the parametric results. The parametric and

non-parametric tests produced identical results with a few

minor exceptions (see Figs. 2 and 3).

6. Survey results

The results that follow describe the patterns in ecological

concern, risk perceptions, and policy attitudes across the three

groups, along with the statistical differences indicating areas

of divergent perspectives among the broad public, policy

professionals, and academic scientists. The reporting of

statistically significant differences is based on the 0.05

significance level for the omnibus ANOVA test, unless

otherwise noted.

6.1. Ecological concern about water scarcity

Overall, the residents, policymakers, and scientists expressed

greater concern for region-wide drought and water use

compared to local-scale risks (Fig. 1). The three groups differed

most in their concern about the safety of drinking water at the

local (neighborhood) scale, with residents expressing greater

concern than policymakers and academics. The only other

statistically significant difference in concern among the groups

was for regional water demand, with policy professionals

expressing less concern about the amount of water used in the

Valley compared to the public and, at the 0.10 level, academics.

6.2. Perceived causes of water shortages

In general, residents perceptions about the causes of water

scarcity increased along the theoretical continuum, ranging

Fig. 1 – Differences in ecological concern about water scarcity risks at two scales.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 31018

from residential water use activities (seen as least critical) to

other anthropogenic causes (seen as moderately critical) and

naturally occurring drought (seen as most critical) (Fig. 2). The

most significant differences across the three groups occurred

for the anthropogenic causes to water scarcity. Residents

tended to blame other people, rather than their ‘residential

selves,’ compared to both expert samples, while the policy

professionals perceived all anthropogenic causes as modestly

contributing to potential water shortages. In particular,

policymakers differed significantly from both residents and

scientists in perceiving household yard irrigation, pools, and

recreational uses of water as less significant sources of

scarcity. Meanwhile, compared to scientists, residents attrib-

uted more blame to human-made lakes and water use for

tourism and recreation. Growth, or people moving to the area,

was also seen as a major cause of scarcity, with heightened

perceptions among residents and scientists compared to

policy professionals. Finally, respondents similarly perceived

natural and climatic conditions, especially long-term drought,

as major contributors to water scarcity.

6.3. Policy attitudes about mitigation strategies

Among the public (residents) sample, the most opposed water

management option was increasing the price of water to

reduce usage, but this option received significantly higher

support among policymakers and the highest support among

academics (Fig. 3). The academic experts also expressed

substantially higher support for regulating outdoor residential

water uses relative to the policy professionals, who also

exhibited lower support than residents (although this pair-

wise test was significant at p < 0.10). With regard to restric-

tions on golf courses, policy professionals were significantly

less supportive than residents, and at the 0.10 level, scientists.

Policymakers as well as residents exhibited considerably more

support for acquiring new water sources than scientists, who

in fact opposed supply augmentation more than any other

option. Among all three groups, collective voluntary efforts

such as educating the public about conservation were most

supported, with slightly more support for improving manage-

ment among scientists compared to residents (p < 0.10).

7. Discussion

In sum, residents’ judgments about water issues varied in

expected ways, with greatest concern for broad-scale

(regional) water issues, a heightened tendency to blame other

people for water scarcity, and the strongest opposition to

regulatory approaches with direct personal impacts. Residents

also expressed significantly higher concern about the safety of

local drinking water, potentially confounding public commu-

nications about related health risks. Meanwhile, compared to

both residents and scientists, policymakers exhibited lower

concern about regional water use rates and tended to displace

blame for water scarcity away from anthropogenic sources.

Fig. 2 – Differences in the perceived causes of (potential) water scarcity.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 3 1019

Policymakers also strongly supported traditional supply-

augmentation strategies for resource management, whereas

scientists stressed stricter regulation of water demand. As a

whole, these findings have implications for collaborative

environmental research and policymaking. Furthermore, the

tripartite approach adds clarity to the conceptualization of

multifaceted human-ecological perspectives.

