City of Phoenix Cool Urban Spaces Project

Urban forestry and cool roofs: Assessment of heat mitigation strategies in Phoenix

Prepared by the Center for Integrated Solutions to Climate Challenges at Arizona State University in collaboration with the Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS) at the University of Arizona and Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC).

Executive Summary

The City of Phoenix’s Cool Urban Spaces Report (2014) investigated the impact of the Phoenix Cool Roofs and Tree and Shade Master Plan initiatives on the city. The study evaluated how these heat mitigation efforts affect microclimates and human thermal comfort in the Phoenix metropolitan area. These findings are especially relevant as rapid and extensive urbanization has led to an urban heat island (UHI) effect that has increased steadily at approximately 0.9°F per decade.

The city’s questions guiding this research were:

1. What are the cooling benefits achieved by increasing tree canopy from 10% (current) to 25% (2030 goal) and/or implementing cool roofs under existing conditions and projected warming?
2. What is the diurnal thermal benefit of tree canopy shade for a typical heat wave day during premonsoon summer?

The impacts of cool roofs and trees on near-ground air temperatures were modeled through 54 scenarios for a typical residential neighborhood in Phoenix. We ran the model for a combination of three treeplanting scenarios (no trees, current canopy cover and 2030 canopy goal) and three landscaping scenarios (mesic, oasis and xeric) with regular roofs and cool roofs under current climate conditions and two climate change projections.

Two significant results of the tree and shade initiative are: (1)increasing tree canopy cover to 25% leads to an additional temperature reduction of 4.3°F, which is a total cooling benefit of 7.9°F as compared to a bare neighborhood, and 2) switching landscaping from xeric to oasis, i.e., adding grass patches to residential backyards, reduces average neighborhood temperatures by 0.4°F to 0.5°F.

The scenario with the lowest air temperatures is the residential neighborhood with mesic landscaping, 25% tree canopy cover and cool roofs under current climate conditions with an average neighborhood temperature of 99.5°F. In contrast, the xeric neighborhood with no tree cover and regular roofs under the high-emissions climate change scenario is the hottest. This indicates that the combination of increased tree canopy cover and cool roofs does lower temperatures as well as reduce the demand for air conditioning, thereby reducing anthropogenic heat. However, trees and cool roofs are only part of the solution and need to be included in a broader, more comprehensive mitigation and adaptation plan.

Across all climate and tree scenarios, the effect of cool roofs alone on local daytime temperatures is relatively low. Air temperature reduction only amounts to 0.5°F in the neighborhood. Regarding the city’s cool roofs initiative, results show little benefit for extending this project to commercial and residential properties based on its cooling impacts alone.

Our research thus far indicates that there is no simple solution to mitigating the UHI, but a complex balance of strategies will be necessary so that efforts to lower the daytime temperatures do not increase nighttime temperatures or shift UHI impacts to more vulnerable populations.

Introduction

The Center for Integrated Solutions to Climate Challenges and Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC) at ASU, along with Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS) at the University of Arizona, through a NOAA-funded grant, convened a workshop with urban managers and practitioners in October 2012. One goal of the workshop was to provide useful, state-of-the-art climate knowledge to encourage the use of climate science in longrange decision processes. Another was to provide opportunities for working with urban managers and planners to develop tangible products and/or processes that will enable the incorporation of this information into their unique planning documents and policies. Attendees were asked to develop project proposals for tractable, city-specific adaptation projects on behalf of their municipality. Three proposals were chosen for funding: Tucson, Flagstaff and Phoenix. The City of Phoenix asked for support in assessing the impact of their urban forestry and cool roofs initiatives on projected heat increases and the urban heat island (UHI).

In Phoenix, rapid and extensive urbanization has led to an UHI in the metropolitan area that has increased steadily at approximately 0.9°F (0.5°C) per decade. A time-trend analysis of Phoenix Sky Harbor air temperatures showed nighttime temperature differences between rural and urban areas of up to 11°F (6°C) in the summer (Brazel et al., 2000). Winter mobile transect observations in Phoenix found a UHI intensity of 14°F (8°C) (Sun et al., 2009), and a study in the spring observed an average UHI intensity of 17°F to 23°F (9.4°C to 12.9°C) (Hawkins et al., 2004). Discussions with Philip McNeely, the city’s Environmental Program Manager; Richard Adkins, Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department’s Forestry Supervisor; and a number of ASU researchers provided insight into the current activities being undertaken by the city to mitigate heat. Among these were their green building and urban forestry initiatives.

