Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological, and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock‐in and Enhance Resilience

Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Earth's future 2018-12, Vol.6 (12), p.1638-1659
Hauptverfasser: Markolf, Samuel A., Chester, Mikhail V., Eisenberg, Daniel A., Iwaniec, David M., Davidson, Cliff I., Zimmerman, Rae, Miller, Thaddeus R., Ruddell, Benjamin L., Chang, Heejun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1659
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1638
container_title Earth's future
container_volume 6
creator Markolf, Samuel A.
Chester, Mikhail V.
Eisenberg, Daniel A.
Iwaniec, David M.
Davidson, Cliff I.
Zimmerman, Rae
Miller, Thaddeus R.
Ruddell, Benjamin L.
Chang, Heejun
description Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising the height of levees). However, climate and nonclimate challenges facing infrastructure are not purely technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno‐centric adaptation strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities. Techno‐centric strategies that lock‐in today's infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design, management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply technological and should be understood as complex and interconnected social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs); (2) infrastructure challenges, like lock‐in, stem from SETS interactions that are often overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with a SETS lens can help identify and prevent maladaptive issues like lock‐in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation strategies that may not traditionally be considered. Ultimately, we find that treating infrastructure as SETS shows promise for increasing the adaptive capacity of infrastructure systems by highlighting how lock‐in and vulnerabilities evolve and how multidisciplinary strategies can be deployed to address these challenges by broadening the options for adaptation. Plain Language Summary Instead of thinking of infrastructure as purely technological artifacts, we instead propose considering infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS). Adopting a SETS lens can help identify vulnerabilities that develop within infrastructure systems over time. Ultimately, adopting this SETS perspective will not only help us better understand our infrastructure systems, but also aid in the development strategies for adapting to the many challenges that our infrastructure will continue to face (climate change,
doi_str_mv 10.1029/2018EF000926
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2163993921</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2163993921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3865-dfe323c74356cdbe13e67e8af687373d099fd4fec449fe386b32c93a2be901bf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1Kw0AURoMoWGp3PsCAG4VG5yfJZJalpFooCCauw2TmxqZNJ3UmQbpz685n9ElMrUJXru7hcu534fO8S4JvCabijmISJzOMsaDRiTegjMZ-QDk_PeJzb-TcCu8ljlnIB97H3LRgNWzBaDAtmpvSStfaTrWdBSQdWlRmDRqljapkPUaJaurmpVJ7lkajDNTS_K1QunMtbBy6TpMsdTeobdBEawuuz2nU-uv9szI_Z4lZSqMAPYGr6gp6vPDOSlk7GP3Oofc8S7Lpg794vJ9PJwtfsTgKfV0Co0zxgIWR0gUQBhGHWJZRzBlnGgtR6qAEFQSiV-OoYFQJJmkBApOiZEPv6pC7tc1rB67NV01nTf8ypyRiQjBBSW-ND5ayjXMWynxrq420u5zgfN93ftx3r5OD_lbVsPvXzZNZRoM4ZN8DpoJP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2163993921</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological, and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock‐in and Enhance Resilience</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Markolf, Samuel A. ; Chester, Mikhail V. ; Eisenberg, Daniel A. ; Iwaniec, David M. ; Davidson, Cliff I. ; Zimmerman, Rae ; Miller, Thaddeus R. ; Ruddell, Benjamin L. ; Chang, Heejun</creator><creatorcontrib>Markolf, Samuel A. ; Chester, Mikhail V. ; Eisenberg, Daniel A. ; Iwaniec, David M. ; Davidson, Cliff I. ; Zimmerman, Rae ; Miller, Thaddeus R. ; Ruddell, Benjamin L. ; Chang, Heejun</creatorcontrib><description>Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising the height of levees). However, climate and nonclimate challenges facing infrastructure are not purely technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno‐centric adaptation strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities. Techno‐centric strategies that lock‐in today's infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design, management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply technological and should be understood as complex and interconnected social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs); (2) infrastructure challenges, like lock‐in, stem from SETS interactions that are often overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with a SETS lens can help identify and prevent maladaptive issues like lock‐in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation strategies that may not traditionally be considered. Ultimately, we find that treating infrastructure as SETS shows promise for increasing the adaptive capacity of infrastructure systems by highlighting how lock‐in and vulnerabilities evolve and how multidisciplinary strategies can be deployed to address these challenges by broadening the options for adaptation. Plain Language Summary Instead of thinking of infrastructure as purely technological artifacts, we instead propose considering infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS). Adopting a SETS lens can help identify vulnerabilities that develop within infrastructure systems over time. Ultimately, adopting this SETS perspective will not only help us better understand our infrastructure systems, but also aid in the development strategies for adapting to the many challenges that our infrastructure will continue to face (climate change, interdependencies, technological evolution, growing complexity, etc.) Key Points Infrastructure systems should be considered social‐ecological‐technological systems (SETSs), not simply technical or socio‐technical systems Underappreciated complexity and reliance on techno‐centric/robustness‐oriented solutions contribute to lock‐in and reduced adaptive capacity A SETS lens aids in the identification and prevention of system vulnerabilities and illumination of multidimensional adaptation strategies</description><identifier>ISSN: 2328-4277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2328-4277</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2018EF000926</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Adaptation ; Adaptive systems ; Case studies ; Climate change ; Complexity ; Ecology ; Evolution ; Extreme weather ; Infrastructure ; infrastructure systems ; Lenses ; Levees ; lock‐in ; resilience ; Resource utilization ; robustness ; social‐ecological‐technological systems ; urban systems</subject><ispartof>Earth's future, 2018-12, Vol.6 (12), p.1638-1659</ispartof><rights>2018. The Authors.