Skip to main content

Vulnerability of Water Systems to the Effects of Climate Change and Urbanization: A Comparison of Phoenix, Arizona and Portland, Oregon (USA)

Environmental Management volume 52, pages 179–195 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

The coupled processes of climate change and urbanization pose challenges for water resource management in cities worldwide. Comparing the vulnerabilities of water systems in Phoenix, Arizona and Portland, Oregon, this paper examines (1) exposures to these stressors, (2) sensitivities to the associated impacts, and (3) adaptive capacities for responding to realized or anticipated impacts. Based on a case study and survey-based approach, common points of vulnerability include: rising exposures to drier, warmer summers, and suburban growth; increasing sensitivities based on demand hardening; and limited capacities due to institutional and pro-growth pressures. Yet each region also exhibits unique vulnerabilities. Comparatively, Portland shows: amplified exposures to seasonal climatic extremes, heightened sensitivity based on less diversified municipal water sources and policies that favor more trees and other irrigated vegetation, and diminished adaptive capacities because of limited attention to demand management and climate planning for water resources. Phoenix exhibits elevated exposure from rapid growth, heightened sensitivities due to high water demands and widespread increases in residential and commercial uses, and limited adaptive capacities due to weak land use planning and “smart growth” strategies. Unique points of vulnerability suggest pathways for adapting to urban-environmental change, whether through water management or land planning. Greater coordination between the land and water sectors would substantially reduce vulnerabilities in the study regions and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. “Surveyed” towns herein refer to those municipalities who completed and returned the survey, rather than all towns who were sent a survey.

  2. It is important to recognize that both Portland and Phoenix have climate plans not discussed by our survey respondents. The primary focus on those plans is on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through transportation and other forms of planning. Impacts on water are recognized, but neither appears to set out specific adaptation strategies or planning mechanisms for water management in the face of climate change.

References

  • ADA (2013) 2012–2050 State and county population projections. Office of Employment and Population Statistics, Arizona Department of Administration. http://www.workforce.az.gov/population-projections.aspx. Accessed 17 Jan 2013

  • Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environ Change 16:268–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker LA, Brazel AJ, Selover N et al (2002) Urbanization and warming of Phoenix (Arizona, USA): impacts, feedbacks and mitigation. Urban Ecosyst 6(3):183–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balling RC, Gober P (2007) Climate variability and residential water use in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:1130–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates S (2011) Bridging the governance gap: strategies to integrate water and land use planning, 2nd edn. Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy, University of Montana, Missoula

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolin B, Seetharam M, Pompeii B (2010) Water resources, climate change and urban vulnerability: a case study of Phoenix, Arizona. Local Environ 15(3):261–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazel AJ, Gober P, Lee SJ et al (2007) Dynamics and determinants of urban heat island change (1990–2004) in Phoenix, Arizona USA. Clim Res 33:171–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breyer B, Chang H, Parandvash H (2012) Land-use, temperature and single family residential water use patterns in Portland, Oregon and Phoenix, Arizona. Appl Geogr 35:142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H (2007) Streamflow characteristics in urbanizing basins in the Portland metropolitan area, OR, USA. Hydrol Process 21(2):211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H, Parandvash H, Shandas V (2010a) Spatial variations of single-family residential water consumption in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geogr 31(7):953–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H, Lafrenz M, Jung I-W et al (2010b) Potential impacts of climate change on flood-induced travel disruption: a case study of Portland in Oregon, USA. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(4):938–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeOreo WB (2006) The role of water conservation in a long-range drought plan. J Am Water Works Assoc 98(2):94–101

