water and the future of phoenix

I

nstItuutvoor

I

nterdIscIplInaIre

s

tudIes

daan aerts

,

jaap blom

,

johnny meit

,

bart van lidth de jeude

 

social

vulnerability

in

the

water

-

energy

nexus

of

america

’

s

southwest

water

and

the

a

bstract

Phoenix is an economical prospering city in a semiarid area. It relies heavily on river

wa-ter to meet its wawa-ter demand and for producing electricity. However, groundwawa-ter flow is

going to be drastically reduced in the near future due to climate change. Much research

has been done on the effects of this change, but it is seen as overoptimistic. In this study we

try to find what the real consequences will be for the city of Phoenix, which is used as an

example for other similar urban areas. We use an integrative framework which focuses on

human-environmental interdependence. We find that, although a worst-case scenario can

be mitigated through regulations and business innovation, the City of Phoenix is highly

vulnerable to environmental change

Beta 2t Amsterdam, December 7 2012

informationabouttheauthors

:

Daan Aerts

10090592

Future Planet Studies Major Ecology

Jaap Blom

10003273

Future Planet Studies Major Human Geography

Cover photo: The Central Arizona Project flows from the Colorado River to Phoe-nix, constituting over 50% of Phoenix’s water supply. Source: Tucson Sentinel

Group: Diederik Keuskamp 9200 words

Johnny Meit

10003273

Future Planet Studies Major Business Studies

Bart van Lidth De Jeude

6092012

Future Planet Studies Major Political Science

c

ontents

2

a

bstract

3

c

ontents

4

i

ntroduction 1 Phoenix and the american Southwest

2 Scientific relevance 3 Research goal

6

M

ethods 1 Overarching framework

2 Identifying water supply hazard exposure

3 Analysing human-environment system sensitivity 4 Analysing ability to cope, respond and adapt

11

r

esults 1 Identifying water supply hazard exposure

2 Human-environment system sensitivity 3 Cope, respond and adapt

20

d

iscussion

21

c

onclusion

22

r

eferences

One of the major challenges for

man-kind in the near future is to deal with

vast population growth accompanied by

increasing demands for natural

resourc-es, growing scarcities of these resources

and climate change.

In many parts of the world people have to find a way to adapt to a new reality of less. As to re-search, these Malthusian truths predict severe social consequences. In order to understand the impact of a deteriorating ecological system on a social system, a case study about the city Phoenix is conducted. For this case study, an interdisci-plinary approach with an expanded vulnerability analysis is used. The necessity of this approach derives from the scientific assumption that not only exposure to hazards determines the vulner-ability of a society, but also the sensitivity and the resilience of the society affected. Vulnerability is thus determined by a human-environment system and its linkages within and without the system. For this research, an interdisciplinary team effort has been conducted with representatives from Ecology, Political Sciences, Human Geography and Business Studies.

phoenixand theamericansouthwest

greater phoenix, which consists of the city of

Phoe-nix located in Arizona in the southwest of the USA and its suburbs, is for several social reasons an ex-cellent case to study. First of all, the city is build in a semiarid area and is therefore dependent on wa-ter from exwa-ternal area’s and has a high wawa-ter use. The major sources for water are the Colorado, Salt and Verde rivers. Although the city has ground-water reserves and reclaims some ground-water, there is a high-likelihood that long-lasting droughts will affect the city because of climate change. In this region, water is also interlinked with energy as energy is needed to transport the water and water is needed to generate energy and to cool down electricity plants; the water-energy nexus.

Second, the city is characterized as the biggest city in a developed region with high population growth. In 2010, the urban area was populated by 1.445.632 inhabitants and over the period 2000-2010 population growth was 9,4%. The high standards of life, like lawns and swimming pools, in combination with the climate result in an aver-age water consumption per person of 625 liters a day. The economy of Phoenix employed 1.946.222 people and the average unemployment was 8,40% in 2011 (GPEC, 2012). Although some big names have settled in Phoenix like Boeing or Bank of America, no company employs over 20.000 people. The city is best in attracting smaller companies that focus on technology or specialized services, like renewable energy and specialized business services.

Finally, the government seems to underesti-mate the possible consequences. In 2011 the city of Phoenix presented a water resource plan. Al-though the research was conducted extensively and well presented, there is strong reason to be-lieve it is to optimistic (Gober and Kirkwood, 2010), (Rajagopalan et al., 2010), (Ellis et al., 2008), (Ellis et al., 2010), (Phillips, 2009). Also, the law which determines the division of water from the Colo-rado river between states, the ColoColo-rado River Ba-sin Project Act, was adopted in 1968 and has not been revised. Since it prioritizes 4,4 million acre-feet of water for California over other states like Arizona, it means that if the total amount of water drops below 7,5 million acre-feet at Lake Powell, an unbalanced cut in Phoenix’ water supply will take place.

relevance

the relevancefor science is significant. First of all,

there are a lot of gaps in knowledge about what will happen to developed societies once they are exposed to growing inevitable scarcities of natu-ral resources. Second, the knowledge about the case from different disciplines has not yet been sufficient integrated into a human-environment system. Doing this will enable an analysis which is

more likely to predict the true vulnerability of the case. Finally, the results of this case study can be applied to not only Phoenix, but other quite simi-lar dessert cities like Las Vegas and Tucson too. On a larger or global scale there are increasingly more cities dealing with growing water problems and some parts can be applied to them too. researchgoal

the overall aim for this research is to understand

how highly-urbanized area’s like Phoenix are vul-nerable to declining water supplies. As explained, by vulnerability is meant the exposure to haz-ards, the sensitivity and resilience of a society. By understanding how an area like Phoenix is vul-nerable, policy can be recommended in order to reduce this vulnerability. The main research ques-tion of this research is: In what sense is Phoenix vulnerable to a changing water supply system?. The main research question is supported by three sub-questions in which disciplinary theories are used and an interdisciplinary vulnerability frame-work which integrates the disciplinary knowledge:

Sub-question 1: To what hazards is the environ-mental system exposed?

Sub-question 2: In what sense is the human-environment system sensitive to the changes and consequences?

Sub-question 3: To what extent is the human-environment system resilient to cope and adapt to the changes and consequences in order to reduce the vulnerability?

With the concept of exposure, the expected im-pact and change of the ecosystem is meant. The sensitivity is the direct effect of the deteriorating water supply on the society and this could both amplify as attenuate the problems. By the resil-ience is meant the indirect reaction to the chang-es in which society trichang-es to cope or adapt to the problems.

Hypothetically it is expected that the effects and its consequences will have a significant impact on the society depending on the magnitude. However, these consequences will also lead to adaptations from society that will decrease the impact.

This section will elaborate on the methods

used in this study. First an overarching

vulner-ability framework is proposed, followed by an

applied framework to integrate the

discipli-nary knowledge and finally an explanation of

relevant disciplinary theories and methods is

given.