</rights><rights>2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3865-dfe323c74356cdbe13e67e8af687373d099fd4fec449fe386b32c93a2be901bf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3865-dfe323c74356cdbe13e67e8af687373d099fd4fec449fe386b32c93a2be901bf3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9354-2102 ; 0000-0003-2514-8258 ; 0000-0002-0410-4152 ; 0000-0003-2967-9339 ; 0000-0002-5605-6500 ; 0000-0003-4744-0006 ; 0000-0002-6872-4094 ; 0000-0002-1692-5839</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2018EF000926$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2018EF000926$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,862,1414,11545,27907,27908,45557,45558,46035,46459</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Markolf, Samuel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chester, Mikhail V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenberg, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwaniec, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davidson, Cliff I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zimmerman, Rae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Thaddeus R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruddell, Benjamin L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Heejun</creatorcontrib><title>Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological, and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock‐in and Enhance Resilience</title><title>Earth's future</title><description>Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising the height of levees). However, climate and nonclimate challenges facing infrastructure are not purely technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno‐centric adaptation strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities. Techno‐centric strategies that lock‐in today's infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design, management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply technological and should be understood as complex and interconnected social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs); (2) infrastructure challenges, like lock‐in, stem from SETS interactions that are often overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with a SETS lens can help identify and prevent maladaptive issues like lock‐in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation strategies that may not traditionally be considered. Ultimately, we find that treating infrastructure as SETS shows promise for increasing the adaptive capacity of infrastructure systems by highlighting how lock‐in and vulnerabilities evolve and how multidisciplinary strategies can be deployed to address these challenges by broadening the options for adaptation. Plain Language Summary Instead of thinking of infrastructure as purely technological artifacts, we instead propose considering infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS). Adopting a SETS lens can help identify vulnerabilities that develop within infrastructure systems over time. Ultimately, adopting this SETS perspective will not only help us better understand our infrastructure systems, but also aid in the development strategies for adapting to the many challenges that our infrastructure will continue to face (climate change, interdependencies, technological evolution, growing complexity, etc.) Key Points Infrastructure systems should be considered social‐ecological‐technological systems (SETSs), not simply technical or socio‐technical systems Underappreciated complexity and reliance on techno‐centric/robustness‐oriented solutions contribute to lock‐in and reduced adaptive capacity A SETS lens aids in the identification and prevention of system vulnerabilities and illumination of multidimensional adaptation strategies</description><subject>Adaptation</subject><subject>Adaptive systems</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Extreme weather</subject><subject>Infrastructure</subject><subject>infrastructure systems</subject><subject>Lenses</subject><subject>Levees</subject><subject>lock‐in</subject><subject>resilience</subject><subject>Resource utilization</subject><subject>robustness</subject><subject>social‐ecological‐technological systems</subject><subject>urban systems</subject><issn>2328-4277</issn><issn>2328-4277</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1Kw0AURoMoWGp3PsCAG4VG5yfJZJalpFooCCauw2TmxqZNJ3UmQbpz685n9ElMrUJXru7hcu534fO8S4JvCabijmISJzOMsaDRiTegjMZ-QDk_PeJzb-TcCu8ljlnIB97H3LRgNWzBaDAtmpvSStfaTrWdBSQdWlRmDRqljapkPUaJaurmpVJ7lkajDNTS_K1QunMtbBy6TpMsdTeobdBEawuuz2nU-uv9szI_Z4lZSqMAPYGr6gp6vPDOSlk7GP3Oofc8S7Lpg794vJ9PJwtfsTgKfV0Co0zxgIWR0gUQBhGHWJZRzBlnGgtR6qAEFQSiV-OoYFQJJmkBApOiZEPv6pC7tc1rB67NV01nTf8ypyRiQjBBSW-ND5ayjXMWynxrq420u5zgfN93ftx3r5OD_lbVsPvXzZNZRoM4ZN8DpoJP</recordid><startdate>201812</startdate><enddate>201812</enddate><creator>Markolf, Samuel A.</creator><creator>Chester, Mikhail V.</creator><creator>Eisenberg, Daniel A.</creator><creator>Iwaniec, David M.</creator><creator>Davidson, Cliff I.</creator><creator>Zimmerman, Rae</creator><creator>Miller, Thaddeus R.</creator><creator>Ruddell, Benjamin L.