Publications

@article{Tabara2020,

title = {Micro-solutions to global problems: understanding social processes to eradicate energy poverty and build climate-resilient livelihoods},

author = {J David T\`{a}bara and Takeshi Takama and Manisha Mishra and Lauren Hermanus and Sean Khaya Andrew and Pacia Diaz and Gina Ziervogel and Louis Lemkow},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02448-z http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-019-02448-z},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-019-02448-z},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-06-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {160},

number = {4},

pages = {711--725},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {This research explores the agent dynamics, learning processes, and enabling conditions for the implementation of microscale win-win solutions that contribute to energy poverty eradication and climate resilience in a selection of low-income rural and peri-urban communities in India, Indonesia, and South Africa. We define these micro-solutions as energy-related interventions and resilience services or products\textemdashused at community, household, small production unit, or business level\textemdashthat yield both economic and climatic gains. Our analysis identifies five elements critical for the robust design of these interventions: (i) The ability to collaborate and share different kinds of expertise with a range of networks operating at multiple levels of activity; (ii) The application of place-based systems-learning perspectives that enable project participants to integrate different types of solutions to meet different needs at the same time; (iii) The ability to yield tangible short-term benefits as part of long-term strategic visions and commitment; (iv) The use of novel technologies and financial instruments in ways that foreground the needs of poor populations; and (v) The inclusion and empowerment of economically marginalised groups through institutional and technological innovations and responsible business models. We conclude that the most critical aspect of successful micro win-win solutions is support for communities' own endogenous transformative capacities as this helps ensure that solutions are shared and continuously adapted to changing conditions over time.},

keywords = {Atmospheric Sciences, Climate Change/Climate Change Impacts},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Velazquez2011,

title = {Rethinking the Concepts of Virtual Water and Water Footprint in Relation to the Production\textendashConsumption Binomial and the Water\textendashEnergy Nexus},

author = {Esther Vel\'{a}zquez and Cristina Madrid and Mar\'{i}a J. Beltr\'{a}n},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11269-010-9724-7 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-010-9724-7},

doi = {10.1007/s11269-010-9724-7},

issn = {0920-4741},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-01-01},

journal = {Water Resources Management},

volume = {25},

number = {2},

pages = {743--761},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {In the field of Ecological Economics, the need of using physical indicators to analyse economic processes, at the same time they serve as tools in decision making, has been lately highlighted. Virtual Water (VW) and Water Footprint (WF) are two useful indicators in achieving this objective, the first one from the perspective of production, the second one from that of consumption. This difference between them is interesting inasmuch as it allows to identify the subjects who are responsible for water consumption, whether producers or consumers, and proves both indicators' potential when designing water management policies. In this work, we consider a hypothesis according to which there is a clear difference between the two concepts\textemdashVirtual Water and Water Footprint\textemdashand this difference, although evident in their respective conceptualizations, is not reflected in their estimations and applications. This is true to the point that the two concepts are often used as synonyms, thus wasting the enormous potential associated to their difference. Starting from this hypothesis, our objective is, first of all, to highlight this evident but ignored difference between VW and WF through a deep and thorough literature review of the conceptual definitions and contributions, the methodologies developed and the applications made regarding the two concepts. Second, we intend to make a conceptual and methodological proposition aimed at underlining the differences already mentioned and to identify responsibilities in water consumption. We do it by broadening the context of analysis and by integrating the production\textendashconsumption binomial and water\textendashenergy nexus.},

keywords = {Atmospheric Sciences, Civil Engineering, Environment, general, Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences, Hydrogeology, Hydrology/Water Resources},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}