0% found this document useful (0 votes)

10 views

Independient Infrastructure

This document discusses infrastructure systems and proposes considering them as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS) rather than just technical or socio-technical systems. Traditionally, infrastructure adaptation has focused on robustness and techno-centric solutions like strengthening structures. However, this can lead to issues like lock-in, unintended consequences, and overlooked vulnerabilities. Framing infrastructure as SETS can help identify system interdependencies and vulnerabilities over time, as well as highlight effective multidisciplinary adaptation strategies beyond traditional technical approaches alone. Adopting a SETS perspective may increase infrastructure adaptive capacity and help address challenges of climate change, complexity, and other stressors.

Uploaded by

david cadena

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

10 views

Independient Infrastructure

Uploaded by

david cadena

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 22

Earth's Future

RESEARCH ARTICLE Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological,

10.1029/2018EF000926
and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address
Key Points:
• Infrastructure systems should be
Lock-in and Enhance Resilience
considered social- Samuel A. Markolf1,2 , Mikhail V. Chester1,2 , Daniel A. Eisenberg3 , David M. Iwaniec4 ,
ecological-technological systems
(SETSs), not simply technical or Cliff I. Davidson5 , Rae Zimmerman6, Thaddeus R. Miller2,7 , Benjamin L. Ruddell8 ,
socio-technical systems and Heejun Chang9
• Underappreciated complexity and
1
reliance on techno-centric/ Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona
robustness-oriented solutions State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 2Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 3Department
contribute to lock-in and reduced
of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterrey, CA, USA, 4Urban Studies Institute, Andrew Young School of
adaptive capacity
• A SETS lens aids in the identiﬁcation Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 5Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University,
and prevention of system Syracuse, NY, USA, 6Planning and Public Administration, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University,
vulnerabilities and illumination of New York, NY, USA, 7School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 8School of
multidimensional adaptation
Informatics, Computing, and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 9Department of Geography,
strategies
College of Liberal Arts and Science, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

Correspondence to: Abstract Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has
S. A. Markolf, typically been techno-centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize
[email protected] 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
Citation: technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence,
Markolf, S. A., Chester, M. V., Eisenberg, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno-centric adaptation
D. A., Iwaniec, D. M., Davidson, C. I.,
Zimmerman, R., et al. (2018). strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities.
Interdependent infrastructure as linked Techno-centric strategies that lock-in today’s infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design,
social, ecological, and technological management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and
systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and
enhance resilience. Earth’s Future, 6, social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and
1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1029/ infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply
2018EF000926 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
Received 9 MAY 2018
Accepted 19 OCT 2018 overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with a SETS lens can help identify and prevent
Accepted article online 8 NOV 2018 maladaptive issues like lock-in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation
Published online 10 DEC 2018 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.)

©2018. The Authors.

1. Introduction and Background
This is an open access article under the Infrastructure systems have traditionally been designed to manage (and in some cases control) environmen-
terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs tal systems and ensure that critical services and resources are available where and when they are needed
License, which permits use and distri- (McPhee, 1989). For example, dams, canals, aqueducts, and pipelines have been constructed throughout
bution in any medium, provided the the United States to provide water to population centers like Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York City, and others.
original work is properly cited, the use is
non-commercial and no modiﬁcations Similarly, in the context of weather events, levees, dams, drainage culverts, retention basins, and pumps have
or adaptations are made. been designed and sized to mitigate unwanted effects from extreme rainfall, storm surge, or riverine

MARKOLF ET AL. 1638

23284277, 2018, 12, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018EF000926 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [15/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Earth's Future 10.1029/2018EF000926

conditions. These control efforts are highly techno-centric in that they rely on the installation or upgrading of
physical infrastructure components (e.g., pumps and culverts) as opposed to more ecologically based efforts
like bioswales, constructed wetlands, or living shorelines that use vegetation or a mix of green and gray infra-
structure to provide necessary services (Casal-Campos et al., 2015; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2017; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2017a; U.S. EPA, 2017b; Wang et al.,
2013). They also tend to emphasize strengthening and armoring infrastructure—an approach that ﬁts best
under the robustness regime of resilience, where traditional risk analysis is used to determine the acceptable
likelihood and magnitude of an event to which infrastructure are expected to withstand (Kim et al., 2017; Park
et al., 2013; Seager et al., 2017; Woods, 2015). For example, levees and stormwater management systems are
often designed to withstand the impacts from a storm that has a magnitude equivalent to a 1% chance of
occurring in any given year—also known as a 100-year storm event. The link between robustness and
techno-centric solutions is also used in forward looking analyses by establishing certain storm thresholds
as design objectives projected into the future, and then developing models to test how various engineering
adaptation strategies might perform with respect to the established threshold (e.g., Iowa Department of
Transportation, 2015).
In well-constrained and understood circumstances, techno-centric, robustness-based strategies can be
effective at preventing major disruptions. However, there are limits to the applicability of solely
robustness/techno-centric practices, and our infrastructure systems appear to be increasingly running up
against these limits (McPhail et al., 2018). Markolf et al. (2018) point out that the effectiveness of robustness
strategies can be diminished by many challenges such as climate variability and unpredictability, changes in
demographics and preferences, complexity and interconnectedness within infrastructure systems, and
unpredictable human behavior—each of which are further discussed later in the manuscript. Thus, the true
concern with our infrastructure appears to be our ability to recognize and respond to these limits in a timely
manner, because when robust and techno-centric adaptations do fail, it is often to catastrophic effect.
While robustness appears to have been a relatively effective strategy for mitigating extreme events in the
past, and will certainly play a crucial role moving forward, there is a growing notion that the challenges facing
our infrastructure systems require more than techno-centric, robustness-only strategies. Robustness cannot
simply become synonymous with resilience. Instead, emphasis should be placed on increasing the ability of
our infrastructure systems to move across the following different resilience regimes as dictated by varying
internal and external conditions (Chester & Allenby, 2018; Seager et al., 2017; Woods, 2015):
1. Rebound—the ability of damaged/degraded systems to return to predisruption conditions
2. Robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk-based approach and emphasis on
control and strengthening
3. Graceful extensibility—the ability to improvise solutions and extend system performance to mitigate the
consequences of surprising or sudden events
4. Sustained adaptability—the long-term ability to transform and balance system conditions in response to
constantly evolving external circumstances

Events like Hurricanes Harvey and Maria; the Southern California wildfires in December 2017; the ongoing
drought and water supply issues in Cape Town, South Africa; and the long history of extreme events in the
United States (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental
Information, 2017) not only illustrate the challenges that extreme events continue to pose to our infrastruc-
ture systems but also bring attention to the fact that these challenges may not simply be a matter of having
the right technology in place or increasing robustness to correspond to a given hazard or threat level. For
example, after Hurricane Katrina, nearly $14.5 billion was spent to reinforce levees, install additional pumping
capacity, and construct the 1.8-mile-long Lake Borgne Surge Barrier (Burnett, 2015; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers [USACE], 2013a, 2013b, 2015). Nonetheless, pumping and drainage capacity was still not sufficient
to prevent widespread flooding in several neighborhoods (and ultimately a declaration of a state of emer-
gency) during an August 2017 rain storm (Craig, 2017; G.R., 2017). Essentially, vulnerability to flooding in
New Orleans is not necessarily contingent on the height of the levees or the capacity of the pumping stations
(i.e., robustness). Similarly, unprecedented meteorological conditions notwithstanding, at least some portion
of the flooding that occurred during Hurricane Harvey is attributable to nontechnological issues such as rapid
population growth and urban development, the lack of consistent and strong zoning regulations, and

MARKOLF ET AL. 1639

widespread replacement of ecological systems with impervious surfaces (Fleming, 2017; U.S. EPA, 2008;
Wallace et al., 2018). The impact of this complex interaction between seemingly disparate factors is high-
lighted in multiple analyses related to flooding in the Houston area. For example, it was estimated that
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain maps failed to capture 75% of the
insured losses that occurred in Houston suburbs from five serious storm events between 1999 and 2009
(Blessing et al., 2017). Similarly, it was estimated that over 50% of the inundation in Harris County, Texas, dur-
ing Hurricane Harvey was located in areas designated as minimal flood hazard by FEMA (Fessenden et al.,
2017; Pinter et al., 2017). Essentially, the failure to fully account for social and ecological dynamics within
the Houston region greatly reduced the effectiveness of flood mapping and assessment, which in turn
resulted in misinformed flood prevention measures, zoning laws, and insurance mechanisms.
The New Orleans and Houston examples highlight that perhaps resilience should be thought of as more than
just a technological and/or robustness challenge—necessitating a deeper consideration of the social and
ecological context of a given infrastructure system. In the case of New Orleans, resilience is not simply a mat-
ter of increasing robustness by adding more pumps or raising levees. While these types of interventions play
an important role and may prove to be effective against the next major hurricane, they were ineffective dur-
ing (and possibly even exacerbated) the August 2017 flooding (Carr, 2017; Craig, 2017; Domonoske, 2017;
Reckdahl, 2017). In this case, one cannot help but wonder if the sunk costs (in terms of money, time, knowl-
edge, and other resources) associated with the levee and pump systems encouraged renewed investment in
these interventions after Katrina at the expense of making other parts of the city more susceptible to flooding
from rainfall. Systems can usually be designed to handle higher levels of stress or be inspected daily to ensure
all components are functioning properly, but achieving these tasks will eventually be financially exhausting.
Eventually, the right hazard or system degradation characteristics will emerge and lead to some level of
failure. Thus, social response and the public safety system appear to be at least as important as the physical
infrastructure systems. As illustrated to devastating effect during Katrina, people’s location relative to hazards
and the services and protections available to them prove to be vitally important (Bullard & Wright, 2009;
Colten, 2007; Layzer, 2012).
Similarly, for Houston, resilience is not simply a techno-centric matter of widening bayous and reinforcing dams
in preparation for the next Harvey. The fact that flood maps captured no more than 50% of the actual damages
associated with flooding events in the Houston area since 1999 points to a major gap in how we currently think
about and try to mitigate risk in our cities. There are many likely causes for this gap, but at least in the case of
Houston, a primary factor appears to be the failure to fully account for the changing social, ecological, and tech-
nological dynamics associated with years of population growth and land development (Boburg & Reinhard,
2017; Bogost, 2017; McGuire, 2016). These conflating factors, and the poor modeling results in Houston,
highlight the fault in the common assumption that design storm standards and floodplain mapping informa-
tion are highly accurate and reliable. In fact, this may even be a case of disinformation being worse than no
information, in the sense that the existing flood mapping data may have provided a false sense of security
for many residents and businesses. Given the exacerbating factors of climate change and constantly transform-
ing urban land use patterns, it is reasonable to expect continued difficulties with flood mapping information.
Nonetheless, even the existence of prescient information does not guarantee effective protective strategies
and management of flood risk. Prior to Hurricane Harvey, Houston had experienced several large flooding
events (including 500-year storm events in 2015 and 2016) that provided key insights into existing flood prone
areas and system vulnerabilities. Yet little action was taken to address these vulnerabilities or implement stra-
tegies for mitigating the impacts of future storms (Ingraham, 2017; Lind, 2017; Resnick, 2017; Shaw et al., 2016).
Recognizing that a very large literature exists related to defining and assessing vulnerability (e.g., Adger,
2006), this manuscript considers that vulnerability consist of the exposure and sensitivity of a
system/component/individual/group to a hazard or stressor (i.e., increased exposure and/or sensitivity to a
stressor translate to increased vulnerability to that stressor). All of this is to say, technically oriented strategies
are dependent on the social, institutional, and ecological context in which they are implemented. Thus, a
transition toward resilience that considers more regimes than robustness should combine new design prac-
tices that do not require predicting future extreme events as tightly, are based on new design criteria distinct
from hazard and risk thresholds, and incorporate social and ecological elements. The challenge facing

