Socio-economic impacts of climate change on rural United States

Directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, climate change will affect all sectors and regions of the United States. The impacts, however, will not be homogenous across regions, sectors, population groups or time. The literature specifically related to how climate change will affect rural communities, their resilience, and adaptive capacity in the United States (U.S.) is scarce. This article bridges this knowledge gap through an extensive review of the current state of knowledge to make inferences about the rural communities vulnerability to climate change based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. Our analysis shows that rural communities tend to be more vulnerable than their urban counterparts due to factors such as demography, occupations, earnings, literacy, poverty incidence, and dependency on government funds. Climate change impacts on rural communities differs across regions and economic sectors; some will likely benefit while others lose. Rural communities engaged in agricultural and forest related activities in the Northeast might benefit, while those in the Southwest and Southeast could face additional water stress and increased energy cost respectively. Developing adaptation and mitigation policy options geared towards reducing climatic vulnerability of rural communities is warranted. A set of regional and local studies is needed to delineate climate change impacts across rural and urban communities, and to develop appropriate policies to mitigate these impacts. Integrating research across disciplines, strengthening research-policy linkages, integrating ecosystem services while undertaking resource valuation, and expanding alternative energy sources, might also enhance coping capacity of rural communities in face of future climate change.     

A National Assessment of the Potential Linkage between Soil,and Surface and Groundwater Concentrations of Phosphorus

A meta‐analysis of three national databases determined the potential linkage between soil and surface and groundwater enrichment with phosphorus (P). Soil P was enriched especially under dairying commensurate with an increase in cow numbers and the tonnage of P‐fertilizers sold. Median P concentrations were enriched in surface waters receiving runoff from industrial and dairy land uses, and in groundwater beneath dairying especially in those aquifers with gravel or sand lithology, irrespective of groundwater redox status. After geographically pairing surface and groundwater sites to maximize the chance of connectivity, a subset of sites dominated by aquifers with gravel and sand lithology showed increasing P concentrations with as little as 10 years data. These data raise the possibility that groundwater could contribute much P to surface water if: there is good connectivity between surface and groundwater, intensive land use occurs on soils prone to leaching, and leached‐P is not attenuated through aquifers. While strategies are available to mitigate P loss from intensive farming systems in the short‐term, factors such as enriched soils and slow groundwater may mean that despite their use, there will be a long‐term input (viz. legacy), that may sustain surface water P enrichment. To avoid poor surface water quality, management and planning may need to consider the connectivity and characteristics of P in soil‐groundwater‐surface water systems.     

Using Public Participation Geographic Information Systems to Identify Places of Watershed Service Provisioning

In this study, we used public participation geographic information systems methods to collect spatial data identifying places that stakeholders in Mobile Bay, Alabama think are important providers of watershed services. These methods allowed us to spatially analyze participatory data from general public respondents and directly compare them with other scientific data in a geographic information systems database. This study identified which places in the region participants believe are important providers of specific watershed services, including fish nurseries, storm protection, flood protection, and water quality protection, which would likely have public support for conservation. Additionally, we assessed the accuracy of participant watershed service identification using land cover data to identify inconsistencies and participant knowledge gaps. This information can be used to target outreach education efforts. We found that the accuracy with which participants correctly identified places with the necessary land cover to provide each service varied considerably. We believe this to be a useful tool for managers to elicit stakeholder input and to identify knowledge gaps regarding the provisioning of watershed services.