1 o

verarching framework

many studies and epistemic groups have

dedicat-ed to analysing water scarcity-relatdedicat-ed problems. These frequently emphasize on human-induced climate change effects (e.g. Barnett and Pierce, 2009; Vörösmarty et al., 2000; Rajagopalan et al., 2010). In this study, an attempt is made to make a more human-environment system inclusive re-search. Turner et al. (2003) proposed a framework specifically for analyzing vulnerability in

human-environment systems. Over the last decades, the concept of vulnerability gained favor in the ac-ademic world, especially in the sciences of sus-tainability and climate change (Füssel and Klein, 2006). Turner et al. define vulnerability as the extent to which a system is likely to experience harm due to exposure to a hazard or perturbation (Turner et al. 2003, pp. 8074). The vulnerability framework (see figure 1) underscores the linkage of the social system and the environmental sys-tem. Another strength of this framework is the ex-plicitness of scale, by which it is easier to incorpo-rate knowledge from different scales and to apply the outcomes to the different scales. The first step of making this analysis is defining the system. The human-side, as has been clearly defined in the in-troduction, is defined as the City of Phoenix. With the environmental-side, the water supply of the human system is addressed.

M

ethods

Figure 1: an overview of the conceptual model used for analyzing Phoenix’s vulnerability to water supply hazzards.

Figure 1: an overview of the conceptual model used for analyzing Phoenix’s vulnerability to wa-ter supply hazards.

1.1

appliedintegrativeframework

inorderto successfully use the overarching

frame-work, an applied and simplified framework was conducted. With this framework, the sub-questions proposed in the introduction can be answered step by step. First, the exposure is identified. In this step, the ecological hazards overshadowing the research are identified. Hazards can be both incidental like earthquakes and storms or the re-sult of a long term change. In this research inci-dental hazards are left out, because they are not predictable. In the second step the sensitivity of the human-environment is researched. In this part research on the direct impacts of the hazards on both the ecosystem as the social system is con-ducted. Finally in the third step, the resilience is assessed. Because the resilience of the ecosystem is not of primary importance for our research goal, this is left out. Therefore only the resilience of the social system is addressed, which means how

society is able to cope or adapt to exposure of the hazards and the effects of its sensitiveness. The result of this framework will be a clear and stepwise interdisciplinary vulnerability analysis in which the results on the disciplinary theories are integrated throughout the steps. This made it possible to find an answer for the main-research question.

2

identifying water supply hazard exposure

The first part of the study will explore the ex-tent to which Phoenix is dependent on its fresh-water supplies. Establishing this will likely lead to a better understanding of potential hazards.

First Phoenix’s water provisioning systems charted through enquiry of municipal and region-al documents.

Second, an literature study is conducted to un-derstand future water regimes and the potential occurence of droughts. What are the natural fluc-tuations of the water supplies? What influences changes in the water supplies? We draw on in-sights provided by tree ring records (ecology), hy-FIGURE 2: Conceptual visualisation of methods used in this study. Colors represent used

disci-pline for each aspect.

IDENTIFICATION Part one Identifying potential water hazards Part two Analysing sensitivity of human-environ-ment system Partthree Analysing coping and adaptive capacity

Water supply Risks

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Ecosystem

Society

COPING AND ADAPTING

Ecosystem Resilience Human-system Resilience Social Geography Political Science Earth Sciences Ecology Business Studies

drological models and climate models (earth sci-ences) to picture future water supplies.

3

analysing human

-

environment sys

-tem sensitivity

asthemain focus of this study is on the human part

of the system, only those environmental impacts of water supply hazards that are of consequence to the human system are examined. To realise this, a framework of ecosystem services as proposed by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) is used.

3.1

businessenvironment sensitivity

sincecitiesare dependent on the business

environ-ment and already 8.4% of the people in Phoenix is unemployed, it is necessary to determine what the direct effect of a hazard on water supply will mean for the business environment. A literature study in which the lesser reliability of water and energy is used to understand the effect on both the attractiveness for businesses to establish in Phoenix as for businesses to stay in Phoenix. The reliability of water and energy are for especially industrial companies location factors and a com-pany determines on the quality of the location factors whether or not it establishes or stays on a location. When a company leaves a location for a new location which has better location factors, this is called Industrial Flight.

3.2

societalsensitivity

to understand the consequences of increasing

wa-ter shortages for society, we should gain insight in the social effects of environmental scarcity. Hom-er-Dixon (1992) argues the possibility of violent conflicts due to three different sources of envi-ronmental scarcity (see figure 1).

Demand-induced scarcity is caused by popula-tion growth, supply-induced scarcity occurs when resources are depleting and structural scarcity is caused by an uneven distribution of resources. All three forms of environmental scarcity occur si-multaneously and often interact. Increased envi-ronmental scarcity leads to social consequences, such as migration, decreased economic productiv-ity and violent conflicts. The causal arrows in fig-ure 1 project the different paths how civil unrest can occur.

His model is more likely to be applied for devel-oping countries, but it could still be used for an overall understanding of social effects of water scarcity.

Different studies on resource scarcity-induced violent conflicts and migrations have been con-ducted (Reuveny, 2007; Raleigh & Urdal, 2007; Cannon, 2006). Using the results of these studies, a qualitative comparison could be made with the water issue in Greater Phoenix. The likelihood if the projected effects as stated by Homer-Dixon (1993) will take place in Greater Phoenix will lat-er be discussed.

4.

analysing ability to cope

,

adapt and respond

4.1

societal adapting capacity

Kelly & Adger (2000) define social vulnerability as the capacity of individuals and social groupings to cope with, adapt to or recover from any external stress placed on their livelihoods and well-being. It is therefore required to know to what extent the inhabitants in phoenix are able to cope with external stresses such as water scarcity. By using the results of social surveys, more insight will be gained on the adaptive capacity of and willing-ness to cope with water scarcity of the inhabitants of Phoenix.

The Central Arizona Long-Term Ecological Re-search (CAP LTER) together with the Arizona State University conducted the Phoenix Area Social Survey (PASS) to increase understanding of hu-man behavior, perceptions and values concerning environmental domains such as water supply and conservation. Two surveys were carried out, one in 2003 with 217 respondents and one in 2006, where 808 respondents were asked to fill in a questionnaire. The Arizona Municipal Water Us-ers Association (AMWUA) also employed a study in 2007 to test conservation awareness, attitudes and behaviors across nine cities in Arizona, in-cluding Phoenix. Approximately 1.400 households were interviewed during this survey. A broader so-cial survey was conducted by the Colorado Water Institute (2009) on public perceptions, preferenc-es and valupreferenc-es of water of 6.250 individuals living in the mid-West.

Businesses are dependent on the society for several reasons including customers and laborers.

4.2

businessenvironment capacity

Companies benefit from a good relationship with the social environment they work in, since the dependency on society makes citizens for ex-ample important stakeholders that can determine the success of the company. Therefore businesses tend to invest in their relationship with Corporate Social Responsibility-programs, which is defined

as “doing the most good for your company and for your cause” by Kotler & Lee (2005). It is interesting whether or not it is likely that companies would be willing to start CSR-programs dealing with the water availability stress. Regulation of water is a tool that can be used by the government to pro-tect the availability It is important to comprehend what the possible effects of regulations will be on businesses, because it is a location factor too and it can affect the companies competitiveness. Some scientists believe that environmental laws lead to industrial flight and interjurisdictional competition, while others believe in the discourse of ecological modernization.