MARKOLF ET AL. 1640

infrastructure resilience efforts is finding complementary approaches to current design practices, rather than
deepening our commitment to them.
We posit that expanded perspectives on the complex, multidisciplinary, and interconnected nature of infra-
structure systems that reveal lock-in and path dependency offer a crucial first step toward resilient infrastruc-
ture services. We define lock-in as constraints on infrastructure today as an outcome of past decisions and
actions, even in the context of changing operating conditions or the emergence of more effective alterna-
tives (Corvellec et al., 2013). Lock-in is perpetuated and often exacerbated by the related concept of path
dependency, which refers to constraints on a system’s ability to change (e.g., adapt or transform), in that it
is often very costly and difficult to alter an existing infrastructure system from its current trajectory (Arthur,
1989; Payo et al., 2016). For the purpose of simplicity, these concepts will collectively be referred to as
lock-in for the duration of this manuscript. Additionally, we refer to infrastructure complexity as the unpre-
dictable, yet unchaotic nature of infrastructure systems and dynamics. For example, infrastructure complexity
is revealed when systems fail due to tractable and seemingly predictable reasons, yet the causality behind
these failures remains a mystery prior to their onset. We argue that overconfidence in infrastructure robust-
ness is the consequence of ignoring infrastructure complexity by narrowly understanding infrastructure
systems as technological systems.
In contrast to this constrained perspective, infrastructure systems appear to warrant treatment as complex
social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs) where feedback between humans, infrastructure, and
the environment dictate failures and their consequences (or the lack thereof; Miller et al., 2018). For example,
the impacts and failures associated with Hurricane Katrina may not have been as profound if more substantial
social considerations and protections had been in place (Bullard & Wright, 2009; Colten, 2007; Layzer, 2012).
The SETS perspective, in particular, helps reveal the complex causality of infrastructure failures due to lock-in
and demonstrates how a reliance on historical information for environmental and social drivers locks infra-
structure into fragile designs (i.e., shocks bring higher harm as their intensity increases; Aven, 2015; Taleb,
2012). Subsequently, complex SETS interactions, initiated by the construction of new infrastructure or the
rebuilding of old infrastructure, create escalating risks (due to increasing consequences of disruption) that
are difficult to avoid. Together, a SETS perspective highlights how infrastructure systems become locked-
in, and how this increases fragility and erodes the adaptive capacity needed to address new hazards and risks.
Although previous work has been done on incorporating various S, E, and T elements, for example, in indices
to ascertain overall vulnerabilities (Borden et al., 2007) and case studies of infrastructure related failures
(Layzer, 2012), the full integration of these elements and recognition of the role of lock-in in providing a
perspective for such integration has not been the focus of these earlier works.
In this manuscript, we explore SETS as a perspective on infrastructure complexity, show how SETS interac-
tions reveal lock-in, and then demonstrate this approach through multiple case studies. Ultimately, we argue
that by not accounting for the emergent and interconnected nature of SETS within our infrastructure, we are
limiting our ability to (1) fully comprehend the fragility and inflexibility (i.e., the inability to effectively respond
to changing system dynamics) within our infrastructure systems, in terms of both the built materials and the
social and institutional rules and norms—particularly related to lock-in, and (2) fully explore and develop the
solution space related to resilience to changing environments and extreme events.

2. SETS Characteristics and Challenges for Infrastructure Systems

2.1. SETS Characteristics of Infrastructure Systems
Several authors have considered social-technical and social-ecological perspectives on resilience and infra-
structure systems. Examples of social-technical perspectives include Swilling et al. (2013), Bolton and
Foxon (2015), Walker (2015), Eisenberg et al. (2017), and Amir and Kant (2018). Examples of social-ecological
perspectives include Berkes and Folke (1998), Walker et al. (2002), Edwards (2003), Anderies et al. (2004),
Walker et al. (2004), Folke et al. (2005), Folke (2006), Walker et al. (2006), Ostrom (2009), Fischer et al.
(2015), Muneepeerakul and Anderies (2017), Bene and Doyen (2018), Garrick et al. (2018), and Walker et al.
(2018). Despite this wealth of literature, studies of infrastructure from the perspective of integrated SETS
are a relatively nascent concept. The citations above offer a variety of perspectives on social-ecological sys-
tems (SES) that form a strong foundation for our perspective. For example, the Stockholm Resilience
Center’s perspective on SES introduces important concepts such as an emphasis on nonlinear dynamics,

MARKOLF ET AL. 1641

Figure 1. Overview of social, ecological, and technological components and interactions of infrastructure systems.
Adapted from Depietri & McPhearson (2017), Grabowski et al. (2017), Labi (2014), and Rubin (2001).

thresholds, uncertainty, and surprise with respect to resilience (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Folke, 2006; Walker et al.,
2006). Frankfurt Social Ecology emphasizes societal relations to nature with the beliefs that nature and
society are distinct but cannot be treated as independent from one another and that observable patterns
characterize the relations between society and nature (Becker & Jahn, 2005; Hummel et al., 2017). Similarly,
the Institute of Social Ecology in Vienna describes SES as consisting of a natural sphere and a cultural
sphere that are mutually dependent and inﬂuential on each other (Haberl et al., 2016; Kramm et al., 2017;
Singh et al., 2013). Although there is an acknowledgement that the relationship between nature and
society is often facilitated by technology (Kramm et al., 2017), most SES perspectives view technological
systems as a subset of social systems. For example, the Vienna perspective on social interactions with
nature emphasizes natural systems as the primary source of inputs and sinks for outputs of social
metabolism–implicitly facilitated by social-economic systems and their technological subsets (Haberl et al.,
2016; Singh et al., 2013). However, as discussed throughout this manuscript, technological systems appear
to have meaningful inﬂuence and agency relative to social and ecological systems. Thus, we view resilience
and infrastructure systems from the collective perspective of SETS.
In general, a SETS perspective integrates socio-technical and socio-ecological perspectives and expands
upon them to also consider ecological-technological interactions (see Figure 1). Stokols (2018) expands on

MARKOLF ET AL. 1642

traditional SES perspectives by describing human environments as consisting of natural, built, sociocultural,
and virtual systems that occur at varying temporal, geographic, and social scales. Stokols (2018) also empha-
sizes the importance of interconnections, as in this paper, though the bounding of those elements may differ.
Other existing literature on SETS primarily focus on definitions and conceptual framing (Grabowski et al.,
2017; Grimm et al., 2017; Hale et al., 2015; Krumme, 2016; McPhearson et al., 2016; Ramaswami et al., 2012)
or discuss the three components independently. Similar to analysis by Tellman et al. (2018), we expand on
existing SETS literature by directly applying the SETS lens to infrastructure development and management,
particularly in relation to identifying maladaptive lock-in processes and establishing approaches to help infra-
structure adapt to the effects of extreme events. Our manuscript supports many of the findings of Tellman
et al. (2018): human decision-making dynamics and environmental context shape the evolution of coupled
infrastructure systems, each adaptation decision exists in the context of (and is shaped by) previous deci-
sions, and attempts to increase robustness to specific threats in the present often result in increased vulner-
ability to unforeseen risks and unintended consequences. However, we also differentiate and expand upon
their analysis in several ways. First, our manuscript more explicitly emphasizes and explores the interactions
and shifting influence among SETS in the development of vulnerability and lock-in over time (see sections 2.2
and 3). In contrast, Tellman et al. (2018) place their emphasis much more on the implications of governance
decisions (i.e., social systems) over time—albeit with acknowledgement of the broader ecological and infra-
structural context in which these decisions are made. Second, due to our more explicit examination of the
shifting influence and interactions among SETS, our analysis not only allows for the identification of lock-in
but also highlights specific intervention points for possibly breaking said lock-in. Third, Tellman et al.
(2018) emphasize that one of the primary contributors to lock-in and unintended consequences of resilience
decision-making is the fact that previously externalized risks often eventually become endogenous to the
system. However, the lock-in and unintended consequences apparent in the case studies in our manuscript
appear to be relatively endogenous to the system from the beginning. Finally, in addition to using a SETS lens
to better identify and address lock-in, our manuscript also discusses how a SETS lens might help facilitate
more comprehensive and holistic resilience strategies (see section 4). Ultimately, our work appears to be a
nice complement to Tellman et al., and both papers seem well positioned to contribute to a better under-
standing of and response to the broader social, environmental, and historical context in which adaptation
and infrastructure decisions occur.

Similar to the SETS literature, lock-in literature for infrastructure systems is also limited and tends to focus on
deﬁning concepts and identifying core characteristics, rather than relating to the realization of system failures
or extreme events (Hommels, 2005; Payo et al., 2016). We expand on the literature by more deeply exploring
how lock-in appears to evolve and how it contributes to increased fragility (lowered adaptive capacity) in
infrastructure systems. Furthermore, we outline possible strategies for interdicting maladaptive lock-in and
developing alternative anticipatory SETS pathways.

Figure 1 provides a broad, nonexhaustive overview of what constitutes SETS. Here we define social systems as
a broad domain that includes both human actors and their roles and activities, such as cultural and institu-
tional values, tacit knowledge, public discourse, policy, economics, governance, public health, financing,
citizens, regulators, managers, and the institutions in which these reside (Grabowski et al., 2017). Similar to
its discussion in the context of sustainable development (Speth, 2009; Sachs, 2015; UNDP, 2018), strong
and just governance is a key element within the social domain of SETS. Additionally, on a smaller scale, edu-
cation, communication, beliefs, values, attitudes, lifestyle choices, and decision making have been found to
influence people’s understanding, engagement, perception, and interaction with broader ecological and
technological systems (Goleman, 2010; Graham & Abrahamse, 2017; Meerow et al., 2016; Myers et al., 2012;
Revkin, 2007; Schultz & Kaiser, 2012; Swim et al., 2009). Therefore, these individual elements and characteris-
tics are also included with the social domain of SETS. The ecological domain encompasses natural resources,
pollution and environmental degradation, ecological structures, ecological functions, ecological behaviors,
and weather/climate effects (Grabowski et al., 2017). The technological domain includes physical and cyber
infrastructure, as well as any supporting knowledge systems, software, and other forms of decision-support
(Grabowski et al., 2017). In agreement with Stokols (2018), we view virtual and cyber-based features to be
of increasing influence and importance within the technological domain and beyond. Whether discussing
teleconferencing systems and social media, or emerging concepts like virtual and augmented reality,
the Internet of Things, the sharing economy, and artificial intelligence, cyber-based technologies are

MARKOLF ET AL. 1643

increasingly shaping how we perceive and engage with each other and our surrounding ecological systems
(Stokols, 2018). Although largely outside the scope of this manuscript, the emergence and growing influence
of virtual and cyber-based technologies on broader SETS appear to warrant considerable multidisciplinary
exploration moving forward.
The components described in Figure 1 are divided into separate S, E, and T domains to provide clarity about
what is meant by SETS. When analyzing and discussing SETS, we acknowledge that social, ecological, and
technological components do not always fit neatly into distinct, decoupled classifications. In particular, eco-
logical and social systems are continually interacting with and influencing each other via technological sys-
tems. Technological systems are often the mechanisms by which social systems affect ecological systems via
pollution, resource consumption, land use change, etc. Similarly, technological systems also tend to be the
mechanisms that enhance the services (or disservices) provided by ecological systems to social systems.
For example, water infrastructure systems are used to purify and deliver drinking water; electric power sys-
tems are used to gather and convert natural resources (coal, natural gas, wind, sunlight, etc.) to electrical
energy. Finally, technological systems are often used as the primary mechanism for protecting social systems
from unfavorable ecological conditions. For example, buildings and space heating/cooling protect people
from extreme heat or cold, and dams and levees protect people and property from flooding.
In addition to technological systems commonly serving as the intermediary between social and ecological
systems, it is important to recognize that each of the SETS domains have varying degrees of agency and influ-
ence on the other systems. Ecological systems can exist in the absence of social and technological systems—
although this is rarely the case anymore. Perhaps more appropriately, ecological systems rely on the proper
functioning of technological systems and stewardship from social systems to function unperturbed. Social
systems rely on both ecological systems (for basic resources like food, water, and materials) and technological
systems (to access and utilize ecological goods and services at any meaningful scale and to increase stan-
dards of living). Finally, technological systems could not exist independently of social systems nor ecological
systems—they are developed from natural resources to meet certain needs and functions deemed necessary
by society. Overall, the strength and directionality of these relationships point to a certain level of intercon-
nectedness that can be instructive when thinking about the evolution of lock-in in the context of system resi-
lience. Ultimately, social and technological systems appear to be interdependent—in modern times, one
cannot function or be decoupled from the other. For example, energy and water systems are interconnected
with food systems, which in turn are linked to social concerns and the technological systems that enable food
production (Zimmerman et al., 2016). The relationships between ecological and social systems and ecological
and technological systems appear to be best characterized as interconnected. Both of these instances are
described as interconnections rather than interdependencies because ecological systems can function in
the absence of both technological and social systems, but the inverse does not necessarily hold true.
Nonetheless, these relationships are increasingly moving toward interdependencies as the social and
technological systems of humankind have reached such a scale and scope that it is hard to find any ecologi-
cal systems that are not at least influenced by human activity in some way (Allenby, 2007; Allenby, 2012;
Syvitski, 2012; Thomas, 1956; Turner, 1993).

