Are We Doing ‘Systems’ Research? An Assessment of Methods for Climate Change Adaptation to Hydrohazards in a Complex World

Abstract

Climate change is a product of the Anthropocene, and the human–nature system in which we live. Effective climate change adaptation requires that we acknowledge this complexity. Theoretical literature on sustainability transitions has highlighted this and called for deeper acknowledgment of systems complexity in our research practices. Are we heeding these calls for ‘systems’ research? We used hydrohazards (floods and droughts) as an example research area to explore this question. We first distilled existing challenges for complex human–nature systems into six central concepts: Uncertainty, multiple spatial scales, multiple time scales, multimethod approaches, human–nature dimensions, and interactions. We then performed a systematic assessment of 737 articles to examine patterns in what methods are used and how these cover the complexity concepts. In general, results showed that many papers do not reference any of the complexity concepts, and no existing approach addresses all six. We used the detailed results to guide advancement from theoretical calls for action to specific next steps. Future research priorities include the development of methods for consideration of multiple hazards; for the study of interactions, particularly in linking the short- to medium-term time scales; to reduce data-intensivity; and to better integrate bottom–up and top–down approaches in a way that connects local context with higher-level decision-making. Overall this paper serves to build a shared conceptualisation of human–nature system complexity, map current practice, and navigate a complexity-smart trajectory for future research.

Resilience in Complex Catchment Systems

“…Ideally, initial research on a catchment's resilience should be situated at the nexus [7,28,29], to acknowledge the importance of interactions between subsystems. Currently, our research suggests that only approximately 20% of hydrohazards research addresses any type of interaction, despite the wider complexity literature pointing to these as an underlying source of emergence [3]. In conclusion, catchments are complex systems with interrelated natural, social, and technical aspects.…”

“…So far, we have argued that catchments must be considered as complex adaptive systems comprising interrelated natural, social and technical systems; and that resilience must acknowledge the context and the concept can be considered fluid to reflect this. If we now turn our attention to catchment resilience, we must consider a shock occurring within a catchment, e.g., a flood or a drought (hydrohazard [3]), and we must recognise that these shocks are not stationary, i.e., the influence of climate change is modifying the frequency, magnitude and duration of these shocks [17,18]. The tripartite resilience concept alludes to some key considerations in applying this theoretical systems thinking to actually grappling with resilience in the real world.…”

“…One way in which the UK can manage the potential future impacts from increasing exposure to natural climate-related hazards is by improving river catchment resilience. This paper will explore the question: This paper summarises current literature following the findings of our previously published papers [3,4]-these are structured critical reviews focusing on climate change adaptation to hydrohazards, and flood management resilience. We use these reviews as a basis to develop and broaden our arguments; and relate these to the concept of catchment resilience in order to identify promising research and management gaps.…”

“…The first paper [3] systematically reviews literature for climate change adaptation to hydrohazards, and we explore available methods for their ability to address complexity. The paper [3] identifies that research into climate change adaptation to hydrohazards suffers from a substantial lack of complexity-smart approaches. It highlights that complex climate change challenges are quickly outgrowing our 'classic' approaches, and thus there is a need to develop new methods.…”

Urban Systems: Mapping Interdependencies and Outcomes to Support Systems Thinking

“…In many domains, it is common to see a range of methods applied, with multiple method types cutting across different studies (Brandt et al, 2013; Hedelin, 2019). The choices behind what is, or is not, included in a combined approach illustrates important differences in how the subject is framed as a “systems issue.” Though a review of approaches in many topic areas could demonstrate these points, we continue with the water supply example, drawing from a recent review of methods for climate change adaptation to floods and droughts (Bedinger, Beevers, et al, 2019). These methodological choices include indicator‐based methods, discipline‐specific models, nexus approaches, and integrated assessments.…”