Interjurisdictional competition means the com-petition between different states in attracting companies by favorable regulations. Followers of ecological modernization believe that certain environmental laws give companies an incentive to invest in new and more effective technologies, which will lead to a cost reduction for the compa-ny and thus an competitive advantage. These laws have to be designed properly in order to stimulate resource productivity, by which is meant that com-panies develop production methods that cost less resources.

An emerging vision is that of sustainable devel-opment, which: is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of in-vestments, the orientation of technological, and institutional change are made consistent with the future as well as present needs (Jovane et al, 2008, pp. 643). A key tool for sustainable development is sustainable innovation, in which technological innovations result in a higher efficiency. A notion should however be made whether gains in effi-ciency will be lost because of a higher consump-tion of the product or a different product (Simanis & Hart, 2011).

4.3

consequences

When people cannot fulfil their basic needs a relative deprivation can occur. This could have a multitude of outcomes (migration, civil strife, etc.) depending on the magnitude of the deprivation.

Little research has been done on behavioural outcomes of relative deprivation in developed

countries. One of the only models for researching the behavioural consequences of relative depriva-tions in developed countries is given by Ted Gurr (Gurr, 1968(1)). In his framework four dependent variables affect the severity of the perceived rela-tive deprivation amongst a people and three in-dependent variables either strengthen or weaken the manifestations of relative deprivation (Gurr, 1968(2)). We will use the data from steps 2 and 3 in the framework to predict behaviour and the short- and long-term consequences of the behav-ior.

4.4

interstategovernance

:

consequencesofar

-chaic and low inclusive policies on water

-

enti

-tlement

the colorado is an interstate river basin. To what

extent Greater Phoenix could cope and adapt to a changing water regime, is there for dependent on the place of the CAP in this interstate river basin. The largest user of water from the Colorado River is the state of California. With a current annual al-location of 4.4 million acre-feet of water for con-sumptive use, California outweighs the CAP which has an annual allocation of 1.5 million acre-feet of water. Both these allocations have been

deter-mined by Public Law 90-537 (Colorado River Basin Project Act) of September 30th, 1968. In Article II of Title III a prioritizing system is given: if the an-nual water release from Lake Powel is to fall un-der 7.5 million acre-feet, the annual allocation of 1.5 million acre-feet for the CAP is to be cut first. With a high possibility of maintained droughts in the near future, this would mean a major problem for Greater Phoenix.

One can wonder why there has not been any re-vision of the act since 1968 , if we view the current state of Greater Phoenix in comparison to Califor-nia. When the act was implemented in 1968, the population of Greater Phoenix was not even half the size it is today and California was economi-cal prospering. At the present day the situation has shifted, Phoenix is flourishing as an economic center while California is economically regressing. New policies should therefore be made on the ba-sis of good decision-making. Decision-making on vital resources like water is hard, but an excepted framework exists that emphasizes broad inclu-siveness: on a spatial scale and on stakeholder inclusion.

1.

identifying water supply hazard exposure

watersources

during average supply years, over 90 percent of

Phoenix’s water supply come from the surface wa-ter of the Colorado River, the Salt River and the Verde River (see figure 1; Phoenix, 2011). The Salt River Project manages the watersheds of the Salt River and the Verde River. Its infra- structure con-sists of six dams, 2000 km of canals for water al-location and many wells for ground water extrac-tion and management. The six dams provide 2.8 billion cubic meters of storage capac- ity. Annual

The Central Arizona Project (CAP) is a 540-kilo- meter canal linking the Colorado River to Phoenix and other cities. As will be discussed later in other chapters, much water of the Colorado River is allo-cated to the higher prioritized state of California.

Phoenix now has access rights to 230 million cubic meters of water via the CAP, relative to Cali-fornia’s 5.4 billion cubic meters. During dry peri-ods the city can access ground- water reserves. In 2005 strict limits were imposed on the use of groundwater due to rapid groundwater depletion during the decades before. These reserves may be replenished through CAP or SRP water (Phoenix, 2005).

A fourth water source is classified as reclaimed water.Wastewater from residential or industri-al use is treated and delivered to the Tres Trios wetlands, where organic material and metals are removed. This water is reused for agricultural ir- rogation and cooling of a nuclear power plant. Since 2000, Phoenix also operates an installation to reuse reclaimed water for residential use. Al- though facilities are capable of cleaning to po- table standards, regulations prohibit dedicating reclaimed water for potable use. Expansion and exploitation of this water resource is very costly (Phoenix, 2011).

electricity

water and energy as are strongly linked for many

cities in the United States’ Southwest be- cause of a) high energy costs on water pumping; b) water consumption of thermoelectric power plants and

c) hydroelectric power generation (Gober, 2010). This is often referred to as the water-energy nex-us (see, for example, Scott et al. 2010; Hoover et al., 2009).

Pumping water from the CAP to Phoenix costs 1.2 kWh per cubic meter. This electricity is sup-plied by the Navajo Generating station, which re-lies on Lake Powell (see map) for cooling water (Scott et al., 2011). During droughts in 2005 Lake Powell reached its lowest point since its filling in the 1960’s, threatening the cooling water supplies for the Navajo Generation station. According to Gober (2010), the plant was days away from hav-ing to be shut down. This would have implied that no water could have been transported via

CAP.

The previous paragraphs outlined the current water situation of the City of Phoenix. This section will address the future prospect hereof.

thecolorado

The water supply of the Colorado River is un-der threat because of a) historic and prospected increases in consumption mainly due to regional population growth b) natural multi-year droughts and c) global climate change (Rajagopalan et al., 2010).

Although there is a general consensus that the Colorado River water regime is going to change somewhere in the coming century, exact figures differ per study. Many studies simulate the future flows of the Colorado River (e.g. Phoenix, 2011; Rajagopalan et al., 2010; Gober et al., 2010; Christensen et al., 2004). One notable difference among studies is the extent to which global cli-mate change is incorporated.

The risk of complete reservoir drying in the Col-orado River depends strongly on a) current and future management strategies and b) the

cale effects of climate change. With a 20% run-off reduction, the risk of drying will be between 2.5% and 10% in 2026. In 2050, the risk will be between 30% and 50% (Rajagopalan et al., 2010; Fulp, 2005).

thesalt riverand verde river

800 yearsof tree-ring records and historical

meas-urements show that a twelve to fifteen per- cent decrease of average annual runoff in the SRP wa-tershed will almost certainly deplete the reservoir system given current consumption lev- els (Phil-lips, 2009). Ellis et al. (2008) developed a runoff model for the SRP watershed, incorporat- ing six IPCC scenarios. Since there is much dis- cussion on the local scale warming effects of the IPCC sce-narios, there is high uncertainty on fu- ture run-off. Ellis et al. (2008) predict that by 2050, runoff could be anywhere from 50% to 127% of 2010 levels. However, there is an 85% chance of runoff levels being lower than 2010 levels.

groundwater

fordryperiods, Phoenix may draw on groundwater

supplies to meet demand levels. Legislation im-poses stable groundwater levels by 2025. Phoe-nix’s water development report claims to be well on its way to meet these targets (Phoenix, 2011, p20). However, Gober and Kirkwood (2010) pre-dict that ‘Under currently projected growth con-di- tions and unconstrained water usage, it is not pos- sible to achieve groundwater sustainability in 2030 under any climate scenario.’ (Gober and Kirkwood (2010, p 21297).