In conjunction with Ostrom et al. (1999) and Stokols (2018), SETS dynamics and interactions occur at a variety
of social, temporal, and geographic scales. Ecological systems consist of individual organisms all the way up
to entire ecosystems and planetary dynamics (e.g., the carbon cycle and the water cycle). Social systems can
range from individuals and personal behavior/decision-making up to wide-ranging institutions and policy
decisions (e.g., local, state, national, or international governance). Technological systems can range from indi-
vidual infrastructure components to large-scale national/international networks (especially in the case of
cyber features), and there may be additional value to be gained by more effectively coupling decentralized
infrastructure (e.g., small-to-medium–scale systems like rooftop solar panels) with centralized infrastructure
(e.g., large-scale power plants and transmission/distribution lines) (Tomlinson et al., 2015). Each of these
SETS-speciﬁc scale dynamics will exhibit their own characteristics and behaviors that are important to
acknowledge for future directions, but are beyond the scope of the current paper’s theme. Nonetheless, as
detailed in the case studies presented in section 3, applying a SETS lens to identify and address the evolution
of vulnerability and lock-in within infrastructure systems appears particularly well suited for the meso level of
social relations to nature as described by Hummel et al. (2017). In this context, organizations and institutions

MARKOLF ET AL. 1644

epitomize the social systems, and ecological-technological interactions primarily relate to addressing the col-
lective needs of society (e.g., provisioning food, energy, and water; protecting against extreme events; and
enabling mobility and communication). From a temporal perspective, a SETS lens on lock-in and resilience
appears particularly well suited for scales on the order of multiple years (sections 3.2 and 3.3) to multiple dec-
ades (section 3.1). However, as applied in this manuscript, SETS also implicitly captures social (e.g., the initial
decision to settle in a river delta; section 3.1) and ecological (e.g., natural variation and meandering of river
ﬂow; section 3.1 ; and climate change dynamics; Sections 3.1 and 3.2) dynamics that span hundreds of years.

2.2. SETS Challenges for Infrastructure

Aside from expanding our thinking to consider infrastructure systems as SETS (rather than simply technolo-
gical systems), some of the primary challenges facing infrastructure are SETS-based, rather than single-
system issues. For example, difficulties associated with infrastructure utilization, inflexibility, complexity,
interdependence, nonstationarity, perceived protection, and social equity are all multidimensional SETS
issues that can contribute to vulnerabilities of our infrastructure systems.
One of the primary challenges facing our infrastructure systems is the relatively inflexible, rigid, and long-
lasting (i.e., obdurate) nature of most infrastructure components, the institutions that manage and maintain
them, and the uncertain and changing levels of utilization that occur during the lifetime of an infrastructure
system (Chester & Allenby, 2018). Typically, infrastructure systems are designed to meet demands decades
into the future, but accurately anticipating, projecting, and capturing the complexity of future demands
and system characteristics are often very challenging—especially when disruptive technologies, climate
uncertainty, and changing behaviors are considered. Moreover, infrastructure are typically playing catch-
up with an ever-changing and usually expanding user base, while the ability to meet those needs in a reason-
able time period is constrained by the fact that current infrastructure systems are in need of trillions of dollars
of investment in the United States (ASCE, 2017). As a result, infrastructure systems can end up being overu-
tilized (in cases where demand exceeds capacity) or underutilized (in cases where capacity exceeds demand).
These challenges will likely be exacerbated in the context of climate nonstationarity—the poor correlation
between past data/trends and future conditions. The natural environment in which infrastructure exists is
changing in unprecedented and uncertain ways (Butchart et al., 2010). However, from a socio-technical per-
spective, we traditionally design infrastructure for climate conditions that may no longer apply (Emanuel,
2017; Forsee & Ahmad, 2011; Milly et al., 2008; Slater & Villarini, 2016). From the perspective of social systems,
our constantly evolving and changing preferences and demands, as well as our ability (or inability) to recog-
nize and predict these changes, contribute to this infrastructural challenge. Thus, in response to emerging
ecological changes (i.e., changes in the weather and climate conditions under which infrastructure systems
operate) and social changes (i.e., changes in preferences and demands), technological systems will likely
need to evolve to be able to perform under a wider variety of operating conditions that the social and eco-
logical dimensions introduce. Additionally, the related institutional dimensions of social systems will need to
adjust the planning, governance, and management of infrastructure to better account for the uncertainty
associated with nonstationarity.
Another challenge is related to the growing complexity and interconnectedness of our infrastructure systems
(Garrick et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2018; Rinaldi et al., 2001; Zimmerman et al., 2016, 2017). Although there
are several different types of interdependences among infrastructure systems (Rinaldi et al., 2001), the two
that appear to be most prevalent are physical—where the output of one system is a direct input to another
system, and geographic—where multiple infrastructure systems share a common location or are located in
close proximity to one another (Rinaldi et al., 2001). An example of physical interdependency is that electricity
is required to operate the pumps and other components of water treatment and distribution, while water is
often a critical input for the creation and cooling of steam in thermal-electric power systems. An example of
geographic interdependency is the burying of fiber-optic cables, water pipelines, and electric transmission
lines underneath roadways or along transportation right-of-ways. Failure in one of these systems is likely
to disrupt the other co-located systems. These relationships pose challenges because the technological evo-
lution of our infrastructure systems appears to be moving toward increased complexity and interconnected-
ness (e.g., electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, smart water and electricity systems), and the social
components of our infrastructure systems (e.g., governance, regulation, management, and planning) appear
increasingly less adept at fully recognizing and reacting to these interconnections. Thus, in the context of

MARKOLF ET AL. 1645

resilience, recognizing and accounting for these complex relationships will be crucially important. As
infrastructure systems become more intertwined and interdependent, it will likely become easier for a disrup-
tion in one system to propagate to other systems, thereby increasing the susceptibility to widespread and
high impact cascading failures.
The obdurate, complex, and interdependent nature of many infrastructure systems also contributes to the
fallacy of control, where there is the inclination to overestimate the level of protection provided by techno-
logical systems and underestimate the variability and instability of ecological and social systems. The
channelization and damming of the Mississippi River are exemplary of this. Over time, we have implemented
a series of dams, levees, and other technologies to control how, when, and where the water moves. The
establishment of control structures then led to increased development along and near the river due to the
assumption that many of the threats posed by the river had been neutralized. However, as exhibited by
the Mississippi River floods of 1993 and 2011 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, ecological systems do not remain
indefinitely predictable and can overwhelm control structures to highly impactful results. This is often a result
of misunderstanding the inherent unpredictability and variance of natural systems, of overconfidence in the
robustness of infrastructure systems, or some combination of the two. To make matters worse, the technolo-
gical systems put in place to protect people and property can exacerbate the impacts of an extreme event
when a failure does occur. For instance, it is likely that New Orleans would not have had as large of a popula-
tion or as much industrial/economic activity if not for the protection (real and perceived) provided by the
levees and pumping stations around and throughout the city. Thus, more people and property are exposed
if and when the levees and pumps fail. It is also important to note that the fallacy of control can occur across a
variety of different levels within social systems: the water crisis in Flint, Michigan (i.e., there were prolonged
water quality and health concerns associated with switching between water supply systems), is an example
of infrastructure planners, funders, and politicians believing that the system was under control (in addition to
other complicating social, economic, and political factors); the near catastrophic failure of the Oroville Dam is
an example of infrastructure operators and regulators believing that the system was under control (California
Department of Water Resources, 2018); and Hurricanes Harvey and Katrina are examples of the public believ-
ing that the system was under control.
Finally, without broader consideration of social and ecological conditions, physical infrastructure systems can
be implemented and managed in an inequitable manner where much of the vulnerability is wittingly or
unwittingly shifted to citizens of lower socio-economic standing. Historically, often as a result of broader
social and cultural power dynamics and inequities, citizens of lower socio-economic standing have lived in
locations with the poorest ecological conditions (e.g., little-to-no green space and higher exposure to
noncoastal flooding; Bullard & Wright, 2009; Chakraborty et al., 2014; Collins et al., 2018; Landry &
Chakraborty, 2009; Maldonado et al., 2016; Wolch et al., 2014). Similarly, physical infrastructure and resources
are not typically distributed evenly across urban areas—citizens of lower socio-economic standing often do
not have access to as much or as high-quality physical infrastructure or institutional protections (e.g., flood
insurance and preparedness programs) as citizens of higher socio-economic standing (Chakraborty et al.,
2014; Collins, 2010; Collins et al., 2018; Maldonado et al., 2016). Therefore, in the context of resilience from
a socio-ecological perspective, it appears that improvements can be made by not permitting
development/settlement in areas with poor ecological conditions—particularly for citizens of lower socio-
economic standing. Similarly, from a socio-technological perspective, it is important to think more critically
about how, when, and where physical infrastructure systems are implemented, and who is benefitting (or
harmed) by that implementation.

3. Using a SETS Lens to Identify How Vulnerability Develops Over Time:

Case Illustrations
The embeddedness of technological systems within larger social and ecological systems, and the resulting
complexity that emerges, can ultimately result in unintended consequences and trade-offs within the tech-
nological system and across SETS that are often undesirable and difﬁcult to manage. One of the primary unin-
tended consequences that emerge within our infrastructure systems is lock-in. Thus, an important aspect of
increasing resilience within infrastructure systems will be identifying maladaptive lock-in—particularly in the
context of the aforementioned multidimensional challenges. The remainder of this section contains

MARKOLF ET AL. 1646

Figure 2. Summary of social, ecological, and technological system developments along the Atchafalaya and Mississippi
Rivers between the 1950s and the 2010s. The dashed line indicates a feedback loop between points 7 and 4. The dotted
line indicates that system dynamics and interactions continue into the future beyond point 8.

illustrative examples of how a SETS approach appears well suited for aiding decision-makers in this process
by (1) recognizing that changes to technical infrastructure systems influence and are influenced by aspects of
ecological and social systems and (2) analyzing the temporal dynamics of these influences to help identify
(and anticipate) points along a pathway where vulnerability/fragility may reach undesirable levels.

3.1. The Atchafalaya and Mississippi River Basins: SETS in a Historical/Diagnostic Context
One of the best illustrations of the temporal dynamics of SETS and the emergence of lock-in over time is the
Atchafalaya and Mississippi River Basins (Madrigal, 2011; McPhee, 1987; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009).
In the early 1950s, the Army Corps of Engineers determined that if left untouched, the Mississippi River would
change its course to the Atchafalaya River by 1990 (as part of the natural geologic process of avulsion)—an
ecological forcing on social systems. Should such a shift in the river occur, settlements within the Atchafalaya
River Basin would likely flood and Baton Rouge and New Orleans would be faced with the serious economic
ramifications of the Mississippi River drying up. Considering the relatively large number of people that could
be affected (roughly 800,000 people when considering the populations of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and
the towns along the Atchafalaya River), and the high economic and cultural significance of Southeastern
Louisiana, a significant shift in flow from the Mississippi River to the Atchafalaya River, was determined to
be unacceptable. As a result, the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Old River Control Structure in
1963 to prevent the main channel of the Mississippi River flow from deviating from its historical path—tech-
nological forcing on ecological systems in response to social concerns/desires. A severe flood in 1973 almost
caused catastrophic damage to the Old River Control Structure. In response to the 1973 flood, construction of
an auxiliary control structure was completed in 1986 to reduce pressure on the original floodgates. Finally, in
1990, the Murray Hydroelectric Station was added to provide additional flow and flood control at the site.
Figure 2 summarizes these developments over time from a SETS perspective.
Overall, this example highlights a few key issues: (1) at various points in time, different S, E, and T elements are
exerting influence on the overall system; (2) any S concerns are addressed almost exclusively via technologi-
cal systems (i.e., the Old River Control Structure)—even in the aftermath of a near failure, the response was to
strengthen commitment to T systems by installing the auxiliary control structure and the Murray
Hydroelectric Station; (3) the increased reliance on T systems increased lock-in and fragility within the system;
and (4) a feedback loop (illustrated by the dashed line in Figure 2) appears to emerge related to the

MARKOLF ET AL. 1647

installation/enhancement of T, increased perception of control, increased growth and development related

to the perceived control, and increased fragility and vulnerability associated with the increased growth
and development. The intersection and interaction of S, E, and T systems in the Atchafalaya River Basin have
resulted in the ﬂows of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers being locked into a 70/30 split since 1963 and
likely for perpetuity. As a result, virtually all people and economic activity down river are reliant on the con-
tinued performance of the Old River Control Structure, and as population and economic activities continue
to grow within the area, the criticality and fragility of the Old River Control Structure rises. As the criticality
rises, it becomes increasingly difﬁcult and costly to pursue any alternative approaches—thereby increasing
lock-in. Therefore, the vulnerability to and impact from the possible (if not probable) failure of the Old River
Control Structure are continually increased by the complex interactions of SETS and lock-in within the
overarching system.