The stakeholder questions coming from the activities guiding this research were:

1. What are the cooling benefits achieved by increasing tree canopy from 10% (current) to 25% (2030 goal) and/or implementing cool roofs, under existing conditions and projected warming?
2. What is the diurnal thermal benefit of tree canopy shade for a typical heat wave day during premonsoon summer?

This study used micro-scale modeling, hourly meteorological observations and a research synthesis workshop with UHI experts from ASU to help inform the City of Phoenix’s green building and urban forestry initiatives. Initial results were presented to the City of Phoenix in late 2013.

Download the report.

Dave White, Mike Lacey, Ron Raynor, and Brian Betcher discuss the issue of water usage in agriculture, which uses two-thirds of Arizona’s water demand.

Central Arizona has a rich history of agriculture, contributing $9.2 billion toward the state’s economy. That water has near-absolute power in determining the region’s fate is not an over-reaching assumption. With increasing urban development and uncertain climate, is this industry doomed or can it be sustained?

Interviewees

Dave White, co-director of DCDC
Mike Lacey, director, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Ron Raynor, Owner, A Tumbling-T Ranches in Goodyear
Brian M. Betcher, Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District

Watch the video created by ASU Video Production.

Mapping the River Ahead: Priorities for Action Beyond the Colorado River Basin Study. March 2014.

A Carpe Diem West Report in partnership with the Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy, University of Montana.

There’s a new way of thinking about water in the Colorado River Basin, and it’s a lot more expansive than the state centered battles of the past. This evolution is timely in light of the formidable challenges and uncertainties facing the 35 million people who depend on the Colorado River from Colorado to Calexico.

In November of 2012, the United States and Mexico signed an historic agreement for cooperative management of the Colorado River that builds upon the long-standing Treaty of 1944. Along with the federal officials who led the U.S. delegation, representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin states and environmental groups actively participated in the negotiation process, and are essential partners in its implementation. No one succeeds in this initiative unless everyone pitches in.

This is not the first agreement that grew from and counts on basin-wide cooperation.

In 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation adopted Interim Guidelines for managing the operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, reflecting terms negotiated by the seven basin states to address potential shortages through a system of shared curtailments in response to specified hydrologic conditions. It did not contradict the Law of the River, but as one state official described the agreement, “we stretched the hell out of [it]”—referring to the collection of statutes, regulations, and policies that govern basin-wide water allocation and management.

In the coming years, such stretching will need to be done far more often, as pointed out by the findings in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (“Basin Study”), which was conducted in collaboration with the seven Basin states along with Indian tribes and a diverse list of other stakeholders throughout the region.

For this report we interviewed 32 Colorado River leaders to gather and assess their candid opinions about priority actions going forward following the Basin Study. Our interviewees—whose names are listed at the end of this report, but whose comments remained anonymous— included current and former employees of local, state, interstate, tribal, and U.S. and Mexican federal entities, as well as people at water supply organizations, conservation groups and other nonprofits, universities, and research institutes. Many of these individuals are actively involved in the Work Groups currently delving into the options highlighted in the Basin Study, with the support of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Basin states.

All of our interviewees agreed that time is short, the need for action is urgent, and the innovative solutions emerging throughout the Basin should be shared through more deliberate cooperation and partnerships.

This is a time of opportunity. As one leader observed, “The drought ‘turned the light on’ for many people, so they are more open to the necessary steps to move ahead.” Another stressed the importance of capitalizing on that sense of urgency: “It’s important that you don’t take the foot off the pedal. Stay engaged. . . . Ultimately, [the Basin situation] will reach a crisis stage. Unfortunately, when things reach crisis stage, we don’t always make the best decisions.” Several people conveyed a pressing need to “act, not study.”

Many people offered specific suggestions for priority actions, such as financial incentives for agricultural and urban water conservation and institutional changes to encourage strategic restoration of environmental flows. Others focused more broadly on policies aimed at encouraging movement of water to meet changing demands while maintaining lands in productive agriculture. Some emphasized the need to invest aggressively in new infrastructure to allow water to move between users and to develop new sources.