Moreover, Gober and Kirkwood (2010) predict that it is very likely that groundwater levels will decline dramatically under current circumstances. They point out that CAP and SRP flows replenish groundwater reservoirs. During drying periods, groundwater reservoirs will only continue to de-cline.

c

limateextremes

natural flow patterns in the Colorado River are

strongly influenced by the El Niño-Southern Os-cillation, Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Since 2000, southwestern states have suffered sus-tained droughts. Ellis, Goodrich and Garfin (2010) predict increasing drought frequency and longer sustained drought. These strongly affect reservoir levels, groundwater levels and ecosystems.

2.

human

-

environment sensitivity

How are these changes and their consequences

attenuated or amplified by different human

and environmental conditions?

e

rosion and localclimate

changes inthe water regimes of the regions most

important river systems will influence local and regional ecosystems. Since environmental protec-tion is not the focus of this study, only the effects that will directly or indirectly influence the hu-man condition are mentioned.

More than three quarters of Arizona’s surface consists of rangeland. Rangelands provide impor-tant ecosystem services beneficial both directly and indirectly to society. These include erosion prevention, runoff management, air filtration, wa-ter filtration, wildlife habitat and grazing area for livestock. Using the same IPCC data as used in run-off models in the previous part, Zhang et al. (2012) predict significant increases in soil erosion. De- pending on scenario used, soil loss in 2050 will increase by 127% tot 157% and annual runoff by 79% to 92% relative to the period 1970-1999. This increase is coupled to an increased conversion of semi-arid rangelands to arid scrubland.

Another point of concern for increasing aridity is forest health. Important ecosystem services for-ests provide include recreation, logging, climate control, air-filtration and erosion control. Abun-dant trees in Phoenix and surrounding areas are the piñon pine (Pinus edulis, derosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga men-ziesii). Aridity decreases resistance of these spe-cies to wildfire and beetle infestation. Increased

aridity during the last decades has impacted 14% to 18% of the forests in southwest United States (Macdonald, 2010; Williams, 2010).

directeffects ofwaterhazards ontheeconomy of

p

hoenix

atthirawong & maccarthy discuss the importance

of water and electricity for companies: “Quality and reliability of utilities such as electricity and water supply are key elements in production lines, especially for high technology products such as semiconductors and pharmaceutical products.” (2003). In the research of Bhatnagar & Sohal a sample of 420 businesses located in Southeast-ern Asia from a variety of industries responded to a survey about location factors. Although the research did not question about water, access to and the reliability of energy was perceived as the most important factor (2005). The article of Owen & Daskin describes the decision on which site to plan or relocate a facility as an outcome of a judiciously research in which not only the current climate is considered, but also future sce-nario’s (1998). Feared for is an Industrial Flight, in which companies leave states to settle in states with less environmental effects on businesses In practice however, there is little empirical evidence for Industrial Flight in the United States due to increasing environmental costs (Levinson, 1996), (Anderson & Kagan, 2000).

The degree of deterioration will thus affect Greater Phoenix negatively as a location factor. However, there are some reasons why this effect would only be rather small. First of all, the prob-lems Phoenix has to deal with are probprob-lems af-fecting the whole region and this leaves Phoenix not with an individual disadvantage. Second, ac-cording to Bartik the costs of relocating are his-torically higher then costs of a deteriorating en-vironment (1988). Third, states can try to reduce environmental compliance costs for companies by reducing regulations compared to other states. This interjurisdictional competition is expected to have however a negative environmental ef-fect on the long term and a race to the bottom between states in environmental regulation (Ke-nyon, 1997). Finally, prior knowledge is concerned especially about developing countries were the

problems already exist; perhaps an industrialized region like Phoenix can mitigate the problems. Al-though research of losses to droughts outside the agricultural sector is limited, it is likely that the droughts can lead to significant higher costs for businesses and to temporarily shutdowns (Ding, Hayes & Widhalm, 2011). This gives businesses a competitive disadvantage which might lead to bankruptcies. The real negative impact on the lo-cation of Phoenix for businesses, is therefore un-estimable.

socialeffectsofwater scarcity

in a previous part of this report, the model

de-scribed by Homer-Dixon (1993) on possible social effects of environmental scarcity is explained. Rafael Reuveny (2007) argues that people adapt to environmental problems in three ways: stay in place and do nothing while accepting the costs, stay in place and mitigate changes or leave the affected areas. Many studies (Homer-Dixon, 1991; Homer-Dixon, 1993; Reuveny, 2007) have shown that the third option is most likely to happen in developing countries. In the next section, I will give a few examples of large-scale, water scarcity-related migration.

In China, water issues such as displacement by dam construction or droughts helped unleash large-scale migration within China. In the 1980-90’s, over 150 million farmers have left their ag-ricultural livelihood and migrated to urban or coastal areas (Cannon, 2006). Because of the lack of job opportunities in the cities, most migrants lived in even worse conditions than before.

In Bangladesh, a similar event took place. India constructed a barrage to divert water from the Ganges river to Indian tributaries, reducing the river’s run-off in the Bangladeshi part of the river. Water scarcity and reduced agricultural produc-tivity along the riversides forced 12-17 million Bangladeshi people to migrate to India (Reuveny, 2008).

These are just two examples of large societal disruption due to sudden environmental changes. Since developed countries have a bigger adaptive capacity to environmental changes (Homer-Dixon, 1993), social effects, such as conflicts over water

or migration are less likely to happen in Phoenix. However, extreme natural events in the history of the United States showed similar impacts on so-ciety.

In the 1930’s, prolonged droughts and decline in agricultural output, also known as the ‘Dust Bowl’, was the result of a combination of overex-ploitation of agricultural land and severe droughts in a large part of the US Great Plains (Gregory, 1989). Over 2.5 million people were forced to mi-grate to other parts of the United States desper-ately looking for better living conditions. These so-called ‘ecomigrants’ (Reuveny, 2008) often were not welcome in the receiving states. Migrants were discriminated and rejected for jobs, forcing them to live in poor conditions.

Moreover, due to poor coastal protection in Lou-isiana, hurricane Katrina displaced an estimated 2 million people in 2005 (Washington Post, 2006). Especially the most deprived neighborhoods in New Orleans were most affected by the storm. The devastating effects of hurricane Katrina and more recently, hurricane Sandy, showed that even in a developed country in the 21st century, people are not able to cope with natural disasters and emphasizes the vulnerability and inability of the United States to secure its citizens from environ-mental protection. In the next part of this report, the probability of scarcity-induced conflicts and turmoil will be discussed.

How will the inhabitants of Greater

Phoenix react to an inability to

prop-erly fulfill their basic needs?