3.2. Nuisance Flooding in Miami Beach: SETS in a Contemporary/Anticipatory Context

Recent developments in Miami Beach illustrate how a SETS perspective might also assist with anticipatory
efforts. A combination of a dense, relatively impervious urban environment, old and degrading stormwater
infrastructure, intense precipitation events, and rising sea levels have led to increased occurrences of
street-level flooding in Miami Beach. Historically, flooding in Miami Beach has been the result of intense rain
events. However, more recently, sea level rise has led to more occurrences of sunny-day floods. These floods
are common during particularly large high tide events (or, King Tides) and are the result of overtopping sea-
walls and seawater entering through stormwater outlets and bubbling up into the streets via storm drains or
seeping up through porous limestone bedrock (Cohen, 2017; Di Liberto, 2017; Neal, 2017). In response to
these flooding events, in 2014, the City of Miami Beach announced a series of flood prevention projects that
include $300–$500 million in new investments to enhance stormwater and flood mitigation infrastructure
(Clark, 2016; Fagenson, 2014; Flechas, 2017, 2018; Flechas & Staletovich, 2015; Waldheim et al., 2017).
These investments include the installation of pumping stations (to pump excess storm water and seawater
from the land surface), the raising of roads, and the raising of seawalls—another illustration of the emphasis
placed on technological solutions.
The primary concern with the current strategy for mitigating the flood events (the installation of pumping
stations throughout the island) is with the quality of the water pumped into Biscayne Bay. Preliminary water
sample results found that water pumped into the Bay had elevated levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and E. coli
(Flechas, 2018; Flechas & Staletovich, 2015; Gidley, 2016; Jones, 2018; Peterson & Weiland, 2016; Staletovich,
2016a; Staletovich, 2016b; Wendel, 2016). While efforts are being made to address these water quality
concerns, continued damage to the water quality and ecosystems of Biscayne Bay could also damage tourism
and development. Figure 3 summarizes the SETS elements of this system over time.
Another potential concern relates to the fail-safe nature of the pumping systems and road changes. While the
City of Miami Beach acknowledges that these actions are only meant as short-term solutions, it is believed
that the pumps can only handle up to 6 inches of sea level rise—a level that could be reached as early as
2030 (South Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, 2015; Sweet et al., 2017). Returning to the topic of
lock-in, one might begin to wonder if the city has now locked itself into this pumping system indefinitely.
Once 6 inches of sea level rise occurs, will more pumps continually need to be added or will the pumps need
to be replaced with larger units? An interesting (and potentially troubling) feedback loop might emerge in
this situation: the initial pumps were installed with tax revenue; to help offset some of these costs, additional
development might be encouraged in the area to raise more revenue from property or sales tax; the combi-
nation of additional development and sea level rise can potentially increase the vulnerability to flooding and
the need for more pumping capacity (or other interventions); more pumping capacity will require more pub-
lic funding, which will likely need to come from additional property or sales tax; and so on. Additionally, the
pumps were installed to mitigate fairly predictable events (i.e., the timing of the King Tide events is fairly well
understood even if the extent of the flooding still has some uncertainty), but it is unclear how well they will
function during less predictable/more extreme events (e.g., hurricanes or extreme precipitation events). In
other words, was a T solution put in place at the expense of future social and economic well-being?
There is also the possibility that raising the street levels may lead to increased vulnerability of shops,
storefronts, and residences to flooding during extreme precipitation events (Flechas, 2016, 2017, 2018;
Waldheim et al., 2017).

MARKOLF ET AL. 1648

Figure 3. Summary of social, ecological, and technological system dynamics related to addressing tidal ﬂooding in Miami
Beach. The dotted line indicates that system dynamics and interactions continue into the future beyond point 6.

In the Atchafalaya and Miami Beach cases, there appears to be a feedback loop of fragility emerging in these
examples (e.g., the dashed line in Figure 2). First, T is used to address S concerns. Second, installed/upgraded
T increases the perception of control in the S domain. Then, this increased perception of control results in
increased development and population growth in high exposure areas. Fourth, variation in E and S systems
leads to increased fragility within the T and increasing concerns of vulnerability within S systems—which ulti-
mately leads us back to where we began and the cycle repeats. Given the presence of these recurrent pat-
terns, Figures 2 and 3 (as well as Figure 4) are presented in a quasi-cyclical nature. This representation
expands upon the adaptation pathways perspective implemented by Tellman et al. (2018). However, in con-
trast the idea that adaptation pathways primarily consist of socially driven decision cycles that have distinc-
tive start and end points, we view these systems as a continuum of SETS interactions that can have recurring
patterns, but not necessarily a distinctive beginning and end point. Therefore, an open loop depiction of
these case studies appeared to be appropriate given the fact that in reality, the dynamics illustrated in
Figures 2–4 began long before point #1, are still playing out beyond point #8 (or point #6 in case of
Figures 3 and 4), and are constantly evolving. Increasing our ability to recognize this feedback loop (and
break from it when necessary) appears to be a crucial factor in ensuring the longevity and effectiveness of
our infrastructure systems—a role that a SETS lens appears well suited to ﬁll.

3.3. Flooding and Combined Sewer Overflows in Syracuse, NY: Breaking the Cycle Through
Political Change
Syracuse, New York provides an illustrative example of how the voting process, public engagement, and
responsive governance can stop, or at least slow, the trajectory of SETS headed in an undesirable direction.
As was true in other cities, many Syracuse residents in the 1970s–1990s decided to move from the inner city
out to the suburbs where taxes were lower, houses were larger, and new infrastructure systems were being
installed. With this sprawl, the total area of impervious surface also grew, causing stormwater-induced flood-
ing and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to become increasingly problematic. In 1988, the Atlantic States
Legal Foundation sued Onondaga County over CSOs, which would be likely to worsen in the future due to
climate change. A contentious situation resulted, with the county deciding to build regional treatment facil-
ities to comply with the initial consent judgment and later amended consent judgments. The locations cho-
sen for these new treatment plants were in low-lying areas in poor neighborhoods, leading to social unrest
and cries of environmental injustice. Despite widespread protests, construction of the treatment plants
began. Thus, the initial social problem—perceived undesirable conditions in the inner city—was replaced
by a different problem which would commit the region to inefficient treatment of diluted wastewater for
the indefinite future. It would also subject impoverished residents to living near odiferous treatment plants
for the indefinite future (Flynn et al., 2014; Flynn & Davidson, 2018).

MARKOLF ET AL. 1649

Figure 4. Summary of social, ecological, and technological system developments leading to widespread adoption of green
infrastructure in the Syracuse metropolitan area. The dotted line indicates that system dynamics and interactions continue
into the future beyond point 6.

In the midst of this social unrest in the mid-2000s, a new candidate for County Executive emerged—with a
call to stop construction of the regional treatment plants and instead promote a combination of green and
gray infrastructure. The candidate won in 2008, and a new Amended Consent Judgment was entered in
2009: the final 10% CSO volume reduction (from 85 to 95%) was required to be satisfied by 6.3% green infra-
structure and 3.7% gray infrastructure. This represents the first time that the use of green infrastructure was a
required condition for control of CSOs in the United States. Between 2011 and 2017, more than 200 green
infrastructure projects throughout the County were constructed, many funded with public-private partner-
ships through innovative financing (Flynn et al., 2014; Flynn & Davidson, 2018).
This sequence of events was used to develop a SES framework for green infrastructure in stormwater man-
agement by Flynn and Davidson (2016). This is similar to the SETS framework used in the current study.
Data collected from Syracuse and other cities showed that the limited amounts of funding and restrictive
funding schemes, as well as various regulations related to zoning, building codes, demolition practices,
and stormwater management, all served as potential barriers to green infrastructure adoption. It was found
that the attributes of various actors (individuals and organizations) could also promote or hinder adoption. In
the case of Syracuse, the election of a new County Executive, S, caused a change that led to the adoption of
green infrastructure, T-E, across the region. Figure 4 illustrates the key SETS dynamics of this example.
For all three of the examples presented, it is important to keep in mind that each of the SETS elements and
the manner in which they are interconnected are likely to vary dramatically across cases, yet the common
theme of promoting the integration is highlighted.

4. Using a SETS Lens to Move Beyond Technologically Focused Resilience Strategies

In addition to helping identify the development of vulnerabilities over time (as shown in the varying cases
above), a SETS lens may also help open the design and decision space to more than just technologically-
based strategies for responding to extreme events—especially considering that there may be cheaper or
more effective socially or ecologically focused solutions. As highlighted by many of the examples in the pre-
vious section, the historical response to undesirable natural conditions and extreme weather events has typi-
cally been to fortify and rebuild the infrastructure stronger, taller, or larger. However, we posit that a SETS
approach to infrastructure, as opposed to a solely T or S-T approach, can potentially increase the adaptive
capacity of a system by illuminating new strategies (and serve as a means to explore the potential implica-
tions of alternative pathways) that may not have been recognized or fully realized under a techno-centric per-
spective. A number of examples illustrate the intersection of the three SETS dimensions simultaneously and
how they enhance the understanding of the problems, and thus point toward more anticipatory solutions.

MARKOLF ET AL. 1650

One of the best examples of a SETS approach to resilience is the Room for the River strategy to riverine flood
prevention in the Netherlands. In contrast to the techno-centric approach of levee building and channeliza-
tion, Room for the River has the following key elements: (a) development is set back from the banks of the
river to accommodate natural variation in river levels; (b) land directly along the banks of the river is dedi-
cated to farming, which allows for additional economic development while also providing an ecologically-
based buffer for absorbing flood waters during extreme events; and (c) in the case that crops are lost during
flood events, farmers are reimbursed with public funds (Rijke et al., 2012; Roth & Warner, 2007; Warner & van
Buuren, 2011; Wiering & Arts, 2006). This example highlights social and ecological elements that may not be
present in strategies typically employed to prevent flooding. In particular, social systems play a key role in
Room for the River in the form of the subsidies provided to farmers for lost crops, and in the initial decision
to keep nonagricultural development away from the river. Similarly, ecological systems play an important role
in the form of the natural flood water buffer that is provided by the crops adjacent to the river.
Returning to the Miami Beach example described earlier, the current solutions fit almost exclusively within
the T domain and are implemented as T solutions to S concerns (i.e., technical/engineering solutions of instal-
ling pumps and raising roads were put in place to allow tourists and residents of Miami Beach to maintain
certain quality of life and standards of service without being impacted by periodic flooding). The E domain
was almost entirely absent from initial project planning and implementation and is just now starting to get
recognition. Had a complete SETS outlook been adopted from the very beginning of the project, the addi-
tional costs of retroactively developing water quality systems within the pumps could have potentially been
avoided. For example, initial pumping systems might have been designed with built-in water treatment sys-
tems to ensure that the water leaving the pumps is contaminant free. Under this scenario, stormwater that is
historically a diffuse source of contaminated runoff can be concentrated into a point source that is easier to
treat—potentially enhancing the health and ecosystem services of Biscayne Bay. Concurrently, more ecolo-
gically based water treatment systems could be established, such as placing wetland and estuarine habitats
just off the pump evacuation points to filter some of the contaminants from the runoff. Additionally, E-based
approaches could be implemented to help mitigate runoff and flood waters. Strain on the stormwater system
could potentially be reduced by increasing the amount of vegetated and pervious surfaces throughout the
city via increased incorporation of green infrastructure and landscape ecology (Waldheim et al., 2017). For
example, bioswales (or similar solutions) could be placed at stormwater drains to help absorb excess water
being pushed back through the drain and onto the street during sunny-day floods. Finally, given the relatively
predictable nature of these events, certain S solutions could also be implemented. For example, residents
may alter their commute pattern or schedule during expected King Tide events. Similarly, businesses and
home owners in areas known to be affected by these tidal floods could install a mix of vegetation and phy-
sical barriers to help minimize the impact of the flooding. In the long-run, adaptive changes might be needed
in building and development codes (Waldheim et al., 2017), and policies that focus on incentive-based
approaches to managed retreat (i.e., “the strategic relocation of structures and abandonment of land to man-
age natural hazard risk; Hino et al., 2017”) may warrant strong consideration—in terms of both the associated
land use planning implications and the potential implications for local residents and businesses.
Another example of a SETS approach to mitigate the effects of extreme weather conditions is the ongoing
efforts to protect public transit riders and infrastructure from extreme heat in Phoenix. Technologically
oriented strategies include shade structures, evaporative cooling systems, stations with solar-powered cool-
ing systems, and tracking systems for buses and trains (City of Phoenix, 2017; Valley Metro, 2018). If needed,
there is also the possibility of installing enclosed, air-conditioned transit stops similar to those deployed in
Dubai and Miami (Ahmed, 2008; Gulf News Staff, 2015; Miami-Dade County Transportation and Public
Works, 2016). Ecologically based solutions include trees for shading (especially as a component of the city’s
Master Tree and Shading Plan) and increased vegetation at and around transit corridors to provide natural
cooling (City of Phoenix, 2010; Iwaniec & Wiek, 2014). Some of the socially based strategies being explored
include altering route schedules (e.g., increased frequency of buses and trains to decrease wait times) and
service levels (e.g., pickup /dropoff anywhere along the route instead of at designated stops, supplementary
first/last mile service to reduce need for walking and cycling between transit stops and trip origin/destination;
City of Phoenix, 2017; Fraser & Chester, 2017). An important aspect of implementing these strategies is to
ensure that they are executed in an integrated manner to avoid conflicts and promote synergies among