</creator><creator>Chang, Heejun</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9354-2102</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2514-8258</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0410-4152</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2967-9339</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5605-6500</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4744-0006</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6872-4094</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1692-5839</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201812</creationdate><title>Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological, and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock‐in and Enhance Resilience</title><author>Markolf, Samuel A. ; Chester, Mikhail V. ; Eisenberg, Daniel A. ; Iwaniec, David M. ; Davidson, Cliff I. ; Zimmerman, Rae ; Miller, Thaddeus R. ; Ruddell, Benjamin L. ; Chang, Heejun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3865-dfe323c74356cdbe13e67e8af687373d099fd4fec449fe386b32c93a2be901bf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adaptation</topic><topic>Adaptive systems</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Extreme weather</topic><topic>Infrastructure</topic><topic>infrastructure systems</topic><topic>Lenses</topic><topic>Levees</topic><topic>lock‐in</topic><topic>resilience</topic><topic>Resource utilization</topic><topic>robustness</topic><topic>social‐ecological‐technological systems</topic><topic>urban systems</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Markolf, Samuel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chester, Mikhail V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenberg, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwaniec, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davidson, Cliff I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zimmerman, Rae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Thaddeus R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruddell, Benjamin L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Heejun</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Earth's future</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Markolf, Samuel A.</au><au>Chester, Mikhail V.</au><au>Eisenberg, Daniel A.</au><au>Iwaniec, David M.</au><au>Davidson, Cliff I.</au><au>Zimmerman, Rae</au><au>Miller, Thaddeus R.</au><au>Ruddell, Benjamin L.</au><au>Chang, Heejun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological, and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock‐in and Enhance Resilience</atitle><jtitle>Earth's future</jtitle><date>2018-12</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1638</spage><epage>1659</epage><pages>1638-1659</pages><issn>2328-4277</issn><eissn>2328-4277</eissn><abstract>Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising the height of levees). However, climate and nonclimate challenges facing infrastructure are not purely technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno‐centric adaptation strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities. Techno‐centric strategies that lock‐in today's infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design, management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply technological and should be understood as complex and interconnected social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs); (2) infrastructure challenges, like lock‐in, stem from SETS interactions that are often overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with a SETS lens can help identify and prevent maladaptive issues like lock‐in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation strategies that may not traditionally be considered. Ultimately, we find that treating infrastructure as SETS shows promise for increasing the adaptive capacity of infrastructure systems by highlighting how lock‐in and vulnerabilities evolve and how multidisciplinary strategies can be deployed to address these challenges by broadening the options for adaptation. Plain Language Summary Instead of thinking of infrastructure as purely technological artifacts, we instead propose considering infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS). Adopting a SETS lens can help identify vulnerabilities that develop within infrastructure systems over time. Ultimately, adopting this SETS perspective will not only help us better understand our infrastructure systems, but also aid in the development strategies for adapting to the many challenges that our infrastructure will continue to face (climate change, interdependencies, technological evolution, growing complexity, etc.) Key Points Infrastructure systems should be considered social‐ecological‐technological systems (SETSs), not simply technical or socio‐technical systems Underappreciated complexity and reliance on techno‐centric/robustness‐oriented solutions contribute to lock‐in and reduced adaptive capacity A SETS lens aids in the identification and prevention of system vulnerabilities and illumination of multidimensional adaptation strategies</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1029/2018EF000926</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9354-2102</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2514-8258</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0410-4152</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2967-9339</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5605-6500</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4744-0006</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6872-4094</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1692-5839</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2328-4277
ispartof Earth's future, 2018-12, Vol.6 (12), p.1638-1659
issn 2328-4277
2328-4277
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2163993921
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Online Library Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Adaptation
Adaptive systems
Case studies
Climate change
Complexity
Ecology
Evolution
Extreme weather
Infrastructure
infrastructure systems
Lenses
Levees
lock‐in
resilience
Resource utilization
robustness
social‐ecological‐technological systems
urban systems
title Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological, and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock‐in and Enhance Resilience
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T19%3A46%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interdependent%20Infrastructure%20as%20Linked%20Social,%20Ecological,%20and%20Technological%20Systems%20(SETSs)%20to%20Address%20Lock%E2%80%90in%20and%20Enhance%20Resilience&rft.jtitle=Earth's%20future&rft.au=Markolf,%20Samuel%20A.&rft.date=2018-12&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1638&rft.epage=1659&rft.pages=1638-1659&rft.issn=2328-4277&rft.eissn=2328-4277&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2018EF000926&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2163993921%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2163993921&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true