When people can not fulfill their basic needs a relative deprivation can occur. Relative deprivation is a state of mind and occurs when people feel a discrepancy between their expectations about the goods and condition of life to which they are jus-tifiably entitled, on the one hand, and on the other their value capabilities: what they perceive to be their chances for getting and keeping those goods and conditions. As the people living in Greater Phoenix are used to everyday commodities it can be said that, when these drastically change, peo-ple get frustrated. The deprivation is relative also in the sense that when the same issue does not

affect other regions (, in our case US citizens not affected by the Colorado River droughts), people’s perceived chances of entitlement will stay mostly the same, therefor frustration will persist.

relative deprivation and a model for

g

reater

p

hoenix

the theory of relative deprivation has been used

to explain and predict behavior in developing countries, few frameworks exist that can be ap-plied directly on Western societies. Ted Gurr is one of the few scientists who developed one of these frameworks. He developed it to explain relative deprivation during the Afro-American protests of the 1960’s in the United States. Although the situ-ation is not entirely the same (he used the frame-work to explain an economic and social relative deprivation) the framework can still be used with some minor adjustments. He gives four variables that affect the severity of the perceived relative deprivation amongst a people:

1. The greater the extent of discrepancy an in-dividual sees between what it seeks and what seems to be attainable, the greater their anger.

2. An individual who has many ways to sustain his livelihood is less likely to become discontent than an individual who has only a few.

3. The greater the intensity of an individual’s expectations, the greater the discontent when he meets unexpected or increased resistance (i.e. how badly does one want what one is seeking?).

4. When a deprivation is seen as legitimate (i.e. justified by circumstances), the intensity and per-haps the level of expectations decline and con-sequently deprivation tends to be accepted with less discontent.

Variables 1, 3 and 4 are somewhat interrelat-ed, when variable 4 is high, variable 1 and 3 are negatively affected. The greater Phoenix authori-ties are already informing the public on water use efficiency through mass media. This way, when a drought occurs, the deprivation will be seen as more legitimate (City Of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2011). Nevertheless the PASS 2006 survey demonstrates that this awareness does

not directly translate to significant or immediate changes in water use behavior. The inhabitants do not see themselves as the big consumers and do not want to be mandatory cut in water use. Fur-thermore, variable 2 will be negatively affected as initial adaptation of businesses will hinder eco-nomic conditions and cause loss of jobs. In conclu-sion variables 1 and 3 can become significant, es-pecially if we take in consideration that a drought can last for over 10 years and other regions in the U.S. are not affected, meaning that the relative deprivation can become significant enough.

What does this significance mean? What does it entail according to Ted Gurr’s model? Gurr gives two possible manifestations of relative depriva-tion on short-term bases which are applicable to Western urban areas:

1. Turmoil: relatively spontaneous, unstructured mass strife, including demonstrations, political strikes, riots, political clashes, and localized rebel-lions.

2. Conspiracy: intensively organized, relatively small-scale civil strife, including political assas-sinations, small-scale terrorism, small-scale guer-rilla wars, coups, mutinies, and plots and purges, the last two on grounds that they are evidence of planned strife.

Gurr gives three criteria that either strengthen or weaken these two manifestations of relative deprivation: coercive potential, institutionaliza-tion and facilitainstitutionaliza-tion (Gurr, 1968(1)). Coercive po-tential means, if the state has a strong coercive apparatus and is willing to use it, as the United States is an liberal democracy, it seems unlikely that any form of protest as long as they are not threatening social order are not put down by force. This increases the possibility of civil strife. By institutionalization is meant, if people have other forms of showing their unrest. In effect, are there other ways for the public to complain about current situations? The U.S. is a very well institu-tionalized country, as there are societal structures on governmental, state and local scale. The high institutionalization thus lowers the possibility of civil strife. A high Facilitation means that a

popu-lation is well known with the idea of (public) pro-test. Gurr shows that the U.S. ranks quite high in the amount of protest in the past (15th among the biggest polities in the world) (Gurr, 1968(2)). The population in the US is used to protesting, thus increasing the possibility of civil strife.

With these criteria in mind we can now draw conclusions on whether or not a manifestation will occur. Two out of the three criteria influence the magnitude of civil strife positive. Therefor it can be assumed that one of the two manifesta-tions Turmoil is probably the most likely as people are able to act out their frustrations via other so-cietal structures and are informed on the risks of drought. As said, Gurr’s model only gives a short-term prediction. Although migration is predictable as a result of long-term deprivation, Gurr’s model can not be used to predict long-term behavior. Nevertheless it gives a vital insight on what hu-man behavior can be expected when the huhu-man condition in the Human-Environment sensitivity deteriorates.

3.

cope

,

respond and adapt

:

to what extent is the system able to cope and adapt to reduce vulnerability

?

innovationand its gainsforsociety

whenregulationsfoster sustainable innovation and

companies applying these innovations can gener-ate positive outcomes from CSR and cost reduc-tions, this will result in Competitive Sustainable Manufacturing. Javane et al. (2008) foresees a technological industrial revolution in which sus-tainable manufacturing is competitive to con-ventional manufacturing. A danger however, is that the gains from “green” innovation will erode because of consuming more, which makes inno-vations not sustainable. For example, automo-bile fuel efficiency increased significantly in the 1990’s, but was offset by the quantity of passenger miles (Simanis & Hart, 2011). This is called Jevons’ Paradox and Sorrell states: While the evidence in

favour of ‘Jevons Paradox’ is far from conclusive, it does suggest that economy-wide rebound effects are larger than is conventionally assumed... (2011, pp. 1456).

In order to achieve a sustained competitive ad-vantage and a reduction of resource use through innovation, an embedded innovation paradigm is needed in which communities play an active role. The prevailing Structural Innovation Paradigm, in which efficiency innovations lead to lower costs but higher usage, does not result in more sustain-able usage. This is because it does not affect con-sumers mindsets in a sustainable way, but gives them the opportunity to get more out of the same (Simanis & Hart, 2011). The authors of the article believe that embedded innovation practices will lead to more sustainable innovation since it in-stills consumers mind-sets and habits on a long term of value which is critical complementary to a long-term strategy.

effectofwaterregulations onbusinesses ineconomicliterature the relationship between

en-vironmental goals and industrial competitiveness is normally been thought of a tradeoff between social benefits and private costs (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). Environmental regulations that en-force the environmental goals are seen as costs for private companies and governments have to search careful for environmental regulations that balance the benefits of society to the costs for businesses (Jaffe et al., 1995).

A different branch in economic literature sees environmental legislation however not only as a disadvantage for private businesses, but also as an opportunity. The discourse of ecological mod-ernization claims that there is a synergy between capitalist development and environmental pro-tection for companies. The economic competi-tion for scarce resources leads to a competicompeti-tion in which companies are becoming more and more efficient, leading to innovation, economic growth and less environmental harm (Eckersley, 2007). Porter & Van der Linde state from empirical ex-amples that when environmental regulations are properly designed, the regulations can lead to competitive advantages for companies because of

higher investments in Research & Development. These regulations should be designed that the environmental incentive of companies lies in re-source productivity (1995).