MARKOLF ET AL. 1651

different approaches. For example, although the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County provide heat refuge
locations throughout the region, there does not appear to be an established transportation plan for citizens
to get from their house to these refuge centers (Fraser et al., 2016; Fraser & Chester, 2017). Similarly, installing
trees near a transit stop that already has a substantial shade structure or an evaporative cooling system may
provide relatively lower benefits—having cool and comfortable transit stops may not do much good if rider-
ship cannot get from their origin to a transit stop (or from a transit stop to their destination) in an effective
and timely manner. Finally, another element of effectively integrating SETS solutions is monitoring for unde-
sirable feedback loops. For example, the installation of evaporative cooling systems or trees may conflict with
water management and conservation goals (Iwaniec & Wiek, 2014). Similarly, installation of air-conditioned
transit stops may conflict with energy and environmental goals.
SETS approaches have also been recently applied (or proposed) for reducing the impacts of drought in
California. Technologically oriented options being implemented or explored include desalination (such as
the 50 million gallons per day Carlsbad Desal Plant near San Diego), groundwater drilling, and wastewater
recycling (Cooley et al., 2014; Gorman, 2015; Howard & Millsap, 2014; Kang & Jackson, 2016; McKenzie,
2015; San Diego County Water Authority, 2018; Underwood, 2016). Ecologically based solutions include the
use of more native vegetation in landscaping and the implementation of fog harvesting systems inspired
by nature (California Water Service, 2018; FogNet, 2018; Goldstein, 2015; Knickmeyer, 2016; Weiss-penzias
et al., 2016). Socially oriented solutions include mandatory water restrictions for homes and businesses, beha-
vioral water efficiency techniques (e.g., indication of one’s water usage compared to neighbors and tiered pri-
cing schemes based on usage), and altered agricultural practices (e.g., shifting away from water-intensive
products like citrus, almonds, and cattle). While each of these strategies are categorized as having a specific
emphasis, many of them are multidimensional. For example, although wastewater recycling might primarily
be considered a technical issue and increased use of native vegetation might primarily be considered an eco-
logical issue, both of them require a cultural shift and social buy-in (Dolnicar & Scha, 2009; Fielding et al., 2018;
Po et al., 2003; Rott, 2018). Similarly, although fog harvesting could be considered a more ecologically
inspired approach, there are still substantial technical elements associated with designing and implementing
such systems. The multidimensionality seen in these examples further emphasizes the importance of think-
ing across SETS rather than individual disciplines or systems.
Ultimately, the SETS-based strategies outlined in this section appear to exhibit inherent levels of flexibility
and agility that are not always found in more techno-centric strategies. Flexibility and agility have been
suggested as important competencies to adaptive capacity (Chester & Allenby, 2018; Markolf et al., 2018).
Thus, to the extent that more SETS-based, rather than T-based resilience strategies are implemented, we
expect adaptive capacity to increase. In turn, increased adaptive capacity allows systems to more effectively
move between and across the rebound, robustness, graceful extensibility, and sustained adaptability regimes
of resilience (Markolf et al., 2018; Seager et al., 2017; Woods, 2015).

5. Conclusions
The primary goal of this manuscript is to begin to frame the options and encourage continued research that
supports the generation and application of knowledge about the complex, interconnected, and transdisci-
plinary nature of infrastructure systems in the context of extreme events. In turn, proposing new empirical
methods for quantifying SETS interactions, lock-in, or resilience is left for follow-up studies. Thus, from the
framing and case studies developed in this paper, we advance the following key concepts: (1) infrastructure
systems are not simply technological (or even socio-technical or socio-ecological) artifacts—they are com-
plex and interconnected SETS; (2) in addition to infrastructure being complex and multidimensional, the
challenges facing our infrastructure are also SETS issues (e.g., inﬂexibility, utilization, and social equity); (3)
by not thinking of infrastructure systems (and their related challenges) as SETS, the complexity inherent in
our infrastructure systems can often be overlooked and underappreciated—potentially leading to cata-
strophic effects if left unchecked; (4) by underappreciating the complexity of our infrastructure systems,
we become susceptible to incorrectly predicting future conditions and overestimating the predictability of
future conditions, which in turn tends to encourage and perpetuate a strong emphasis on robustness and
techno-centric practices; and (5) overconﬁdence in the predictability of future conditions and the reliance

MARKOLF ET AL. 1652

on techno-centric/robustness-oriented solutions can contribute to lock-in that is ultimately antithetical to the

adaptive capacity (and thus resilience) of our infrastructure systems.
Overall, a SETS lens to infrastructure resilience appears well suited to help researchers, practitioners, and
managers better identify (and prevent) lock-in and vulnerabilities that evolve within our infrastructure
systems over time. This is particularly true for cases like the Old River Control Structure on the Atchafalaya
River and the pumping stations in Miami Beach that have simultaneously become increasingly critical and
fragile. Ideally, the SETS approach can help detect and address this criticality and fragility before a major
disruption or failure occurs. At the opposite end of the spectrum, extreme events and surprises have been
identified as primary mechanisms for breaking lock-in (Cowan & Hultén, 1996; Graham & Thrift, 2007;
Unruh & Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006), but with deleterious outcomes for human well-being, ecological integrity,
and physical infrastructure. While proactive and preventive strategies should receive absolute precedent, the
unfortunate reality is that major system disruption and failures can (and likely will) still occur. In these
instances, the SETS lens can at least help mitigate the element of surprise, while also aiding the development
of transformative strategies that help prevent the system from returning to a state of maladaptive lock-in.
Additionally, a SETS lens can also shed light on options that may not traditionally be considered—thereby
increasing the adaptive capacity of the system to respond to surprising and unprecedented events and con-
ditions. Moving forward, another potential resilience benefit from a SETS perspective worthy of further
exploration is an examination of how different S, E, and T systems process and respond to stressors in differ-
ent manners and at different rates. For example, vegetation in the Caribbean has been observed to exhibit
widespread recovery from hurricanes within a few months (Bellingham et al., 1994; Tanner et al., 1991;
Voiland, 2017)—rates that may not be mirrored by social and technological systems. Gaining a better under-
standing of these differences and catering to them may help further enhance the adaptive capacity of our
infrastructure systems and their ability to move across different resilience regimes as needed. Additionally,
with the growing influence of cyber systems on social elements like the spread of information (and misinfor-
mation) and environmental elements such as the growing energy and resource demands of digital systems
(Belkhir & Elmeligi, 2018; Coroama et al., 2013; Stokols, 2018; Zanella et al., 2014), further examination of SETS
interactions and dynamics in an increasingly cyber-influenced world will be an important avenue of future
study. As cyber-technical systems continue to evolve, grow in complexity, and become increasingly auto-
mated, will the technological domain start to have an outsized influence on the social and ecological
domains? Will lock-in related to cyber-based SETS interactions develop and evolve in similar matters to phy-
sical infrastructure systems or will new dynamics of lock-in emerge?
As we advance toward the use of SETS frameworks in the planning, design, and implementation of infrastruc-
ture, it is important to keep sight of the constant need to integrate the SETS dimensions in order to avoid con-
flict, prevent maladaptive dynamics, and promote resilient, mutually reinforcing systems. Finally, it seems
evident that the challenges and issues outlined in this manuscript cannot be fully addressed or solved from
the perspective of a single discipline or sectoral expertise. In order to advance the science and effective man-
agement of SETS, a new generation of scholars and practitioners will need to develop a wide variety of skills
and competencies such as an emphasis on real-world problems, integration of knowledge from all sources
(i.e., academia, practitioners, and citizens), acknowledgement of science as an actor in the systems it sets
out to analyze, embracing complexity and interdependency, and acceptance of theoretical and practical plur-
alism rather than dualism (Hummel et al., 2017; Kramm et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2014; Munoz-Erickson et al.,
2017; Stokols, 2018; Wiek et al., 2011). Thus, to effectively develop a SETS perspective on infrastructure, we
must begin to address the lack of transdisciplinarity in our training and education, our institutions, and our
Acknowledgments governance practices.
This work is supported by the Urban
Resilience to Extremes Sustainability
Research Network (UREx SRN) under
National Science Foundation grant AGS-
References
1444755. We would also like to thank Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
the Onondaga County Office of the Ahmed, A. (2008). 47 air-conditioned bus shelters in Dubai open to public. Gulf News2. Retrieved from https://gulfnews.com/news/uae/
County Executive for their input. Finally, transport/47-air-conditioned-bus-shelters-in-dubai-open-to-public-1.97833
we would like to thank the reviewers of Allenby, B. (2007). Earth systems engineering and management: A manifesto. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(23), 7960–7965.
this manuscript for their insightful https://doi.org/10.1021/es072657r
comments and suggestions. No new Allenby, B. (2012). The theory and practice of sustainable engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
data were used in producing this American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2017). 2017 infrastructure report card. Retrieved from https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
manuscript. wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Full-2017-Report-Card-FINAL.pdf

MARKOLF ET AL. 1653

Amir, S., & Kant, V. (2018). Sociotechnical resilience: A preliminary concept. Risk Analysis, 38(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12816
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of.social-ecological system from an institutional
perspective. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2234208%0D
Aven, T. (2015). The concept of antifragility and its implications for the practice of risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 35(3), 476–483. https://doi.org/
10.1111/risa.12279
Becker, E., & Jahn, T. (2005). Societal relations to nature: Outline of a critical theory in the ecological crisis. Retrieved from https://www.isoe.
de/ftp/darmstadttext_engl.pdf
Belkhir, L., & Elmeligi, A. (2018). Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production,
177, 448–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.239
Bellingham, P. J., Tanner, E. V. J., & Healey, J. R. (1994). Sprouting of trees in Jamaican montane forests, after a hurricane. Journal of Ecology,
82(4), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261440
Bene, C., & Doyen, L. (2018). From resistance to transformation: a generic metric of resilience through viability. Earth’s Future, 6, 979–996.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000660
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.) (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blessing, R., Sebastian, A., & Brody, S. D. (2017). Flood risk delineation in the United States: How much loss are we capturing? Natural Hazards
Review, 18(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000242
Boburg, S., & Reinhard, B. (2017). Houston’s “Wild West” growth. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/
graphics/2017/investigations/harvey-urban-planning/?utm_term=.dc3cd4644163
Bogost, I. (2017). Houston’s flood is a design problem. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/
08/why-cities-flood/538251/
Bolton, R., & Foxon, T. J. (2015). Infrastructure transformation as a socio-technical process - Implications for the governance of energy dis-
tribution networks in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90(PB), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.017
Borden, K. A., Schmidtlein, M. C., Emrich, C. T., Piegorsch, W. W., & Cutter, S. L. (2007). Vulnerability of U.S. cities to environmental hazards.
Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1279
Bullard, R. D., & Wright, B. (Eds.) (2009). Race, place, and environmental justice after Hurricane Katrina—Struggles to reclaim, rebuild, and revi-
talize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Burnett, J. (2015). Billions Spent on flood barriers, but New Orleans still a ‘fishbowl’. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.
org/2015/08/28/432059261/billions-spent-on-flood-barriers-but-new-orleans-still-a-fishbowl
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of
recent declines. Science, 1164(May), 1164–1169. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). (2018). Independent forensic team report Oroville Dam spillway incident. Retrieved from
https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/Independent Forensic Team Report Final 01–05-18.pdf
California Water Service. (2018). Low-water and drought-resistant plants. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from https://www.calwater.com/conser-
vation/low-water-drought-resistant-plants/
Carr, A. (2017). Louisiana Governor declares state of emergency over New Orleans flooding issues. Weather.com. Retrieved from https://
weather.com/news/news/new-orleans-flooding-late-august-2017-impacts
Casal-Campos, A., Fu, G., Butler, D., & Moore, A. (2015). An integrated environmental assessment of green and gray infrastructure strategies
for robust decision making. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(14), 8307–8314. https://doi.org/10.1021/es506144f
Chakraborty, J., Collins, T. W., Montgomery, M. C., & Grineski, S. E. (2014). Social and spatial inequities in exposure to flood risk in Miami,
Florida. Natural Hazards Review, 15(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000140
Chester, M. V., & Allenby, B. (2018). Toward adaptive infrastructure: flexibility and agility in a non-stationarity age. Sustainable and Resilient
Infrastructure, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1416846
City of Phoenix. (2010). Tree and shade master plan. Retrieved from https://www.phoenix.gov/parkssite/Documents/T and A 2010.pdf.
City of Phoenix. (2017). Phoenix Transportation 2050—Progress report #1. Retrieved from https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/
MediaAssets/T2050English12.21.17.pdf
Clark, B. J. (2016). The battle for Miami Beach. Public Works Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.pwmag.com/water-sewer/stormwater/the-
battle-for-miami-beach_o
Cohen, H. (2017). King tide is back. So how high will the water rise this time? Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/
news/weather/article182286066.html
Collins, T. W. (2010). Production of unequal risk: The 2006 Paso del Norte Floods. Antipode, 42(2), 258–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8330.2009.00755.x
Collins, T. W., Grineski, S. E., & Chakraborty, J. (2018). Environmental injustice and flood risk: a conceptual model and case comparison of
metropolitan Miami and Houston, USA. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1121-9
Colten, C. E. (2007). Environmental justice in a landscape of tragedy. Technology in Society, 29, 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2007.01.006
Cooley, H., Gleick, P., & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Water reuse potential in California. Retrieved from http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/
06/ca-water-reuse.pdf
Coroama, V. C., Hilty, L. M., Heiri, E., & Horn, F. M. (2013). The Direct Energy Demand of Internet Data Flows. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(5),
680–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12048
Corvellec, H., Campos, M. J. Z., & Zapata, P. (2013). Infrastructures, lock-in, and sustainable urban development: The case of waste incineration
in the Göteborg Metropolitan Area. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.009
Cowan, R., & Hultén, S. (1996). Escaping lock-in: The case of the electric vehicle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(1), 61–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(96)00059-5
Craig, T. (2017). It wasn’t even a hurricane, but heavy rains flooded New Orleans as pumps faltered. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/it-wasnt-even-a-hurricane-but-heavy-rains-flooded-new-orleans-as-pumps-faltered/2017/
08/09/b3b7506a-7d37-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.7265148855c2
Depietri, Y., & McPhearson, T. (2017). Integrating the grey, green, and blue in cities: Nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation
and risk reduction. In Nature-based solutions to climate change Adaptation in urban areas (pp. 91–109). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_6

