Comparing adaptive capacity index across scales: The case of Italy

Measuring adaptive capacity as a key component of vulnerability assessments has become one of the most challenging topics in the climate change adaptation context. Numerous approaches, methodologies and conceptualizations have been proposed for analyzing adaptive capacity at different scales. Indicator-based assessments are usually applied to assess and quantify the adaptive capacity for the use of policy makers. Nevertheless, they encompass various implications regarding scale specificity and the robustness issues embedded in the choice of indicators selection, normalization and aggregation methods. We describe an adaptive capacity index developed for Italy’s regional and sub-regional administrative levels, as a part of the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan, and that is further elaborated in this article. The index is built around four dimensions and ten indicators, analysed and processed by means of a principal component analysis and fuzzy logic techniques. As an innovative feature of our analysis, the sub-regional variability of the index feeds back into the regional level assessment. The results show that composite indices estimated at higher administrative or statistical levels neglect the inherent variability of performance at lower levels which may lead to suboptimal adaptation policies. By considering the intra-regional variability, different patterns of AC can be observed at regional level as a result of the aggregation choices. Trade-offs should be made explicit for choosing aggregators that reflects the intended degree of compensation. Multiple scale assessments using a range of aggregators with different compensability are preferable. Our results show that within-region variability can be better demonstrated by bottom-up aggregation methods.Measuring adaptive capacity as a key component of vulnerability assessments has become one of the most challenging topics in the climate change adaptation context. Numerous approaches, methodologies and conceptualizations have been proposed for analyzing adaptive capacity at different scales. Indicator-based assessments are usually applied to assess and quantify the adaptive capacity for the use of policy makers. Nevertheless, they encompass various implications regarding scale specificity and the robustness issues embedded in the choice of indicators selection, normalization and aggregation methods. We describe an adaptive capacity index developed for Italy's regional and sub-regional administrative levels, as a part of the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan, and that is further elaborated in this article. The index is built around four dimensions and ten indicators, analysed and processed by means of a principal component analysis and fuzzy logic techniques. As an innovative feature of our analysis, the sub-regional variability of the index feeds back into the regional level assessment. The results show that composite indices estimated at higher administrative or statistical levels neglect the inherent variability of performance at lower levels which may lead to suboptimal adaptation policies. By considering the intra-regional variability, different patterns of adaptive capacity can be observed at regional level as a result of the aggregation choices. Trade-offs should be made explicit for choosing aggregators that reflect the intended degree of compensation. Multiple scale assessments using a range of aggregators with different compensability are preferable. Our results show that within-region variability can be better demonstrated by bottom-up aggregation methods

The Water Abstraction License Regime in Italy: A Case for Reform?

The current Water Abstraction License (WAL) regime in Italy is no longer flexible enough to cope with the challenges posed by human-induced climate and global environmental changes. The cornerstones of the current regime were laid down in the 1930s and have remained essentially unchanged ever since. The sole noteworthy reform of the Italian WAL regime was the decentralization of the regulatory competences from the state to the regional authorities in the late 1990s. In this paper, we review the WAL regimes across the administrative regions comprising the Po River Basin District (PRBD), the largest and economically most important in Italy. PRBD's WAL regime includes a rigid and scattered WAL normative that hinders the performance of bottom-up conflict resolution mechanisms at a basin scale; a water pricing scheme that does not reflect the cost of water conveyance and use, and does not encourage efficient water allocation; and the lack of a central WAL register, which delays and in some cases impedes an environmental impact assessment for issuing new licenses or renewing existing ones, and does not allow prioritizing applications according to their full economic value. We argue these deficiencies may compromise both the integrity of riverine and water dependent ecosystems and the economic uses of water. This paper offers insights that can inform reform of water allocations in the PRBD and elsewhere in Italy and in Europe

Partnerships for a Better Governance of Natural Hazard Risks

This paper discusses the role played by decentralized, voluntary multi-stakeholder partnerships between public authorities and agencies and/or public authorities and civil society for disaster risk reduction. We pay attention to Public – Public Partnerships (PuP), a term coined for public alliances in the early 2000s although arguably building upon community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and disaster risk reduction (CBDRR), as well as other cooperative initiatives. In many respects PuPs became known as a counterpart of PPPs and quickly spread in public water and health service provision. While the concept of PuPs match to some extent the European Union’s efforts to expand horizontal cooperation and collaboration, it appears too narrow to capture the sense of European initiatives. In particular, the strict exclusion of business and commercial undertakings in the essence of PuPs by early scholars is not compatible with the call for truly cooperative multi-governance arrangements. The paper examines the concept of PuP, its objectives and defining characteristics, partners involved and relationship tying them. It then moves to understand to what extent partnerships meant to improve cooperation and coordination have permeated the EU legislation and policies, focusing especially on the role of inclusive governance and territorial cooperation. The analysis is complemented by examples of PuPs addressed in the ENHANCE case studies in which disaster risk reduction plays a role