Boons et al. (2012) agree on Porter’s part of the government’s role and Yang et al. success-fully tested the hypothesis empirically in Taiwan (2012). The research of Bartik (1988) however finds no statistical evidence for both a negative as a positive effect of environmental regulations on business locations in the United States. Jaffe et al. conclude the same and explain this by stating that costs of environmental regulations are too low to find influence significantly (1995). A quantitative assessment for the influence of regulations on in-novation in OECD countries showed compliance costs on the short term but a positive effect on technical progress and innovation endogenously on the long term (Blind, 2012). Paraskevopoulou concludes that “regulatory policy can contribute to the achievement of targets set by innovation pol-icy...” (pp 1058, 2012). The main conclusion from these researches is that environmental regula-tions can have a positive effect on businesses, but this comes with initial compliance costs. There-fore there is a high-uncertainty whether a specific environmental regulation will have a positive ef-fect on a company.

corporatesocialresponsibility

-

programs businesses can contribute to a lower water

con-sumption by decreasing their water-footprint or by introducing water efficient technologies on the market. By executing CSR-programs, companies can get a competitive advantage from cost reduc-tion and a higher perceived customer value, be-cause the company seems to cares for the troubles of the people. Porter & Kramer (2006) discuss the effectiveness of CSR. The aim of the program must be to create shared value, for the company and the cause. Thus to be effective, a company must select issues that intersect with its particular business. To execute a strategic CSR in order to gain a com-petitive advantage, a company has to choose for a CSR policy in which it adds social value to its own business (Heslin & Ochoa, 2008).

An important notion in successful CSR is the role of stakeholders. Stakeholders are those who affect, or in turn are affected by, a corporation (Doh & Guay, 2006). The research of Clarkson (1995) concludes that companies deal rather with their stakeholders, then with society as a whole. The ar-ticle proposes that in order to create profits above average for numerous years, a company has to cre-ate wealth or value to all of its primary stakehold-ers, like shareholders or customers for example. A research of Hillman and Keim, described by Doh & Guay (2006), shows that building better relations with all primary stakeholders can result in better shareholder value: by building intangible assets creating a competitive advantage.

In the case of water saving by companies in Phoenix, businesses can intersect social value and the particular business they operate in. Re-ducing the environmental footprint, by applying water-efficient technologies for example, is one key principle in the theory of strategic CSR (Heslin & Ochoa, 2008). High innovative companies can provide the ways to reduce water usage, which can be applied in all kind of companies. By work-ing together and propagatwork-ing this, companies can differentiate themselves as “caring”, which would be a competitive advantage if the people valuate this. Examples could be a housing company which uses smart grids to reduce water use or a road-house which installs water-efficient toilets. These investments are often not only reimbursed by a potential market premium or increase in customer quantity, but also by the savings in the long term. Because of the advantages, these innovations be-come a baseline capability necessary for achiev-ing competitive parity in the marketplace. The advantage therefore over competitors is not long lasting and therefore companies have to keep in-novating and investing in efficiency (Simanis & Hart, 2011).

interstategovernance

:

consequencesofarchaic and lowinclusive policies onwater

-

entitlement

The Colorado is an interstate river basin. To what extent Greater Phoenix could cope and adapt to a changing water regime, is therefore dependent on the place of the CAP in this interstate river basin. The largest user of water from the Colorado River is the state of California. With a current annual al-location of 4.4 million acre-feet of water for con-sumptive use, California outweighs the CAP which has an annual allocation of 1.5 million acre-feet of water. Both these allocations have been deter-mined by Public Law 90-537 (Colorado River Basin Project Act) of September 30th, 1968. In Article II of Title III a prioritizing system is given: if the an-nual water release from Lake Powel is to fall un-der 7.5 million acre-feet, the annual allocation of 1.5 million acre-feet for the CAP is to be cut first. With a high possibility of maintained droughts in the near future, this would mean a major problem for Greater Phoenix.

One can wonder why there has not been any revision of the act since 1968 , if we view the current state of Greater Phoenix in comparison to California. When the act was implemented in 1968, the population of Greater Phoenix was not even half the size it is today and California was economical prospering. At the present day the situation has shifted, Phoenix is flourishing as an economic center while California is economi-cally regressing. New policies should therefore be made on the basis of good decision-making. Decision-making on vital resources like water is hard, but an excepted framework exists that em-phasizes broad spatial inclusiveness and overall stakeholder inclusion.

adaptive capacity

,

willingness and awareness among thecitizens ofphoenix

.

riskperceptionand the willingness to adapt play an

important role in defining the extent of the ad-aptation capacity of a society (Hufschmidt, 2011). In this part of the report, it will be discussed to what extent the inhabitants of Phoenix are aware of the water supply risks and whether they are concerned about future water supply.

From the results of both the 2006 and 2003 PASS, it became clear that a vast majority of the people living in Phoenix are concerned about the water supply. Another survey (AMWUA, 2007) shows that most of the respondents considers themselves as an ‘average’ water consumer, whilst identifying other sources in their surroundings as the highest water consumer, such as public parks, golf courses and their neighbors. PASS research-ers concluded that the citizens of Phoenix tends to place more blame on nature and general social trends than their own actions for creating critical problems on water availability (GlobalLocal Vi-sions, 2009). For example, natural conditions, such as long-term droughts, climate change and sunny days were seen as major contributors to water shortages, while personal activities, such as gar-den watering and maintaining a swimming pool were seen as minor contributors (PASS, 2006)

The local authorities realizes that customers must be aware of and understand the impor-tance of water conservation before they will act upon water conservation messages and ultimately change their water use behavior. A water conser-vation campaign called Water - Use It Wisely was launched on behalf of the Arizona Department of Water Resources to increase public awareness on water conservation. In 2007, people who report-ed to have heard ‘at least one message’ on water conservation used 7,3% less water than people who reported to have heard no message on water conservation. Prior to the implementation of the campaign in 1996, people in Phoenix used 20,7% more water than in 2007 (Water Research Founda-tion, 2010).

While respondents were clearly aware of the water scarcity in Phoenix, the PASS 2006 shows that one quarter of the respondents believes that residents of Phoenix have the right to use all the water they need. Moreover, a vast majority of the respondents from the Colorado Water Institute (2009) survey and the PASS 2006 reported that household use should receive the highest priority when allocating water in the short term

61% of the respondents from the PASS 2006 reported to actual reduce their water consump-tion by installing water saving devices, such as low-flow toilets and water saving shower heads.

However, when analyzing the water use records, it became clear that no significant changes in water use was recorded compared to respondents who did not employed water saving behaviors. This could be due to the fact that a misconception ex-ist between the perceived water use and the ac-tual water use in households. Most respondents believe that their indoor water use exceeds their outdoor use, but statistics shows that outdoor use far exceeds indoor use, which is the result of swimming pool maintenance and watering lawns. This raises the question whether people believe that gaining water efficiency from one activity, al-lows them to use more water for other activities like, for example, maintaining a swimming pool.