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dow K, O’Connor RE, Yarnal B et al (2007) Why worry? Community water system managers’ perceptions of climate variability. Global Environ Change 17:228–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis AW, Hawkins TW, Balling RC, Gober P (2008) Estimating future runoff levels for a semi-arid fluvial system in central Arizona, USA. Clim Res 35(3):227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley KA, Tague C, Grant GE (2011) Vulnerability of water supply from the Oregon Cascades to changing climate: linking science to users and policy. Global Environ Change 21:110–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick PH (2002) Soft water paths. Nature 25:373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gober P (2006) Metropolitan Phoenix: place making and community building in the desert. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Gober P, Brazel AJ, Quay R et al (2010) Using watered landscapes to manipulate urban heat island effects: how much water will it take to cool Phoenix? J Am Plan Assoc 76(1):109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gober P, Larson K, Quay R, et al (2012a) Why land planners and water managers don’t talk to one another and why they should! Soc Nat Res. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.713448

  • Gober P, Middel A, Brazel A et al (2012b) Tradeoffs between water conservation and temperature amelioration in Phoenix and Portland: implications for urban sustainability. Urban Geogr 33(7):1030–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gober P, White D, Quay R et al (2013) Socio-hydrology for an uncertain future, with examples from the USA and Canada. Model fusion, Geophysical Society, London (forthcoming)

  • Graves D, Chang H (2007) Hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Upper Clackamas basin of Oregon. Clim Res 33(2):143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guha A (2009) Adapting to suburbanization-induced water stress in eastern Massachusetts: opportunities and constraints for integrated land-use and water resource management. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA

  • Guhathakurta S, Gober P (2007) The impact of the Phoenix urban heat island on residential water use. J Am Plan Assoc 73(3):317–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart M, Sailor DJ (2008) Quantifying the influence of land-use and surface characteristics on spatial variability in the urban heat island. J Theor Appl Climatol 95:397–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirt P, Gustafson A, Larson K (2008) The mirage in the valley of the sun. Environ History 13:482–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House-Peters L, Chang H (2011) Modeling the impact of land use and climate change on neighborhood-scale evaporation and nighttime cooling: a surface energy balance approach. Landsc Urban 103:139–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House-Peters L, Pratt B, Chang H (2010) Effects of urban spatial structure, sociodemographics, and climate on residential water consumption in Hillsboro, Oregon. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46(3):461–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe CW, Goemans C (2007) The simple analytics of demand hardening. J Am Water Works Assoc 99(10):24–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd B, Leary N, Jones R, Smith J (1999) Relative regional vulnerability of water resources to climate change. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(6):1399–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson A, Nolin A, Lewis S, Tague C (2008) Hydrogeologic controls on streamflow sensitivity to climate variation. Hydrol Process 22:4371–4385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung I-W, Chang H (2011) Assessment of future runoff trends under multiple climate change scenarios in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, USA. Hydrol Process 25(2):258–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Brumand J (2013) Paradoxes in landscape management and water conservation: examining neighborhood norms and institutional forces. Working paper in review

  • Larson KL, White D, Gober P et al (2009a) Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainability in a public–policy–science context. Environ Sci Policy 12:1012–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Gustafson A, Hirt P (2009b) Insatiable thirst and a finite supply: assessing municipal water conservation policy in greater Phoenix, Arizona, 1980–2007. J Policy History 21(2):107–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Wiek A, Withycombe-Keller L (2013) A comprehensive sustainability appraisal of water governance in Phoenix, AZ. J Environ Manag 116:58–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAG (2007) Socioeconomic Projections. Maricopa Association of Governments. Population Technical Advisory Committee. Presented on 24 April 2007. www.azmag.gov. Accessed 23 Jan 2013

  • Maguire RP (2007) Patching the holes in the bucket: safe yield and the future of water management in Arizona. Arizona Water Law 49:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Metro (2009) Metro Council release updated 20- and 50-year population, employment forecasts. Metro News Release 19 March 2009. Portland, Oregon. http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id/29837/. Accessed 23 Jan 2013

