Abstract
There is widespread, if sometimes tacit, agreement that action is needed to anticipate and adapt to future changes in hydrological conditions that have consequences for water supply (e.g. Charlton and Arnell, 2011; Dessai and Hulme, 2007), floods (e.g. Prudhomme et al., 2010; Thorne et al., 2007) and management and protection of the water environment (e.g. Ormerod, 2009; Wilby et al., 2010). However, practical adaptation actions seem scarce: Charlton and Arnell (2011: 247) observe, in an assessment of UK water supply plans, that ‘there is an air of ambivalence towards the impacts [of climate change]’ and that in many cases ‘climate change simply seems to disappear from the important discussions in the options appraisals’. The UK Adaptation Sub-Committee, part of the statutory Climate Change Committee, finds that ‘current levels of investment … will not keep pace with the increasing risks of flooding’ (ASC, 2012: 80) and that ‘suggested measures to increase [water] supply and reduce demand … only meet a low and mid-range level of climate risk’ (p. 81).
So what prevents or slows progress on climate change adaptation in the water sector? Fankhauser et al. (1999) argue that anticipatory adaptation requires foresight and planning, which is improved by reliable information on climate change and its impacts. Communities may be best placed to understand their own exposure and vulnerability to climate change, but need the support of researchers and scientists to help them understand the changing risk (Smit and Wandel, 2006). Moser and Ekstrom (2010) view a lack of resources, including information and technical resources, as one of the common barriers to adaptation, although they caution that providing more science resources will not necessarily lead to more action unless resources are also found for the necessary adaptation actions themselves. While good information about the possible impact of climate change will not, on its own, make adaptation happen, it seems that a lack of appropriate information may act as a significant barrier to effective adaptation.
This special issue addresses this possible barrier to climate change adaptation: the availability of reliable, clear information about the possible impacts of climate change on hydrology and the water environment. The work that led to the papers in this volume was part of a wider initiative from the UK Living With Environment Change partnership (LWEC), which takes the view that practitioners and decision-makers in many fields affected by climate change find it hard to access, understand and evaluate the large volume of research on climate change impacts. The objective of this initiative is to synthesize and interpret the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature, with the results presented in a hierarchical structure (Figure 1). The top layer (Watts and Anderson, 2013) provides headline information on changes, along with an assessment of confidence, for a broad audience. The second layer is a scientific synthesis for people who want to understand more about past patterns and possible future shifts. The third layer provides the detailed evidence base: review papers on a variety of subjects written by experts in the field. Abbreviated and revised peer-reviewed versions of some of these expert reviews form much of this special issue, bringing together the most important research in a way that is intended to remain accessible to practitioners. All the papers in this special issue were subject to peer review to the same standard as for regular issues of Progress in Physical Geography, under the oversight of the Managing Editor.
Report card structure.
The hierarchical approach that we have adopted is essentially modular, allowing the information to be updated readily as new research becomes available. The three tiers of information together are referred to as a ‘report card’, following the lead of the UK Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership marine climate impacts report card (MCCIP, 2010) and the LWEC Terrestrial Biodiversity climate impacts report card (Morecroft and Speakman, 2013).
While the work reported in this special issue concentrates on the UK, adapting to the impact of climate change is a global problem, and the approach, methods and research gaps should prove relevant for other countries and regions. A shared understanding of possible impacts should allow practitioners to concentrate on identifying appropriate, transferable adaptation responses, hence maximizing the value of this wide body of research. Working on the report card has drawn together practitioners and academics, and itself acted as a valuable knowledge exchange activity.
The special issue starts with a scientific overview of the evidence for past and future impact of anthropogenic climate change in the UK water environment. The papers that follow provide detailed reviews of the literature in some of the most important parts of the UK hydrological cycle. Hannaford’s review of flow trends demonstrates the difficulty involved in understanding changing flows over the last century, even in a country that by international standards has a relatively dense and reliable river flow gauging network. Jackson et al. examine past and future changes in groundwater levels and quality. Hannah and Garner focus on the important and somewhat neglected question of changes in river water temperature. Arnell et al. consider how climate change may affect water quality. Two reviews complete the special issue. Fung et al. evaluate climate change report cards from around the world, considering how effectively such approaches communicate with their wider audience. Showing that concerns about anthropogenic impacts on the water environment are far from new, we revisit Hollis's 1979 book “Man's impact on the hydrological cycle in the United Kingdom”.
Bringing these papers together to make the first comprehensive survey of climate change in the UK water environment has been rewarding and exciting, and we are very grateful to LWEC for providing the opportunity to develop the report card. We commend the LWEC steering group’s light touch in identifying the broad subject areas of interest but not attempting to influence the scientific content of the report card or the papers. This special issue of Progress in Physical Geography would not have been possible without the encouragement and support of the Managing Editor, Nick Clifford, and we are extremely grateful for his wise advice. Finally, we thank the scientists and everyone involved in conceiving, steering and reviewing this work for their help and insight, which greatly enhanced the quality of this issue.