Many people living in Arizona agree that the local government has the highest degree of re-sponsibility for protecting water, but are not satis-fied with water management (CWI, 2004). They be-lieve that policy makers do not understand their priorities and strongly agree that water laws need to be changed to better meet their situations. Only 6% believe that individual citizens should have the highest degree of responsibility for protect-ing water. When askprotect-ing who should make water conservation decisions, the majority of the par-ticipants of the CWI survey (2009) rated ‘individu-als/households’ as the highest ranking in decision making and ‘business/corporations’ as the lowest.

Investment, education and management im-provements are seen to be the best solutions for controlling water shortage among the respond-ents in the Phoenix Area Social Survey (2006). However, regulations which would limit the citi-zens in their personal water use, such as water pricing and restricting residential outdoor use, are strongly opposed.

oldlegislationandnewlegislationofwateren

-titlement

thesystemsresilience is lowered due to old

legisla-tion. As has been stated before, the current alloca-tion of water has been determined in the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. When we compare this decision with the current situation it is re-markable that there has not been any revision of the act since 1968.

One can wonder why if we view the current state of Greater Phoenix in comparison to Califor-nia. When the act was implemented in 1968, the population of Greater Phoenix was not even half the size it is today and California was economi-cal prospering. At the present day the situation has shifted, Phoenix is flourishing as an economic centre while California is economically regressing. With this in mind the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act seems outdated and it would be in fa-vour of the coping capacity of Greater Phoenix if the act would be revisited. New policy should be made, but how should this be done?

twothemes ongood decision

-

making

decision-making on a vital resource such as water

is hard. Two themes have been noted as of vital importance for good decision-making: The first theme is that ‘the watershed’ is the appropriate scale for organizing water resource manage-ment, because all water sources and uses within a watershed are interrelated. The second is that Watershed-scale decision-making organizations should bring together all “stakeholders” and pro-duce integrated watershed management poli-cies that can be implemented efficiently, prefer-ably through some form of watershed authority. The cases were these themes have correctly been implemented are small (Schlager & Blomquist, 2000). If we look at the first theme, the Lower Colorado Basin (downstream from Lake Powel) has been taken as ‘the watershed’ in the 1968 act. One could say that for fair water allocation also the Upper Colorado Basin and the part of the Colorado River flowing through Mexico should be taken into account when considering allocation. This will create a level-playing field, so ensuring that stakeholders are not overrepresented. How-ever, a large scale is problematic for efficiency. It has therefore been accepted in political science that no single scale can adequately capture the diversity of interests, problems, and opportunities in a watershed. Choices about water resources are ultimately value choices that involve distinct lo-cal communities of interest even in the interde-pendent context of a shared resource (Schlager & Blomquist, 2000).

The second theme concerns pluralism. If all stakeholders should be involved in decision-mak-ing, it raises a political problem: California alone contains an immense number of water districts and other local water supply agencies. Neverthe-less, incorporating everyone’s viewpoint is impor-tant. In the past vital viewpoints of groups, associ-ations, cooperatives, and a variety of forums which represent communal thoughts on water policy were not incorporated in water policy because they had no formal governmental recognition. This broad recognition of importance is captured by Bates et al., who also researched decision-making on water policy: “The essential importance of wa-ter places a special value on the manner in which decisions are made respecting its use and avail-ability. The whole community must be considered in those decisions, and all interests must have a meaningful opportunity to participate.” (Bates et al. 1993, p.182)

The two themes mentioned above should be taken in account if we want to improve resilience in the Colorado River and so of Greater Phoenix. To do this right, a lot of time, effort and resources will be needed, but it will help to prevent future disputes which might be even costlier.

d

IscussIon

i

ntegrating disciplines

westarted our research by viewing the problem of

water-scarcity from the perspectives of each of our discipline stated by overarching “what” or “who” questions. We found that, although the foundings from ecological research could be used to some extend in predicting outcomes of theories of the alpha-disciplinary researches, we were troubled by a skewed understanding. The foundings from individual research from business studies, human geography and political science contradicted each other. We found that this problem occurred be-cause we did not have an integrative framework: although ecological foundings were integrated, the alpha-studies were still multi-disciplinary, our predisposition made it hard to incorporate concepts and assumptions from other findings. We therefore needed a different approach to out research. We used the technique of organization from Repko’s Interdisciplinary Research (2012) to create a common ground between our concepts. Through the technique of organization common ground is created by clarifying how certain phe-nomena interact and mapping their causal rela-tionships. We were able to find common ground through the overarching framework of the human-environment system. The framework directs at-tention to such questions as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental and hu-man changes underway, and where? It provides the broad classes of components and linkages that comprise a coupled system’s vulnerability to hazards. The human-environment system helped in organizing and mapping our concepts and

as-sumptions so to bring out a causal relationship between them.

Working with uncertainty: tensions and frictions In our research, we found a few obstacle blocks which prevented us from giving clear conclusions. Our research rests on the assumption of decreased water availability in the Colorado River system. Although a clear decreasing trend is visible, it is impossible to know to what extent river flow will be decreased. In our research we assumed a 20% run-off reduction, an average in many stud-ies which means that the reduction could even be higher.

Furthermore, there was an inconsistency in sci-entific literature. There is little consensus over the influence of stricter environmental regulations on companies, and there is no literature to be found on long-term effects of relative deprivation on the behavior of people in industrialized countries.

Many of our assumptions are based on the sur-veys on water-scarcity awareness amongst the people of Greater Phoenix. What we found howev-er whowev-ere quite some inconsistencies among survey findings, which we believe is caused by a social desirability bias. It entails that people will answer what is social desirable, when asked about their behavior. We think the inconsistencies are caused because the local government has broadcasted water-saving commercials, where after the sur-veys took place. We can not confirm however that this is right, as the surveys on water-saving be-havior are few in numbers and only 15 years old.

To what hazards is the environmental system

exposed?

the environmental system of Phoenix is exposed to

an increasing unreliability of water supply. Chanc-es on droughts in the CAP are in 2026 significant high (2,5%-10% by 20% runoff reduction), while the SRP runoff has a 85% to decline by 2050 and groundwater levels are likely to decrease dramati-cally. This combined with data suggesting an in-crease in drought frequency and the water-energy nexus, will likely lead to a high exposure of haz-ards on the human-environment system.

In what sense is the human-environment system

sensitive to the changes and consequences?

evidenceof an increasing aridity was found in the

environment. The importance for the business environment of reliable water and electricity is significant: although industrial flight is unlikely, the costs the hazards entail will likely lead to a deteriorating economy. People are likely to re-spond in three ways: stay in place and do nothing while accepting the costs, stay in place and miti-gate changes or leave the affected areas. If the people cannot fulfill their basic needs any longer due to the hazards, a relative deprivation will oc-cur which will likely lead to a turmoil with mass civil strife.

