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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Earth's future 2018-12, Vol.6 (12), p.1638-1659 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & 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 & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & 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 & 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 |