On the theoretical front, the current research incorporates

various types of perspectives – specifically, affective concern,

cognitive perceptions, and conative attitudes – to further

knowledge about complex, multidimensional judgments

about environmental problems. By conceptualizing and

examining how tripartite judgments differ across three social

spheres, our study illustrates that people’s judgments vary

along value-based dimensions involving the local–regional

scale of problems, their anthropogenic–natural sources, and

regulatory–voluntary mechanisms for risk mitigation and

environmental governance. Relative to academic and policy

experts, residents appear to distance problems away from

local areas and displace blame away from residential water

uses, likely to maintain a positive image of themselves. As

such, residents appear most influenced by values such as

personal self-interests and conservative orientations aimed at

upholding the status quo. Meanwhile, the organizational

cultures of experts are evident in policymakers’ persistent

attention to supply-oriented strategies and climatic sources of

risks, which downplay water consumption and conservation

efforts that target political constituents. Yet scientists strongly

oppose supply-augmentation strategies, perhaps due to

awareness of their environmental, social, and economic costs.

Given recent empirical research illustrating the implications

of climatic processes and residential uses on water resources,

scientists’ emphasis on water demand is not surprising.

In going beyond the simple lay–expert dichotomy, addi-

tional research should distinguish between academic and

policy experts while evaluating human-ecological perspec-

tives across additional stakeholder groups, such as citizen

activists and the broader public, elected officials and technical

policymakers (as distinctive decision making entities), and

social, ecological and other scientists (who have diverse

disciplinary traditions), among others. Attention to within-

group variations is worthwhile in future studies, along with

multivariate analyses that help establish the value basis of

tripartite judgments by considering the varying characteristics

of people (for example, their ecological worldviews, political

orientations, and socioeconomic status) as significant factors

explaining public perspectives about diverse risks (for exam-

ple, water scarcity versus flooding, air pollution versus climate

change). By acknowledging and understanding plural knowl-

edge systems, such studies enhance awareness about the

Fig. 3 – Differences in policy support for water scarcity mitigation alternatives.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 31020

multiple ways in which diverse people frame environmental

problems and their mitigation, which could help bolster

collaborations or thwart conflicts in decision making.

Regarding policy implications, our study highlights areas

where policymakers and program coordinators can antici-

pate disagreements due to dissenting perspectives between

actors, while also identifying barriers to behavior change for

sustainable water resource use. To achieve reductions in

outdoor water use, in particular, the tendency for residents

to distance themselves from problems and to blame other

people and natural processes for environmental risks could

hinder residential conservation efforts. Outreach programs,

therefore, might entail informational appeals stressing the

substantial portion of water used by residents relative to golf

courses, resorts, and other activities, which are often seen as

substantial users of water. In addition, focusing attention to

local areas and households with high rates of consumption

might help in counteracting the hyperopia effect by instilling

a sense of responsibility for water conservation in residen-

tial neighborhoods. Although restricting residential uses

was among the least preferred policy options, residents

support restrictions more than policymakers. This finding

indicates that such regulations may be more politically

feasible than decision makers think. Yet with respect to

collaborations between policy actors and scientists, aca-

demic researchers’ focus on demand-side issues and

anthropogenic sources of risk may result in disagreements

or roadblocks in the co-production of knowledge for

sustainable governance.

The diverging perspectives between scientists and policy-

makers are evident in recent interactions at the Decision

Center for a Desert City (DCDC), where academics have faced

resistance among policymakers who have been wary of

incorporating pricing mechanisms into the DCDC water

simulation, or ‘‘WaterSim,’’ model. Understanding conflict-

ing perspectives is instructive for reconciling divergent

views across the public–policy–science spheres of decision

making. One approach to reconciling divergent perceptions

and attitudes is through institutional forms such as

boundary organizations, which are positioned in the over-

lapping space between scientific research and political

decision making. Boundary organizations such as DCDC

provide opportunities and incentives for the creation of

boundary-ordering processes such as stakeholder meetings

(White et al., 2008). These collaborative processes allow

participants from multiple arenas of society to engage in the

co-production of knowledge for risk mitigation and public

policy, albeit sometimes confronting social conflicts and the

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 3 1021

political realities of natural resource use and governance.

Ultimately, as different actors come to understand each

others’ perspectives, meaningful deliberation and reflexive

decision making could lead to better solutions supported by

multiple stakeholders.