To what extent is the human-environment

sys-tem resilient to cope and adapt to the changes

and consequences in order to reduce the

vul-nerability?

several tools were found in which society could

cope and adapt to the hazards: efficiency from innovation, ecological regulations on businesses as incentives for resource productivity, CSR and new Colorado river legislation. However efficiency from innovation can have rebound effects, the in-habitants seem not to understand the seriousness of the potential problems, ecological regulations on businesses can lead to higher costs then

ben-efits and for new Colorado river legislation inclu-sion from all stakeholders is desirable but not likely to happen.

bysummarizingthe results of the three steps in the

applied integrative framework, we can conclude that Phoenix is likely to be highly exposed to a water availability hazard which has also effects on the energy availability. This exposure strikes on the sensitivity of the human-environment sys-tem, which is dependent and accustomed to the unlimited use of water. This is expected to lead to a deteriorating economy and civil strife. However, there are some ways the system might be resilient to these hazards, however they are still very ques-tionable. Therefore we expect that the magnitude of the hazards will determine the vulnerability of Phoenix. However, we expect this magnitude rath-er high based on the data and thrath-erefore we expect Phoenix to be highly vulnerable. In order to pre-vent the worst-case scenario’s, Society can how-ever develop the tools presented that enhance an adaptation. Therefore we recommend a stimula-tion of: 1. a transistimula-tion to an embedded innovastimula-tion paradigm, 2. properly designed regulations for businesses to develop in resource productivity, 3. bonding of companies with society, 4. a new Colo-rado River act.

GPEC (2012). Phoenix: Economy. Greater Phoe-nix Economic Counsil. Retrieved on the 7th Okto-ber, 2012, from: http://www.gpec.org/home

Atthirawong, W. & MacCarthy, B., (2001). Identi-fication of the location pattern of manufacturing plants in Thailand. Proceedings of the 6th Interna-tional Manufacturing Research Symposium, Cam-bridge, UK, 9-11 September, 2001. pp.1-13.

Levinson, A. (1996). Environmental Regulations and Industry Location: International and Domes-tic Evidence. In Bhagwati, J.N., & Hudec, R.E., Far Trade and Harmonization: Prerequisites for free trade? Vol. 1: Economic Analysis (pp. 429-258). Massachusetts, Institute of Technology.

Kenyon, D.A. (1997). Theories of Interjurisdic-tional Competition. New England Economic Re-view, March/April 1997, pp. 13-35.

Bhatnagar, R. & Sohal, A. S., (2005). Supply chain competitiveness: measuring the impact of loca-tion factors, uncertainty and manufacturing prac-tices. Technovation, 25, pp. 443-456.

Owen, S. H. & Daskin, M.S., (1998). Invited Re-view Strategic facility location: A reRe-view. European Journal of Operational Research, 111, pp. 423-447. Anderson, C. L. & Kagan, R. A., (2000). Adversarial legalism and transaction costs: The industrial-flight hypothesis revisited. International Review of Law and Economics, 20, pp. 1–19.

Bartik, T.J. (1988). The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Business Location in the United States. Growth Change, Summer 1988, 19(3), pp. 22-44.

Doh, J.P., & Guay, T.R. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activisim in Europe and the United States: An

Institutional-Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43:1, pp. 47-73.

Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Re-sponsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Com-pany and Your Cause. New Jersey, Wiley & Sons.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Busi-ness Review, December 2006, pp. 78-93.

Heslin, P.A., & Ochoa, J.D. (2008). Understanding and developing strategic corporate social respon-sibility. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 125-144.

Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A Stakeholder Frame-work for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate So-cial Performance. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 92-117.

Simanis, E, & Hart, S. (2011). Innovation from the Inside out. MIT SLOAN Management Review, Top 10 lessons on the new business of innovation, Winter 2011, pp. 9-18.

Eckersley, R. (2007) Green Theory. In Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S, International Relations Theo-ries, Discipline and Diversity (pp. 247-265). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C., (1995). Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competi-tiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Per-spectives, Volume 9, Number 3, pp. 97-118.

Jaffe, A. B., Peterson, S. R., Portney, P. R. & Stavins, R.N., (1995). Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 132-163.

Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2012). Sustainable Innovation, business models and economic performance: An Overview. To ap-pear in: Journal of Cleaner Production.

Jovane, F., Yoshikawa, H., Alting, L., Boër, C.R., Westkamper, E., Williams, D., et al. (2008). The In-coming global technological and industrial revo-lution towards competitive sustainable manufac-turing. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 57, pp. 641-659.

Paraskevopoulou, E. (2012). Non-technological regulatory effects: Implications for innovation and innovation policy. Research Policy, 41, pp. 1058-1071.

Yang, C., Tseng, Y., & Chen, C. (2012). Environ-mental regulations, induced R&D, and produc-tivity: Evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing in-dustries. Resource and Energy Economics, 34, pp. 514-532.

Blind, K. (2012). The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Research Policy, 41, pp. 391-400.

Ya Ding, Michael J. Hayes, Melissa Widhalm, (2011),”Measuring economic impacts of drought: a review and discussion”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4 pp. 434 – 446.

Sorrell, S. (2009). Jevons’ Paradox revisited: The evidence for backfire from improved energy effi-ciency. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 1456- 1469

City Of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2011 Water Resource Plan, 2011

Scott, C.A., Pierce, S.A., Pasqualetti, M.J., Jones, A., Montz, B.E., Hoover, J.H., Policy and institutional dimensions of the water–energy nexus, Elsevier Ltd, 2011

Gurr, T., A Causal Model of Civil Strife: A Com-parative Analysis Using New Indices, The

Ameri-can Political Science Review, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Dec., 1968), pp. 1104-1124

Gurr, T., Urban Disorder: Perspectives from the Comparative Study of Civil Strife , American Be-havioral Scientist, 11:4, 1968, Mar./Apr.

U.S. legislator, Public Law 90-537: Colorado Riv-er Basin Project Act, 1968, p. XII-11

Schlager, E., Blomquist, W., Local Communities, Policy Prescriptions, and Watershed Management in Arizona, California, and Colorado, The University of Arizona and Indiana University, Indianapolis, 2000

Ingram, H., Mann, D., Weatherford, G., Cortner, H. , Guidelines for Improved Institutional Analy-sis in Water Resources Planning. Water Resources Research.Volume 20, Number 3, 1984 (March), pp. 323-334

Chow, W. T. L., Chuang, W. , & Gober, P. (2012). Vul-nerability to extreme heat in metropolitan Phoe-nix: Spatial, temporal, and demographic dimen-sions. Professional Geographer, 64(2), 286-302. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2011.600225

Christensen, N. S. , Wood, A. W. , Voisin, N. , Letten-maier, D. P. , & Palmer, R. N. (2004). The effects

of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the colorado river basin. Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013684.1 3621.1f

Fulp, T. (2005). How long can it go? Southwest Hydrology, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

Canyon Operations Office, April 2005

Gober, P. , Kirkwood, C. W. , Balling, R. C., Jr. , Ellis, A. W. , & Deitrick, S. (2010). Water planning

under climatic uncertainty in phoenix: Why we need a new paradigm. Annals of the Associa-tion of American Geographers, 100(2), 356-372. doi:10.1080/00045601003595420

Hoover, J. H. (2009). The arizona water-energy nexus: Electricity for water and wastewater ser-vice