MARKOLF ET AL. 1654

Di Liberto, T. (2017). King tides cause flooding in Florida in fall 2017. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/
event-tracker/king-tides-cause-flooding-florida-fall-2017
Dolnicar, S., & Scha, A. I. (2009). Desalinated versus recycled water: Public perceptions and profiles of the accepters. Journal of Environmental
Management, 90, 888–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.02.003
Domonoske, C. (2017). Hit by flooding and pumping system crisis, New Orleans braces for more rain. National Public Radio. Retrieved from
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/10/542606964/hit-by-flooding-and-pumping-system-crisis-new-orleans-braces-for-
more-rain
Edwards, P. (2003). Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In T. Misa,
P. Brey, & A. Feenberg (Eds.), Modernity and technology (pp. 185–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eisenberg, D. A., Park, J., & Seager, T. P. (2017). Sociotechnical network analysis for power grid resilience in South Korea. Complexity, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3597010
Emanuel, K. (2017). Assessing the present and future probability of Hurricane Harvey’s rainfall. Proceedings of the National academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716222114
Fagenson, Z. (2014). Miami Beach cheers succuess of flood pumps against “King Tide”. London, UK: Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-usa-miami-beach-flooding/miami-beach-cheers-success-of-flood-pumps-against-king-tide-idUSKCN0HY2AP20141009
Fessenden, F., Gebeloff, R., Walsh, M. W., & Griggs, T. (2017). Water damage from Hurricane Harvey extended far beyond flood zones.
New York: The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/01/us/houston-damaged-buildings-in-
fema-flood-zones.html
Fielding, K. S., Dolnicar, S., Schultz, T., Fielding, K. S., Dolnicar, S., & Public, T. S. (2018). Public acceptance of recycled water. International
Journal of Water Resources Development, 627, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1419125
Fischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Bennett, E. M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., et al. (2015). ScienceDirect Advancing sustainability through
mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cosust.2015.06.002
Flechas, J. (2016). Flood claim denied for restaurant turned “basement” after Miami Beach raised street. Miami Herald2. Retrieved from http://
www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article115264938.html
Flechas, J. (2017). This restaurant waited 14 months for flood claim to be approved after city raised street. Miami Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article190166649.html
Flechas, J. (2018). Will Miami Beach’s anti-flooding measures work? The city’s getting an outside opinion. Miami Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article204038184.html
Flechas, J., & Staletovich, J. (2015). Miami Beach’s battle to stem rising tides. Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/
news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article41141856.html
Fleming, B. (2017). The real villains in Harvey flood: urban sprawl and the politicians who allowed it. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/real-villains-harvey-flood-urban-sprawl
Flynn, C., & Davidson, C. (2016). Saving the rain in Onondaga County, New York. In Engineering for sustainable communities (pp. 367–372).
Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414811.ch25
Flynn, C., Davidson, C. I., & Mahoney, J. (2014). Transformational changes associated with sustainable stormwater management practices in
Onondaga County, New York. In International conference on sustainable infrastructure (pp. 89–100). Long Beach, CA: American Society of
Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784478745.009
Flynn, C. D., & Davidson, C. I. (2018). Adapting the social-ecological system framework for urban stormwater management: the case of green
infrastructure adoption. Ecology and Society, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08756-210419
FogNet. (2018). About FogNet. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from http://fognet.ucsc.edu/?page_id=27
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Forsee, W. J., & Ahmad, S. (2011). Evaluating urban storm-water infrastructure design in response to projected climate change. Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, 16, 865–873. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000383
Fraser, A., & Chester, M. (2017). Transit system design and vulnerability of riders to heat. Journal of Transport & Health, 4, 216–225. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.07.005
Fraser, A. M., Chester, M. V., Eisenman, D., Hondula, D. M., Pincetl, S. S., English, P., et al. (2016). Household accessibility to heat refuges:
Residential air conditioning, public cooled space, and walkability. Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(6),
1036–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516657342
G.R. (2017). Left out in the rain—Floods and political crisis are back in New Orleans. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.
com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/08/left-out-rain
Garrick, D. E., Schlager, E., De Stefano, L., & Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2018). Managing the cascading risks of droughts: Institutional adaptation in
transboundary rivers. Earth’s Future, 6, 809–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/2018EF000823
Gidley, M. L. (2016). Characterizing microbial water quality of extreme tide floodwaters discharged from an urbanized subtropical beach:
Case study of Miami Beach with implications for sea level rise and public health. In 2016 Ocean Science Meeting. New Orleans, LA.
Goldstein, T. (2015). A guide to rebates on drought-tolerant landscaping. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/
california/la-me-lawn-rebate-explainer-20150416-story.html
Goleman, D. (2010). Ecological intelligence: The hidden impacts of what we buy. New York: Broadway Books.
Gorman, S. (2015). California drought gives new impetus to wastewater recycling. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/
us-usa-wastewater-california/california-drought-gives-new-impetus-to-wastewater-recycling-idUSKCN0PQ12N20150716
Grabowski, Z. J., Matsler, A. M., Thiel, C., McPhillips, L., Hum, R., Bradshaw, A., et al. (2017). Infrastructures as socio-eco-technical systems: Five
considerations for interdisciplinary dialogue. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 23(4), 02517002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-
555X.0000383
Graham, S., & Thrift, N. (2007). Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance. Theory, Culture and Society, 24(3), 1–25. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0263276407075954
Graham, T., & Abrahamse, W. (2017). Communicating the climate impacts of meat consumption: The effect of values and message framing.
Global Environmental Change, 44, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.004
Grimm, N. B., Pickett, S. T. A., Hale, R. L., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2017). Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social –
ecological – technological systems? Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1255

MARKOLF ET AL. 1655

Gulf News Staff (2015). RTA Commissions 400 new bus shelters—Phase 2 of air-conditioned bus shelter project to be ready by end of 2017.
Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/transport/rta-commissions-400-new-bus-shelters-1.1627849
Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., & Winiwarter, V. (Eds.) (2016). Social ecology: Society-nature relations across time and space.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33326-7
Hale, R. L., Armstrong, A., Baker, M. A., Bedingfield, S., Betts, D., Buahin, C., et al. (2015). iSAW: Integrating structure, actors, and water to study
socio-hydro-ecological systems. Earth’s Future, 3, 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000295
Hino, M., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 364–370. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3252
Hommels, A. (2005). Studying obduracy in the city: Toward a productive fusion between technology studies and urban studies. Science,
Technology & Human Values, 30(3), 323–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271759
Howard, B. H., & Millsap, S. (2014). California drought spurs groundwater drilling boom in Central Valley. National Geographic. Retrieved from
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140815-central-valley-california-drilling-boom-groundwater-drought-wells/
Hummel, D., Jahn, T., Keil, F., Liehr, S., & Stieß, I. (2017). Social ecology as critical, transdisciplinary science—Conceptualizing, analyzing and
shaping societal relations to nature. Sustainability, 9(7), 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071050
Ingraham, C. (2017). Houston is experiencing its third “500-year” flood in 3 years. How is that possible? The Washington Post2. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/29/houston-is-experiencing-its-third-500-year-flood-in-3-years-how-is-that-
possible/?utm_term=.ec10d876aa0b
Iowa Department of Transportation. (2015). Iowa’s bridge and highway climate change and extreme weather vulnerability assessment
pilot. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/pilots/2013-2015_pilots/iowa/final_report/iowa-
pilot.pdf
Iwaniec, D., & Wiek, A. (2014). Advancing sustainability visioning practice in planning—The general plan update in Phoenix, Arizona.
Planning Practice and Research, 29(5), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2014.977004
Jones, S. (2018). Research fit for a King Tide. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/keynotes/keynotes_1014_king_
tide.html
Kang, M., & Jackson, R. B. (2016). Salinity of deep groundwater in California: Water quantity, quality, and protection. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(28), 7768-7773. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600400113
Kim, Y., Eisenberg, D., Bondank, E., Chester, M., Mascaro, G., & Underwood, S. (2017). Fail-safe and safe-to-fail adaptation: Decision-making for
urban flooding under climate change. Climatic Change, 145(3–4), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2090-1
Knickmeyer, E. (2016). In California, a $350 million social experiment over lawns. The Mercury News. Retrieved from https://www.mercury-
news.com/2016/10/31/in-california-a-350-million-social-experiment-over-lawns/
Kramm, J., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., & Zimmermann, M. (2017). Societal relations to nature in times of crisis—Social ecology’s contributions
to interdisciplinary sustainability studies. Sustainability, 9(7), 1042. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071042
Krumme, K. (2016). Sustainable development and social-ecological-technological systems (SETS): Resilience as a guiding principle in the
urban-industrial nexus. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development, 2(2), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.21622/resd.2016.02.2.070
Labi, S. (2014). Introduction to civil engineering systems—A systems perspective to the development of civil engineering facilities. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Landry, S. M., & Chakraborty, J. (2009). Street trees and equity: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and
Planning A, 41, 2651–2671. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41236
Layzer, J. A. (2012). Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans: Disaster, restoration, and eesilience. In The Environmental Case: Translating values into
policy (3rd ed., pp. 515–556). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Lind, D. (2017). The “500-year” flood, explained: Why Houston was so underprepared for Hurricane Harvey. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.
vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/28/16211392/100–500-year-flood-meaning
Madrigal, A. C. (2011, May). What we’ve done to the Mississippi River: An explainer. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.
com/technology/archive/2011/05/what-weve-done-to-the-mississippi-river-an-explainer/239058/
Maldonado, A., Collins, T. W., & Grineski, S. E. (2016). Hispanic immigrants’ vulnerabilities to flood and hurricane hazards in two United States
metropolitan areas. Geographical Review, 106(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2015.12103.x
Markolf, S. A., Hoehne, C., Fraser, A., Chester, M., & Underwood, S. (2018). Transportation resilience to climate change and extreme weather
events—Beyond risk and robustness. Transport Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.003
McGuire, K. (2016). Houston’s development boom and reduction of wetlands leave region flood prone. The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved
from https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-s-development-boom-and-reduction-of-
8403838.php?t=cda1a7b013438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium
McKenzie, K. (2015). Interest builds in pulling water from the Central Coast’s signature fog. Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.
santacruzsentinel.com/lifestyle/20150806/interest-builds-in-pulling-water-from-the-central-coasts-signature-fog
McPhail, C., Maier, H. R., Kwakkel, J. H., Giuliani, M., Castelletti, A., & Westra, S. (2018). Robustness metrics: How are they calculated, when
should they be used and why do they give different results? Earth’s Future, 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000649
McPhearson, T., Haase, D., Kabisch, S., & Gren, A. (2016). Advancing understanding of the complex nature of urban systems. Ecological
Indicators, 70, 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.054
McPhee, J. (1987). Atchafalaya. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya
McPhee, J. (1989). The control of nature. New York: Farrar, Straus and Grioux.
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Landscape and urban planning defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
Miami-Dade County Transportation and Public Works (2016). Miami-Dade Transit is testing an air conditioned bus shelter at the Hialeah
Metrorail Station to help passengers cool off. Retrieved from http://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2016-8-16-dtpw-ac-busshelter-advi-
sory.asp
Miller, T. R., Chester, M., & Munoz-Erickson, T. (2018). Rethinking infrastructure in an era of unprecedented events. Issues in Science and
Technology, 34(2).
Miller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., et al. (2014). The future of sustainability science: A aolutions-oriented
agenda. Sustainability Science, 9(2), 239–246.
Milly, P. C. D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R. M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lettenmaier, D. P., et al. (2008). Stationarity is dead: Whither
water management? Science, 319(5863), 573–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151915
Muneepeerakul, R., & Anderies, J. M. (2017). Strategic behaviors and governance challenges in social-ecological systems. Earth’s Future, 5,
865–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000562