Given the significant differences in perspectives among

academic researchers and policymakers, combining these

expert groups masks variation in perceptions and attitudes

that could reveal important areas of diverging views among

key stakeholder groups. Not only is it critical to assess

perspectives across varying social groups, but studies with a

clear conceptual approach to understanding tripartite judg-

ments about ecological matters are also important for

advancing social science theory concerning the nature and

structure of multidimensional judgments, which encompass

affective ecological concerns, cognitive risk perceptions, and

conative policy attitudes, among other types of judgments.

Improved knowledge of human-ecological perspectives within

and across the public–policy–science arenas can improve

communications and collaborations while recognizing plural

ways of knowing and framing complex environmental

problems and their mitigation. Such information is imperative

to democratic decision making processes that acknowledge

normative views and move toward socially sustainable

natural resource use and governance.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be

found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.012.

r e f e r e n c e s

Arizona Department of Commerce, 2008. 2006–2055 ADOCPopulation Projections. Retrieved on December 15, 2008 athttp://www.azcommerce.com/econinfo/demographics/Population%20Projections.html.

Askew, L.E., McGuirk, P.M., 2004. Watering the suburbs:distinction, conformity and the suburban garden.Australian Geographer 35 (1), 17–37.

Balling, R.C., Gober, P., 2006. Climate variability and residentialwater use in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. Journal of AppliedMeteorology & Climatology 46, 1130–1137.

Bandyopadhyay, J., 1987. Political ecology of drought and waterscarcity. Economic and Political Weekly 2159–2169.

Barnett, T.P., Pierce, D.W., Hidago, H.G., Bonfils, C., Santer, B.D.,Das, T., Bala, G., Wood, A.W., Nozawa, T., Mirin, A.A.,Kayan, D.R., Dettinger, M.D., 2008. Human-induced changesin the hydrology of the western United States. Science 319,1080–1083.

Barnett, T.P., Pierce, D.W., 2008. When will Lake Mead go dry.Water Resources Research 44: W03201, doi:10.1029/2007WR006704.

Carman, C.J., 1998. Dimensions of environmental policy supportin the United States. Social Science Quarterly 79, 4.

Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N.,Guston, D.H., Jager, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledgesystems for sustainable development. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 100 (14), 8086–8091.

Castro, P., 2006. Applying social psychology to the study ofenvironmental concern and environmental worldviews:contributions from the social representations approach.Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 16,247–266.

Chan, A.H., 1981. The structure of federal water resources policymaking. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 40(2), 115–127.

Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A., 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay onthe Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers.University of California Press, Berkley.

Dunlap, R.E., Jones, R.E., 2002. In: Dunlap, R.E., Michelson, W.(Eds.), Environmental Concern: Conceptual andMeasurement Issues. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT,pp. 482–524.

Eden, S., 1998. Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertaintyand the environment. Progress in Human Geography 22,425–432.

Ellis, A.W., Hawkins, T.W., Balling Jr., R.C., Gober, P., 2008.Estimating future runoff levels for a semi-arid fluvialsystem in central Arizona, USA. Climate Research 35,227–239.

Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1974. Attitudes toward objects aspredictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria.Psychological Review 81 (1), 59–64.

Fischer, F., 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: ThePolitics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham,NC.

Garcia-Mira, R., Eulogio Real, J., Romay, J., 2005. Temporal andspatial dimensions in the perception of environmentalproblems: an investigation of the concept ofenvironmental hyperopia. International Journal ofPsychology 40, 5–10.

Gearey, M., Jeffrey, P.I., 2005. Domestic consumer perceptions ofthe legitimacy of water resource management options: acase study of the River Nene Catchment, U.K. Water andEnvironment Journal 19, 312–322.

Gleick, P.H., 2002. Soft water paths. Nature 25, 373.Gober, P., 2006. Metropolitan Phoenix: Place Making And

Community Building in the Desert Metropolitan PortraitsSeries. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Gober, P., 2007. Water, climate and the future of Phoenix.Geographische Rundschau 3 (4), P20–24.