Virtually everyone emphasized the importance of engaging with one another beyond traditional boundaries, whether among user groups or across state lines and other political divisions. As reflected in our previous two reports on Colorado River management, many people are thinking about and pursuing cooperative solutions and would like to be part of a more deliberate, ongoing dialogue about such opportunities. Some credited the Basin Study with encouraging movement in this direction and are pleased to see a broader range of interests at the table now in Basin Study’s Work Groups and elsewhere, particularly representatives of Indian tribes and NGO stakeholder groups. Several people praised the Basin Study Work Groups for focusing attention on environmental flows and recreational uses of the river, as well as human and agricultural requirements, in its assessment of future water demands.

Even as people are working more cooperatively, they struggle with how to talk about the future of water in the Colorado River Basin. While most public discussions today focus on the projected imbalance of water supply and demand, several of the leaders interviewed for this report argued forcefully for approaching these issues through the lens of vulnerability, especially in light of climate change and increasing frequency of extreme weather events. They urge a greater emphasis on building resilience rather than augmenting water supplies to accommodate growth. Some say this conversation cannot occur without a fundamental reassessment of the Law of the River, although others point to the many ways in which this system of laws and policies has “flexed” over the years.

This report focuses on key themes, as represented by groups of solution options that received the most comments in this interview process.

Most people framed their comments around the options identified in the Basin Study, though their underlying concerns were broader—for example, ecosystem integrity and sustainable agricultural economies. The discussion in the section below titled “Mapping Solutions” highlights solutions grouped within the following themes:

1. Voluntary and temporary water sharing transactions
2. Broad water transfer mechanisms engaging water users over larger areas
3. Urban water conservation and reuse
4. Physical approaches to augmenting and managing water supplies
5. Dialogue, coordination and education

Read the entire report at Mapping the River Ahead.

Arizona Water Supply Sustainability: In-state Water Transfers

Moving water from one area of Arizona to another has the potential to create controversies, especially if the area from which the water is being transferred has existing water uses and economies built on that water supply.

In the Arizona Department of Water Resources report, “Arizona’s Next Century: A Strategic Vision for Water Supply Sustainability”, it is suggested that in-state water transfers will play a strategic role in Arizona’s sustainable water future. Yet, the report suggests that a comprehensive analysis of water transfers is needed to better understand their role in our water future and their secondary benefits and impacts.

In this Water/Climate Briefing, our panelists will use Yuma County as a case study to begin identifying the issues about water transfers that we need to better understand and what type of further dialogue and research is needed.

Join the conversation!

Panelists

Michael J. Lacey
Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources
State of Arizona

Patrick L. Morgan
Manager, Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District

Paul Muthart
General Manager, Pasquinelli Produce Co.
Yuma, Arizona

Dave D. White
Co-director, Decision Center for a Desert City
Arizona State University

Ray Quay
Moderator
Director of Stakeholder Relations, Decision Center for a Desert City
Arizona State University

Welcome by Jonathan Koppell
Dean of the College of Public Programs and the Lattie and Elva
Coor Presidential Chair in the School of Public Affairs

RSVP Today

Contact Katie Peige

When

Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:00-1:30 p.m.

Location

ASU Downtown Phoenix campus, A. E. England Building, 424 N. Central Ave., PhoenixMap

Transit Options

Also note that the A.E. England building is located next to a the Central Station Transfer station which features the Van Buren light rail stop, several bus routes (including express buses and the DASH), and bike lockers. For more information, please click here. For those coming from ASU’s main campus in Tempe, there is an additional option to take the FREE intercampus shuttle that leaves every half hour (on the hour and on the half hour) and deposits you across the street from the A.E. England building, make sure you take the MAROON route.

ASU report contributes to water reuse policy dialogue

In an attempt to inform policy conversations around wastewater use in Arizona, Arizona State University’s Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC) this week released a new technical report. The report, Water Reuse in Central Arizona was authored by Ariane Middel, Ray Quay, and Dave White and explores issues critical to water reuse, along with challenges and opportunities for the future.

Covering topics including existing and projected wastewater supply and demand, potential for increased competition and costs, the role of public perceptions, and industrial perspectives, the report highlights issues vital to the water sustainability of Arizona and presents a framework to address public policy issues.