MARKOLF ET AL. 1656

Muñoz-Erickson, T. A., Miller, C., & Miller, T. R. (2017). How cities think: Knowledge co-production for urban sustainability and resilience.
Forests, 8(6), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8060203
Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change.
Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017). What is a living shoreline? Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://oceanservice.noaa.
gov/facts/living-shoreline.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information (2017). U.S. billion-dollar weather and
climate disasters. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
Neal, D. J. (2017). Will the arriving Kind Tide flood Miami streets again? Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/news/
local/environment/article173899376.html
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.1172133
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science,
284, 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278
Park, J., Seager, T. P., Rao, P. S. C., Convertino, M., & Linkov, I. (2013). Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in
engineering systems. Risk Analysis, 33(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01885.x
Payo, A., Becker, P., Otto, A., Vervoort, J., & Kingsborough, A. (2016). Experiential lock-in: Characterizing avoidable maladaptation in infra-
structure systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 22(1), 2515001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000268
Peterson, M., & Weiland, N. (2016). A geologist and the war against flooding. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/magazine/
gallery/2016/03/how-a-miami-researcher-is-changing-the-way-we-test-water-000623?slide=0
Pinter, N., Santos, N., & Hui, R. (2017). Preliminary analysis of Hurricane Harvey flooding in Harris County, Texas. Retrieved from UC Davis
Center for Watershed Sciences - California WaterBlog: https://californiawaterblog.com/2017/09/01/preliminary-analysis-of-hurricane-
harvey-flooding-in-harris-county-texas/
Po, M., Kaercher, J. D., & Nancarrow, B. E. (2003). Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.197.423&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Ramaswami, A., Weible, C., Main, D., Heikkila, T., Siddiki, S., Duvall, A., et al. (2012). A social-ecological-infrastructural systems framework for
interdisciplinary study of sustainable city systems: An integrative curriculum across seven major disciplines. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
16(6), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00566.x
Reckdahl, K. (2017). New Orleans Scrambles to eepair drainage system after severe flooding. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/new-orleans-repair-pumping-system-flooding.html
Resnick, B. (2017). Why Houston’s flooding got so bad, according to storm experts. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2017/8/29/16216568/hurricane-havery-houston-flooding-experts
Revkin, A. C. (2007). Climate change as news: Challenges in communicating environmental science. In J. F. DiMento & P. Doughman (Eds.),
Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (pp. 139–160). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rijke, J., van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., & Ashley, R. (2012). Room for the river: Delivering integrated river basin management in the neth-
erlands. International Journal of River Basin Management, 10(4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2012.739173
Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. K. (2001). Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE
Control Systems, 21(6), 11–25.
Roth, D., & Warner, J. (2007). Flood risk, uncertainty and changing river protection policy in the Netherlands: The case of “calamity polders.”
Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 98(4), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00419.x
Rott, N. (2018). California aims to get past the yuck factor of recycled wastewater. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/
2018/02/20/587195891/california-aims-to-get-past-the-yuck-factor-of-recycled-wastewater
Rubin, E. S. (2001). Introduction to engineering & the environment. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Sachs, J. D. (2015). The age of sustainable development. New York: University of Columbia Press.
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). (2018). Carlsbad Desalination Plant Project Overview. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from http://
carlsbaddesal.sdcwa.org/overview/
Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and
conservation psychology (pp. 556–580). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0029
Seager, T. P., Clark, S. S., Eisenberg, D. A., Thomas, J. E., Hinrichs, M. M., Kofron, R., et al. (2017). Redesigning resilient infrastructure research. In
I. Linkov & J. M. Palma-Oliveira (Eds.), Resilience and risk (pp. 81–119). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Shaw, A., Satija, N., & Collier, K. (2016). Boomtown, flood town. ProPublica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/boomtown-
flood-town-text
Singh, S. J., Haberl, H., Chertow, M., Mirtl, M., & Schmid, M. (2013). Long term socio-ecological research: Studies in society-nature interactions
across spatial and temporal scales. Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1177-8
Slater, L. J., & Villarini, G. (2016). Recent trends in U.S. flood risk. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071199
South Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. (2015). Unified sea level eise projection for Southeast Florida. Retrieved from http://www.
southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-Compact-Unified-Sea-Level-Rise-Projection.pdf
Speth, J. G. (2009). The bridge at the edge of the world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Staletovich, J. (2016a). Miami Beach attacks “sloppy science” on human waste bacteria in bay. Miami Herald. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article82648642.html
Staletovich, J. (2016b). Miami Beach king tides flush human waste into bay, study finds. Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miami-
herald.com/news/local/environment/article77978817.html
Stokols, D. (2018). Social ecology in the digital age—Solving complex problems in a globalizing world. London, UK: Elsevier. https://doi.org/
10.1016/C2014-0-04300-6
Sweet, W. V., Horton, R., Kopp, R. E., LeGrande, A. N., & Romanou, A. (2017). Chapter 12: Sea level rise. In D. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A.
Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, & T. K. Maycock (Eds.), Climate sciece special report: Fourth national climate assessment (Vol. 1,
pp. 333–363). Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0VM49F2
Swilling, M., Robinson, B., Marvin, S., Hodson, M., Allen, A., Herrero, A. C., et al. (2013). City-level decoupling urban resource flows. Doi:978–92–
807-3298-6.
Swim, J., Howard, G., Clayton, S., Reser, J., Doherty, T., Stern, P., et al. (2009). Psychology and global climate change—Addressing a
multifaceted phenomenon and set of challenges. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-
booklet.pdf

MARKOLF ET AL. 1657

Syvitski, J. (2012). Anthropocene: An epoch of our making. Global Change Magazine, 78, 12–15.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York: Random House.
Tanner, E. V. J., Kapos, V., & Healey, J. R. (1991). Hurricane effects on forest ecosystems in the Caribbean. Biotropica, 23(4), 513–521. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2388274
Tellman, B., Bausch, J. C., Eakin, H., Anderies, J. M., Mazari-hiriart, M., & Manuel-navarrete, D. (2018). Adaptive pathways and coupled infra-
structure: seven centuries of adaptation to water risk and the production of vulnerability in Mexico City. Ecology and Society,
23(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09712-230101
Thomas, W. L. (1956). Man’s role in changing the face of the Earth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tomlinson, B., Nardi, B., Patterson, D. J., Raturi, A., Richardson, D., Saphores, J.-D., et al. (2015). Toward alternative decentralized infrastruc-
tures. In Proceedings of the 6th annual Symposium on computing for development (pp. 33–40). London: ACM DEV. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2830629.2830648
Turner, B. L. (1993). The Earth as transformed by human action: Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2013a). Seabrook Floodgate Complex. Retrieved from http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/
docs/PAO/FactSheets/SeabrookFloodgateComplex.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2013b). IHNC-Lake Borgne Surge Barrier. Retrieved from http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/
docs/PAO/FactSheets/IHNC-LakeBorgneSurgeBarrier.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2015). West Closure Complex. Retrieved from http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/docs/PAO/
FactSheets/Fact Sheet update 10_15/WCC Fact Sheet (August 2015).pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008). Reducing urban heat islands: compendium of strategies, Chapter 5, “Cool Pavements,”
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/compendium.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017a). What is green infrastructure? Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastruc-
ture/what-green-infrastructure#bioswales
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017b). Constructed wetlands. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/constructed-
wetlands
Underwood, E. (2016). First study of California’s deep groundwater sparks debate. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0628
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2018). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/
undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
Unruh, G. C., & Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2006). Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 34(10), 1185–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2004.10.013
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): New Orleans District. (2009). Old River Control. Retrieved from http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/
Portals/56/docs/PAO/Brochures/OldRiverControlBrochure.pdf
Valley Metro. (2018). Keeping your cool during the sizzling summer heat. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from https://www.valleymetro.org/
keeping-your-cool-during-the-sizzling-summer
Voiland, A. (2017). Why Caribbean Islands went brown and how long will they stay that way? Retrieved April 24, 2018, from https://
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2017/09/18/why-caribbean-islands-went-brown-and-how-long-will-they-stay-
that-way/
Waldheim, C., Barbar, A., Elkin, R., Kongsgaard, H., Yang, J., Ors-Austin, J., et al. (2017). South Florida and sea level—The case of Miami
Beach. Retrieved from http://www.mbrisingabove.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/South-Florida-and-Sea-Level-The-Case-of-Miami-
Beach.pdf
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., et al. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems:
A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.consecol.org/vol6/
iss1/art14
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., et al. (2018). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A
working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Ecology and Society, 6(1).
Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006). A handful of heuristics and some propositions for under-
standing resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 13.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology
and Society, 9(2).
Walker, G. (2015). Come back sociotechnical systems theory, all is forgiven. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 32, 170–179. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2015.1024112
Wallace, T., Watkins, D., Park, H., Singhvi, A., & Williams, J. (2018). How one Houston suburb ended up in a reservoir, New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/22/us/houston-harvey-ﬂooding-reservoir.html
Wang, R., Eckelman, M. J., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2013). Consequential environmental and economic life cycle assessment of green and gray
stormwater infrastructures for combined sewer systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(19), 11,189–11,198. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es4026547
Warner, J., & van Buuren, A. (2011). Implementing room for the river: Narratives of success and failure in Kampen, the Netherlands.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311419387
Weiss-penzias, P., Fernandez, D., Moranville, R., & Saltikov, C. (2016). A low cost system for detecting fog events and triggering an active fog
water collector. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2016.11.0508
Wendel, J. (2016). Dirty water: Unintended consequence of climate resilience. Eos, 97. https://doi.org/10.1029/2016EO047061
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program devel-
opment. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6
Wiering, M. A., & Arts, B. J. M. (2006). Discursive shifts in dutch river management: ‘Deep’ institutional change or adaptation strategy?
Hydrobiologia, 565(1), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-5923-2
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Landscape and urban planning urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The
challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2014.01.017
Woods, D. D. (2015). Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 141, 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.018
Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Internet of Things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1), 22–32.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2014.2306328

MARKOLF ET AL. 1658

Zimmerman, R., Zhu, Q., de Leon, F., & Guo, Z. (2017). Conceptual modeling framework to integrate resilient and interdependent
infrastructure in extreme weather. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 23(4), 04017034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-
555X.0000394
Zimmerman, R., Zhu, Q., & Dimitri, C. (2016). Promoting resilience for food, energy and water interdependencies. Journal of Environmental
Studies and Sciences, 6(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-016-0362-0