Guhathakurta, S., Gober, P., 2007. The impact of the Phoenixurban heat island on residential water use. Journal ofAmerican Planning Association 73 (3), 317–329.

Harlan, S.L., Budruk, M., Gustafson, A., Larson, K., Ruddell, D.,Smith, V.K., Yabiku, S.T., Wutich, A., 2007. Highlights of thePhoenix Area Social Survey: Community and environmentin a Desert Metropolis. Contribution No. 4, Central Arizona –Long-Term Ecological Research Project. Global Institute ofSustainability, Arizona State University.

Hill, T.D., Polsky, C., 2007. Suburbanization and drought in amixed methods vulnerability assessment in rainyMassachusetts. Environmental Hazards 7, 291–301.

Hall, T.E., White, D.D., 2008. Representing recovery: science andlocal control in the framing of US Pacific Northwest salmonpolicy. Human Ecology Review 15 (1), 32–45.

Jacobs, K., Megdal, S., 2005. Water Management in theActive Management Areas. In 85th Arizona Town Hall.Arizona’s Water Future: Challenges and OpportunitiesTucson: University of Arizona Office of EconomicDevelopment and Water Resources Research Center,pp. 71–91.

IWMI, 2006. Water for Food, Water for Life: Insights from theComprehensive Assessment of Water Management inAgriculture. International Water Management Institute,Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat, Colombo, SriLanka, pp. 37.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 31022

Kunzig, R., 2008. Drying of the West. National Geographic 213(2), 90–113.

Lach, D., Ingram, H., Rayner, S., 2005. Maintaining the statusquo: how institutional norms and practices createconservative water organizations. Texas Law Review 83,2027–2053.

Larson, K.L., 2009a. Social acceptability of water resourcemanagement: a conceptual approach and empiricalfindings. Journal of the American Water ResourcesAssociation Published online in May 2009.

Larson, K.L., Gustafson A., Hirt P., 2009. Insatiable thirst and afinite supply: Assessing municipal water conservationpolicy in greater Phoenix, Arizona, 1980–2007. Journal ofPolicy History, forthcoming.

Leiserowitz, A.A., 2005. American risk perceptions: is climatechange dangerous? Risk Analysis 25 (6), 1433–1442.

Leiserowitz, A., 2006. Climate change risk perception and policypreferences: the role of affect, imagery and values. ClimateChange 77, 45–72.

Lima, M.L., Castro, P., 2005. Cultural theory meets thecommunity: worldviews and local issues. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 25, 23–35.

McDaniels, T.L., Axelrod, L.J., Cavanagh, N.S., Slovic, P., 1997.Perception of ecological risk to water environments. RiskAnalyses 17 (3), 341–352.

Ozawa, C.P., 1996. Science in environmental conflicts.Sociological Perspectives 39 (2), 219–230.

Routhe, A., Jones, R.E., Feldman, D.L., 2005. Using theory tounderstand public support for collective actions that impactthe environment: alleviating water supply problems in anon-arid biome. Social Science Quarterly 85 (4), 874–897.

Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in thestructure and contents of human values? Journal of SocialIssues 50 (4), 19–45.

Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, Huang,H., Harnik, N.M., Leetmaa, A., Lau, N., Li, C., Velez, J., Naik,N., 2007. Model projections of an imminent transition to amore arid climate in Southwestern North America. Science316, 1181–1184.

Sjoberg, L., 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20 (1),1–11.

Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285.Sonnett, J., Morehouse, B.J., Finger, T.D., Garfin, G., Rattray, N.,

2006. Drought and declining reservoirs: comparing mediadiscourse in Arizona and New Mexico, 2002–2004. GlobalEnvironmental Change 16, 95–113.

Stallings, R.A., 1990. Media discourse and the socialconstruction of risk. Social Problems. 37 (1), 80.

Steele, B., Lach, D., List, P., Shindler, B., 2001. The role ofscientists in the natural resource and environmental policyprocess: a comparison of Canadian and American publics.Journal of Environmental Systems 28 (2), 133–155.

Steele, B., List, P., Lach, D., Shindler, B., 2004. The role ofscientists in the environmental policy process: a case studyfrom the American West. Environmental Science and Policy7, 1–13.