“Several recent reports and commissions have pointed to increased water reuse as an important strategy to address projected water supply deficits resulting from droughts and anticipated climate change impacts” said Dave White, a co-author of the report and Co-Director of the Decision Center for a Desert City at ASU.

“While we share this common goal, this report demonstrates, however, that effluent reuse is certainly not a silver bullet to water sustainability. Many issues remain that must be addressed as we move forward. There are technical, economic, environmental, cultural, legal, and political dimensions.”

The publication is the result of collaboration between Arizona State University, Intel Corporation, and CH2M Hill’s WaterMatch.

“Sustainable water management is a key focus at Intel,” said Gary Niekerk, director of Corporate Citizenship at Intel. “We created the collaboration with CH2M HILL‘s WaterMatch, ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability and ASU’s Decision Center for a Desert City to increase awareness of water sustainability issues in our local community.”

Once thought of as just a waste product, communities across the United States are increasingly considering wastewater a valuable resource. In these communities, the effluent from wastewater treatment plants can relieve the stress on overstretched water supplies by replacing other sources for non-potable, or sometimes even potable, uses.

Effluent is currently used in Arizona for urban and agricultural irrigation, industrial purposes, and for recharging groundwater aquifers. According to the new report, effluent reuse in the Phoenix Active Management Area may be as high as 82 percent.

A majority of effluent is used to cool Arizona Public Service’s Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Some of these processes use effluent that has been treated for higher quality, resulting in reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is used to water parks and golf courses, as well as non-edible agricultural irrigation (i.e. for cotton).

This report highlights the current use of effluent as a key water conservation strategy for Arizona’s Sun Corridor—the combined metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson. Though beneficial for helping curb the demand for water in Central Phoenix, effluent offers many challenges for future water managers and decision makers.

A key challenge for producers of effluent will be cost. Wastewater treatment is currently the largest consumer of energy in Central Phoenix. In the future, this process will become even more expensive as wastewater treatment becomes more sophisticated to remove the brine (salt) and pharmaceuticals from water. A key challenge for effluent consumers will be competition.

Ray Quay suggests that, “Here in central Arizona, as in southern California and northern Florida, most effluent is already being reused. As the price of water supply goes up, so will the value of effluent. In an open market this may put it economically out of reach of current effluent users, who may find ground water cheaper to use.”

Thus the key to keeping water management sustainable is to continue to keep effluent cost-effective in comparison to the cost of pumping groundwater.

In addition to the authors, contributors to the report include Rob Melnick, Executive Dean and John Sabo, Director of Research, each from the ASU Global Institute of Sustainability, along with DCDC staff Sally Wittlinger and Liz Marquez and student interns Rud Moe and Saad Ahmed.

The review is based in part on a series of interviews and expert reviews by representatives from public, private, and nonprofit agencies.

Communicating Complex Information to Enhance Decision Making

Complexity is an inescapable aspect of environmental decision making as individuals and institutions try to make informed choices with complex and uncertain information.

One major challenge stems from the need to communicate complexity and frame information in a way that is relevant and useful for decision makers.

In this Water/Climate Briefing, our panelists will discuss techniques – such as information products/simulation models, scenarios, and decisional games – for communicating complexity in policy and governance processes for water sustainability and climate change adaptation.

Panelists will describe examples at multiple scales – from water management in Phoenix to global climate change negotiations – that illustrate the challenges and opportunities of communicating complexity.

Join the conversation!

Panelists

Andy Terrey

Project Coordinator

Water Resource Department

City of Phoenix

Erik Johnston

Associate Professor of Policy Informatics

School of Public Affairs

Arizona State University

Manjana Milkoreit

Postdoctoral Fellow

Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiative

Arizona State University

Dave White

Moderator

Co-Director, Decision Center for a Desert City

Arizona State University

RSVP Today

Contact Estella O’Hanlon.

When

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:00-1:30 p.m.

Location

Decision Center for a Desert City, 21 East 6th Street, Suite 126B, Tempe Map

In anticipation of its 10-year anniversary, Arizona State University’s Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC) has released a major new report, “Advancing Science in Support of Water Policy and Urban Climate Change Adaptation at Arizona State University’s Decision Center for a Desert City: A Synthesis of Interdisciplinary Research on Climate, Water, and Decision-Making Under Uncertainty.” The report summarizes the center’s major achievements in research, education, and community and institutional outreach since its founding in 2004.

Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and organized under ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability, DCDC is focused on water sustainability, urban climate adaptation, and decision-making under uncertainty. The center pursues research, in close collaboration with stakeholders, to create a more sustainable future. Research and modeling efforts analyze interacting factors such as population growth and economic development, climate change and variability, water supplies and demands, and governance to inform water management and other environmental decisions among diverse stakeholders.

This report was authored by co-investigators Kelli Larson, Dave White, Pat Gober, Craig Kirkwood, V. Kerry Smith, Margaret Nelson, and Charles Redman, along with research professional Sally Wittlinger.

“This synthesis of DCDC findings was essential for us to back up and say, ‘What have we learned from it all, and where are we going next?’” says Kelli Larson, the report’s lead author and a co-principal investigator at DCDC.

Since its founding, DCDC participants have published over 340 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters and supported 69 graduate students who have authored 18 doctoral dissertations and 17 master’s theses. In addition, more than 70 undergraduate students have been involved in DCDC’s research through the Internship for Science-Practice Integration, the Community of Undergraduate Scholars program, and other research assistantships.

“The most challenging and complex sustainability problems facing society today—like climate change—require a new approach to science,” says Dave White, DCDC principal investigator and co-director. “We must combine interdisciplinary science within the university with meaningful stakeholder engagement. This ‘transdisciplinary’ approach is reflected in the report, which synthesizes DCDC’s most important findings across a diverse range of disciplines and identifies the most pressing new issues.”

The report recaps the history and role of DCDC within scientific and policy dialogue and then plunges into the research results that have been produced over the years. A major theme is the challenge for cities to provide and maintain secure and reliable water supplies despite an uncertain future that will likely include warming temperatures, reduced precipitation, and more extreme weather events such as droughts, fires, and floods.

“Key findings across DCDC research have revealed uneven spatial and social vulnerabilities to water scarcity and other risks, as well as inevitable tradeoffs and uncertainties in decision-making,” Larson says. “To cope with the complexities of environmental change, collaborations, and social learning across different actors—such as scientists and policy makers, water managers and land use planners—is essential for urban sustainability.”

The report covers topics ranging from climate models used to predict how climate change affects water supplies and demands to analyses on risk perceptions and policy attitudes regarding water resource sustainability. DCDC participants have also contributed substantially to the ASU portfolio of research into climate dynamics including the potential for climate change scenarios to affect regional water resources, in addition to localized urban heat island (UHI) effects and especially their impact on water resources. This work has involved analyzing how urban land-use and land-cover patterns interact with climatic factors to affect water demands.

One of the signature products of DCDC, WaterSim, is described in detail in the report. WaterSim is a systems dynamics model used by researchers, educators, and decision-makers to explore scenarios of climate change, population growth, and how policy choices could alter water supply and demand in central Arizona.

Since its inception, DCDC has served as a type of “boundary organization” designed to bring together academic researchers with diverse stakeholders to ensure that science is not only credible, but also relevant for decision-making. In this role, DCDC has engaged with its partners through educational activities including joint research projects and collaborative workshops. Many of these activities are highlighted throughout the report.

October 16, 2013 – Effective Communication of Scenarios and Scenario Analysis for Decision Making

Scenarios are one method to describe the complexity and uncertainty inherent within the management of complex systems.

The development and analysis of these scenarios is an effective method to synthesize simple facts about a system’s complexity and uncertainty that can be used as a guide for decisionmaking.

Our panelists will focus on how to communicate effectively scenarios and scenario analysis to a wide audience of the general public, policy professionals, and political decision makers in order to facilitate effective and sustainable system management.

Join the conversation!

Panelists

Charles A. Cullom
Manager, Colorado River Programs
Central Arizona Project

Arnim Wiek
Associate Professor
School of Sustainability
Arizona State University

Wally R. Wilson
Chief Hydrologist
Water Resources Management
Tucson Water

Ray Quay
Moderator
Director of Stakeholder Relations
Decision Center for a Desert City
Arizona State University

RSVP Today

Contact Estella O’Hanlon.

When

Wednesday, October 16, 2013, 12:00-1:30 p.m.