  • Middel A, Brazel AJ, Gober P et al (2012) Land cover, climate, and the summer surface energy balance in Phoenix, AZ and Portland, OR. Int J Climatol 32(13):2020–2032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell B (2005) Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environ Plan A 37:1335–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mote PW, Salathe EP (2010) Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Clim Change 102(1/2):29–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2007) Colorado River Basin water management: evaluating and adjusting to hydroclimatic variability. National Academies Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor RE, Yarnal B, Neff R et al (1999) Weather and climate extremes, climate change, and planning: views of community water system managers in Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River Basin. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(6):1411–1419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OEA (2013) Long time county forecasts, State and county population forecasts, 2000 to 2040. Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/Pages/demographic.aspx. Accessed 17 Jan 2013

  • Ozawa C (2004) The Portland edge: challenges and successes in growing communities. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer RN, Hahn M (2002) The impacts of climate change on Portland’s water supply. Portland Water Bureau, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsky C, Neff R, Yarnal B (2007) Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: the vulnerability scoping diagram. Global Environ Change 17:472–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purkey DR, Huber-Lee A, Yates DN et al (2007) Integrating a climate change assessment tool into stakeholder-driven water management decision-making processes in California. Water Resour Manag 21(1):315–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):17–19

  • Robbins P (2007) Lawn people: how grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi S, Quay R (2009) Phoenix demand management plan—a shifting paradigm. Southwest Hydrol 29

  • Runfola DM, Polsky C, Nicolson C et al (2013) Projecting suburban droughts using high-resolution patterns of lawns and water consumption: the case of Ipswich, Massachusetts in 2030. Landsc Urban Plan (in press)

  • Seager R, Ting M, Held I et al (2007) Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316(5828):1181–1184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic B (2011) Portland’s $1.4 billion Big Pipe project comes to an end after 20 years. Oregon Live. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/11/portlands_14_billion_big_pipe.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2013

  • Tague C, Grant GE (2009) Groundwater dynamics mediate low-flow response to global warming in snow-dominated alpine regions. Water Resour Res 45:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson P et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8074–8079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vörösmarty CI, Green P, Saisbury J, Lammers RB (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289(5477):284

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial assistance for this Sector Applications Research Program (SARP) project was provided by the Climate Program Office of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA09OAR4310140. Supplementary support was also provided by: National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant SES-0345945, Decision Center for a Desert City I and SES-0951366, DCDC II: Urban Climate Adaptation, at Arizona State University; NSF awards OCE-0423565 and OCE-1026859, the Plum Island Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research (PIE LTER) program, and BCS-0709685, BCS-0948984 and SES-0849985 at Clark University; and by a sustainability grant from the James F. and Marion L. Miller Foundation at Portland State. The Portland Water Bureau provided in-kind support as well. Finally, the authors thank Ray Quay and Lorna Stickel for their insights and contributions to this project, in addition to the water and land use planners who participated in our survey and/or attended our workshops. Barbara Trapido-Lurie and Benjamin Lobato also deserve thanks for their assistance with graphics. Note, however, the statements, findings, and recommendations herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA, NSF, or other project supporters and contributors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schools of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and Sustainability, Arizona State University, Mail Code 5302, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5302, USA

    Kelli L. Larson

  2. Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA, 01610-1477, USA

    Colin Polsky

  3. University of Saskatchewan, Diefenbaker Building 101 Diefenbaker Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B8, Canada

    Patricia Gober

  4. Department of Geography, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751-GEOG, Portland, OR, 97207-0751, USA

    Heejun Chang

  5. School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, 506 SW Mill Street, Suite 350, Portland, OR, 97201, USA

    Vivek Shandas

Authors
  1. Kelli L. Larson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Polsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia Gober
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heejun Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vivek Shandas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelli L. Larson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larson, K.L., Polsky, C., Gober, P. et al. Vulnerability of Water Systems to the Effects of Climate Change and Urbanization: A Comparison of Phoenix, Arizona and Portland, Oregon (USA). Environmental Management 52, 179–195 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0072-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0072-2

Keywords

  • Water management
  • Vulnerability
  • Climate change
  • Adaptive capacity
  • Urban sustainability