Stern, P., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmentalconcern. Journal of Social Issues 50 (3), 65–84.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., Guagnano, G.A., 1995. Values,beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formationtoward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology 25 (18), 1611–1636.

Stern, P., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentallysignificant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 407–424.

Tarrant, M.A., Cordell, H.K., 2002. Amenity values of public andprivate forests: examining the value–attitude relationship.Environmental Management 30 (5), 692–703.

Tunstall, S.M., Penning-Roswell, E.C., Tapsell, S.M., Eden, S.E.,2000. River restoration: public attitudes and expectations.

Journal of the Chartered Institute of Water andEnvironmental Management 14, 363–370.

Trumbo, C.W., O’Keefe, G.J., 2004. Intention to conservewater: environmental values, planned behavior, andinformation effects: a comparison of three communitiessharing a watershed. Society and Natural Resources 14,889–899.

USGS, 2008. Water Availability: A Matter of Quantity, Qualityand Use. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior,Media advisory 20 March 2008.

US Census, 2008. Cumulative Estimates of Population Changefor Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Rankings: April 1,2000 to July 1, 2007. Retrieved on December 15 from: http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2007/CBSA-EST2007-07.xls.

UN, 2008. Factsheet on Water and Sanitation. United Nations.http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/factsheet.html Lastaccessed on June 27, 2008.

Uzzell, D.L., 2000. The psycho-spatial dimension of globalenvironmental problems. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 20, 307–318.

Wakefield, S.E., Elliot, S.J., 2003. Constructing the news: the roleof local newspapers in environmental risk communication.The Professional Geographer 55 (2), 216–226.

Wentz, E., Gober, P., 2007. Determinants of small-area waterconsumption for the city of Phoenix, Arizona. WaterResources Management 21, 1849–1863.

Whitaker, D., Vaske, J.J., Manfredo, M.J., 2006. Specificity and theCognitive Hierarchy: Value Orientations and theAcceptability of Urban Wildlife Management Actions.Society and Natural Resources 19 (6), 515–530.

White, G.F., 1998. Reflections on the 50-year internationalsearch for integrated water management. Water Policy 1 (1),21–27.

White, D.D., Hall, T.E., 2006. Public understanding of science inPacific Northwest Salmon recovery policy. Society & NaturalResources 19 (4), 305–320.

White, D.D., Corley, E.A., White, M.S., 2008. Water managers’perceptions of the science–policy interface in phoenix,Arizona: implications for an emerging boundaryorganization. Society & Natural Resources 21 (3),230–243.

Yankelovich, D., 1991. Coming to Public Judgment: MakingDemocracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse UniversityPress, New York.

Kelli L. Larson is an Assistant Professor at the Schools of Geogra-phical Sciences and Urban Planning and Sustainability at ArizonaState University, where she is also affiliated with the DecisionCenter for a Desert City and the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research project. Her research addresses human–environment interactions and public perspectives concerningwater resource governance.

Dave White is Associate Professor with the Arizona State Uni-versity School of Community Resources and Development, and isalso affiliated with the Decision Center for a Desert City and theConsortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. His researchfocuses on the processes, outcomes, and institutional forms ofboundary organizations for the co-production of knowledge anddecisions for environmental policy.

Patricia Gober is Professor in the Schools of Geographical Sciencesand Urban Planning and Sustainability and co-Director of the NSF-funded Decision Center for a Desert City at Arizona State Uni-versity. Her research focuses on urban climate adaptation anddecision making under the uncertainty of climate change andother environmental risks.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 0 1 2 – 1 0 2 3 1023

Sharon L. Harlan is Associate Professor of Sociology in the Schoolof Human Evolution and Social Change and an affiliated facultymember in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State Univer-sity. Her current research is on socio-environmental inequalitiesand injustices in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan region,including the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations.

Amber Wutich is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology in ArizonaState University’s School of Human Evolution and Social Change,and is also affiliated with the Center for the Study of InstitutionalDiversity. Her research examines human adaptability to resourceinsecurity in urban environments, with a focus on water and foodinsecurity in Bolivia, Mexico, and the United States.