Location

Decision Center for a Desert City, 21 East 6th Street, Suite 126B, Tempe Map

The Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University (ASU) seek applicants for a nine-month tenure-track/tenured faculty position in hydrology and water resources engineering. Research areas of interest include, but are not limited to: water resources sustainability, hydrologic informatics, and interactions of water infrastructure with climate, land cover change or public health to grow and strengthen our efforts in the Sustainable Water Initiative. We seek candidates that integrate multiple tools, including field/remote sensing observations and advanced data analysis and computational models.

Faculty in the Fulton Schools of Engineering are currently involved in several multidisciplinary research and teaching efforts aimed at addressing water resources sustainability challenges. Faculty are engaged, for example, in the study of interactions of urban infrastructure, climate and water, use of novel sensing platforms in the built and natural environment, high performance computing of coupled hydrologic and atmospheric flows, and development of decision support systems for stakeholder engagement. Close collaborations also exist with faculty across the university, including faculty from the Global Institute of Sustainability, School of Earth and Space Exploration, School of Life Sciences, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and Decision Center for a Desert City. This search is aimed at further broadening and strengthening this interdisciplinary collaborative enterprise through complementary research and teaching activities.

Successful candidates should have a Ph.D. degree in Civil or Environmental Engineering or a field closely related to hydrology or water resources engineering. Required qualifications also include demonstrated evidence of research capability as appropriate to the candidate’s rank and commitment to teaching excellence. Faculty members are expected to develop an internationally recognized and externally funded research program, adopt innovative educational practices in both graduate and undergraduate instruction, advise students, and undertake service activities. The successful candidate will be expected to teach undergraduate and graduate courses that support the Sustainable Water Initiative. Priority will be given to candidates whose research interests address interdisciplinary challenges in the field.

Appointment will be at the assistant, associate or full professor rank commensurate with the candidate’s experience and accomplishments, beginning August 2014. Although the appointment may be in any of Fulton Engineering’s five schools, the successful candidate is most likely to be placed in the Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering program within the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment.

Review of applications will begin November 1, 2013. If not filled, reviews will occur on the 1st and 15th of the month thereafter, until the search is closed. To apply, submit as a single PDF file the following: a current CV, statements describing research and teaching interests and contact information for three references to hydrosystems.engineering@asu.edu.

For more information or questions about this position, please write to hydrosystems.inquiry@asu.edu.

Arizona State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. See ASU’s complete non-discrimination statement.

ASU offers applicants an opportunity to voluntarily self-disclose information for the University’s affirmative action plan; applicants may complete an EEO survey for the position they are applying for online.

Information you’ll need to complete the survey:

Job Number: 10527
Job Title: Hydrology
Department Name: Engineering

Challenges of Communicating Sustainability in Complex Systems for Public Policy

In our first Water/Climate Briefing for the 2013-2014 academic year, DCDC set the stage for a wide-ranging discussion of critical issues in the realms of science and policy for this year’s theme: Communicating Sustainability in Complex Systems for Public Policy.

Our panelists explored:

• Understanding sustainability and complex systems
• Communicating sustainability and climate change for public policy
• Design of governance arrangements to transcend political borders
• Design and administration of complex organizations
• The role of global governance organizations in sustainability
• Incorporating complexity into water resources decision making
• Innovative tools for communicating complexity for public policy

We aim to provide opportunities for researchers, policy makers, and the interested public to engage in informed dialogue about the challenges and opportunities for decision making about sustainability in complex systems.

Join the conversation!

Panelists

Jonathan Koppell
Dean, College of Public Programs
Lattie and Elva Coor Presidential Chair, School of Public Affairs
Arizona State University

Michael Schoon
Assistant Professor, Environmental Policy
School of Sustainability
Arizona State University

Doug Toy
Water Regulatory Affairs Manager
City of Chandler

Dave White
Moderator
Co-Director, Decision Center for a Desert City
Arizona State University

When

Wednesday, September 4, 2013, 12:00-1:30 p.m.

Thank you for your interest! We are at seating capacity. RSVPs will now be wait listed. Video of the discussion will be posted on September 9 at /outreach/waterclimate-briefings/

Location

Decision Center for a Desert City, 21 East 6th Street, Suite 126B, Tempe Map