MARKOLF ET AL. 1659

Kompendium Matura Dwujezyczna Answer Key
100% (4)
Kompendium Matura Dwujezyczna Answer Key
23 pages
Hype Gains
100% (2)
Hype Gains
21 pages
1-s2.0-S2210670723005218-main
No ratings yet
1-s2.0-S2210670723005218-main
12 pages
Climate Adaptation
No ratings yet
Climate Adaptation
13 pages
10.4324_9781315142074_previewpdf
100% (1)
10.4324_9781315142074_previewpdf
146 pages
1-s2.0-S2210422424000376-main
No ratings yet
1-s2.0-S2210422424000376-main
12 pages
Sustainable Infrastructure and Climate Change Resi
No ratings yet
Sustainable Infrastructure and Climate Change Resi
21 pages
Climate Change and Its Impact on Infrastructure
No ratings yet
Climate Change and Its Impact on Infrastructure
9 pages
Cyborg_landscapes_Choreographing_resilient_interac
No ratings yet
Cyborg_landscapes_Choreographing_resilient_interac
16 pages
Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi download
100% (3)
Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi download
42 pages
Green Infrastructures For Urban Water System Balance Between 2z85ovxopx
No ratings yet
Green Infrastructures For Urban Water System Balance Between 2z85ovxopx
5 pages
Download ebooks file Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi all chapters
100% (2)
Download ebooks file Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi all chapters
62 pages
Resilience of Large Water Management Infrastructure Solutions from Modern Atmospheric Science Faisal Hossain - Download the full ebook set with all chapters in PDF format
100% (4)
Resilience of Large Water Management Infrastructure Solutions from Modern Atmospheric Science Faisal Hossain - Download the full ebook set with all chapters in PDF format
69 pages
A.I.+and+the+rewiring+of+Madrid+Narratives+of+Water,+Energy,+and+the+Built+World
No ratings yet
A.I.+and+the+rewiring+of+Madrid+Narratives+of+Water,+Energy,+and+the+Built+World
17 pages
Kumar 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1110 012060
No ratings yet
Kumar 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1110 012060
17 pages
Where can buy Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi ebook with cheap price
100% (3)
Where can buy Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi ebook with cheap price
65 pages
Download Complete Resilience of Large Water Management Infrastructure Solutions from Modern Atmospheric Science Faisal Hossain PDF for All Chapters
100% (3)
Download Complete Resilience of Large Water Management Infrastructure Solutions from Modern Atmospheric Science Faisal Hossain PDF for All Chapters
55 pages
Fbuil 07 752765
No ratings yet
Fbuil 07 752765
12 pages
Green Infrastructure: Mitigation Options?
No ratings yet
Green Infrastructure: Mitigation Options?
67 pages
2024-07-18-02-34-46-Paper Id 0008
No ratings yet
2024-07-18-02-34-46-Paper Id 0008
8 pages
Article 1
No ratings yet
Article 1
1 page
Crop Science - 2024 - Barnes - Cultivating connections Framing turfgrass as a thriving social ecological technological
No ratings yet
Crop Science - 2024 - Barnes - Cultivating connections Framing turfgrass as a thriving social ecological technological
11 pages
1 s2.0 S004873331200056X Main PDF
No ratings yet
1 s2.0 S004873331200056X Main PDF
13 pages
Instant Download (Ebook) Revising Green Infrastructure: Concepts Between Nature and Design by Daniel Czechowski (Editor); Thomas Hauck (Editor); Georg Hausladen (Editor) ISBN 9781138892811, 9781351228947, 9781351230193, 9781351231374, 9781482232202, 9781482232219, 1138892815, 1351228943, 1351230190 PDF All Chapters
100% (1)
Instant Download (Ebook) Revising Green Infrastructure: Concepts Between Nature and Design by Daniel Czechowski (Editor); Thomas Hauck (Editor); Georg Hausladen (Editor) ISBN 9781138892811, 9781351228947, 9781351230193, 9781351231374, 9781482232202, 9781482232219, 1138892815, 1351228943, 1351230190 PDF All Chapters
72 pages
Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi - Download the ebook now for an unlimited reading experience
100% (2)
Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi - Download the ebook now for an unlimited reading experience
68 pages
Markard Et Al. (2012) PDF
No ratings yet
Markard Et Al. (2012) PDF
13 pages
Dawson 2018 A Systems Framework For National As
No ratings yet
Dawson 2018 A Systems Framework For National As
19 pages
Process Systems Engineering for Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: A Framework for Vulnerability Assessment and Optimization
No ratings yet
Process Systems Engineering for Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: A Framework for Vulnerability Assessment and Optimization
14 pages
A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts On Stormwater Management Systems Designing For Resiliency and Future Challenges
No ratings yet
A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts On Stormwater Management Systems Designing For Resiliency and Future Challenges
9 pages
[Ebooks PDF] download Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi full chapters
100% (1)
[Ebooks PDF] download Enhancements in Applied Geomechanics, Mining, and Excavation Simulation and Analysis Adam Sevi full chapters
65 pages
Case Studies On Integrating Ecosystem Services and Climate Resilience in Infrastructure Development Lessons For Advocacy
No ratings yet
Case Studies On Integrating Ecosystem Services and Climate Resilience in Infrastructure Development Lessons For Advocacy
58 pages
Instant Access to Resilience of Large Water Management Infrastructure Solutions from Modern Atmospheric Science Faisal Hossain ebook Full Chapters
No ratings yet
Instant Access to Resilience of Large Water Management Infrastructure Solutions from Modern Atmospheric Science Faisal Hossain ebook Full Chapters
65 pages
A Spatially-Explicit Harmonized Global Dataset of Critical Infrastructure
No ratings yet
A Spatially-Explicit Harmonized Global Dataset of Critical Infrastructure
13 pages
Green Infrastructure To Achieve Sustaianabilty in Urban Design
No ratings yet
Green Infrastructure To Achieve Sustaianabilty in Urban Design
10 pages
Developing Resilient Infrastructure For Climate Change Adaptation (WWW - Kiu.ac - Ug)
No ratings yet
Developing Resilient Infrastructure For Climate Change Adaptation (WWW - Kiu.ac - Ug)
4 pages
0.85500900 1608220775 Dr Nevil Wyndham Quinn, Cse Uwe Knowledge Conclave 17 Dec 2020
No ratings yet
0.85500900 1608220775 Dr Nevil Wyndham Quinn, Cse Uwe Knowledge Conclave 17 Dec 2020
18 pages
Sustainable and Resilient UWI
No ratings yet
Sustainable and Resilient UWI
20 pages
Detailed Analysis of Sustainable Infrastructure Design and Benefits For Urban Cities
No ratings yet
Detailed Analysis of Sustainable Infrastructure Design and Benefits For Urban Cities
14 pages
Sustainable Infrastructure for Climate Resilience
No ratings yet
Sustainable Infrastructure for Climate Resilience
27 pages
javeriya firdose ppt
No ratings yet
javeriya firdose ppt
14 pages
J Landurbplan 2015 02 010
No ratings yet
J Landurbplan 2015 02 010
9 pages
Disaster-Resistant Design
From Everand
Disaster-Resistant Design
Benjamin Ramirez
No ratings yet
Advancements on Sustainable Civil Infrastructures Don Chen 2024 Scribd Download
100% (2)
Advancements on Sustainable Civil Infrastructures Don Chen 2024 Scribd Download
62 pages
2024-IGJ-Sustainability-Resilience-Paper
No ratings yet
2024-IGJ-Sustainability-Resilience-Paper
23 pages
Porse 2018
No ratings yet
Porse 2018
14 pages
Sociotechnical Systems and Sustainability: Current and Future Perspectives For Inclusive Development
No ratings yet
Sociotechnical Systems and Sustainability: Current and Future Perspectives For Inclusive Development
7 pages
Instant Download New Prospects in Geotechnical Engineering Aspects of Civil Infrastructures Hadi Khabbaz PDF All Chapters
100% (1)
Instant Download New Prospects in Geotechnical Engineering Aspects of Civil Infrastructures Hadi Khabbaz PDF All Chapters
55 pages
[Ebooks PDF] download Terrestrial ecosystem research infrastructures : challenges and opportunities 1st Edition Chabbi full chapters
100% (1)
[Ebooks PDF] download Terrestrial ecosystem research infrastructures : challenges and opportunities 1st Edition Chabbi full chapters
55 pages
New Prospects in Geotechnical Engineering Aspects of Civil Infrastructures Hadi Khabbaz 2024 scribd download
100% (3)
New Prospects in Geotechnical Engineering Aspects of Civil Infrastructures Hadi Khabbaz 2024 scribd download
55 pages
Resilience in Infrastructure Systems A Comprehensive Review
No ratings yet
Resilience in Infrastructure Systems A Comprehensive Review
17 pages
Climate Resilient Infrastructure A Focus On Nature Issue 2
No ratings yet
Climate Resilient Infrastructure A Focus On Nature Issue 2
48 pages
Climate Resilient Infrastructure A Focus On Nature Issue 2
No ratings yet
Climate Resilient Infrastructure A Focus On Nature Issue 2
46 pages
Paper 471
No ratings yet
Paper 471
8 pages
Ecosystems as infraestrcuture _ok
No ratings yet
Ecosystems as infraestrcuture _ok
4 pages
BookofAbstractfortheICRS2024 Final
No ratings yet
BookofAbstractfortheICRS2024 Final
84 pages
M3.19-1 Nexus Report
No ratings yet
M3.19-1 Nexus Report
8 pages
Participatory Assessment Technique
No ratings yet
Participatory Assessment Technique
10 pages
Growing With Green Infrastructure
No ratings yet
Growing With Green Infrastructure
20 pages
Climate Resilient Infrastructure Issue 1 FINAL
No ratings yet
Climate Resilient Infrastructure Issue 1 FINAL
31 pages
Infrastructure Maintenance Models
From Everand
Infrastructure Maintenance Models
Benjamin Ramirez
No ratings yet
Green Infrastructure Systematic Literature Review
No ratings yet
Green Infrastructure Systematic Literature Review
25 pages
FOUNDATION CONCEPTS: Thinking "Resilience" by William E. Rees, FRSC
100% (3)
FOUNDATION CONCEPTS: Thinking "Resilience" by William E. Rees, FRSC
15 pages
Kleinflansch DN25x20
No ratings yet
Kleinflansch DN25x20
1 page
Wave Motion: Challenging MCQ Questions by The Physics Cafe
0% (1)
Wave Motion: Challenging MCQ Questions by The Physics Cafe
12 pages
Nilmini Wickramasinghe (Editor), Freimut Bodendorf (Editor), Mathias Kraus (Editor) - Dimensions of Intelligent Analytics for Smart Digital Health Solutions (Analytics and AI for Healthcare)-Chapman A
No ratings yet
Nilmini Wickramasinghe (Editor), Freimut Bodendorf (Editor), Mathias Kraus (Editor) - Dimensions of Intelligent Analytics for Smart Digital Health Solutions (Analytics and AI for Healthcare)-Chapman A
449 pages
User Guidelines For Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction
No ratings yet
User Guidelines For Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction
10 pages
Dental Pins
No ratings yet
Dental Pins
17 pages
PC11 - CH 08
No ratings yet
PC11 - CH 08
50 pages
Working Systemically with Families Formulation Intervention and Evaluation 1st Edition Arlene Vetere - Instantly access the full ebook content in just a few seconds
No ratings yet
Working Systemically with Families Formulation Intervention and Evaluation 1st Edition Arlene Vetere - Instantly access the full ebook content in just a few seconds
46 pages
Class XI Physics DPP Set (09) - Kinematics & NLM
No ratings yet
Class XI Physics DPP Set (09) - Kinematics & NLM
17 pages
Theory of The Motive Power of Heat With Numerical Results Deduced From Experiments On Steam.-/ by
No ratings yet
Theory of The Motive Power of Heat With Numerical Results Deduced From Experiments On Steam.-/ by
34 pages
Recycling Robot
No ratings yet
Recycling Robot
6 pages
Xpressions 2021-2022 Final
No ratings yet
Xpressions 2021-2022 Final
128 pages
5 Year After Insert Objective of Paper
No ratings yet
5 Year After Insert Objective of Paper
151 pages
Micmac Semantics
No ratings yet
Micmac Semantics
6 pages
30173
No ratings yet
30173
82 pages
Pokemon Unbound Frontier Documentation - Battle Frontier Services
No ratings yet
Pokemon Unbound Frontier Documentation - Battle Frontier Services
2 pages
Persuasive Essay Outline Worksheet
100% (1)
Persuasive Essay Outline Worksheet
5 pages
Declaration Letter
No ratings yet
Declaration Letter
4 pages
Identifying Objects Words Foundational Worksheet
No ratings yet
Identifying Objects Words Foundational Worksheet
12 pages
COMM 401 Course Outline - 2021 Summer - AD
No ratings yet
COMM 401 Course Outline - 2021 Summer - AD
8 pages
Identification of gases lesson 1
No ratings yet
Identification of gases lesson 1
12 pages
Forward Planning Document
No ratings yet
Forward Planning Document
20 pages
Sample Resume Medical Technologist
No ratings yet
Sample Resume Medical Technologist
2 pages
Assignment 2 - Data Management
No ratings yet
Assignment 2 - Data Management
68 pages
Applied Statistics and Probability For Engineers Chapter - 2
No ratings yet
Applied Statistics and Probability For Engineers Chapter - 2
16 pages
Performance Evaluation of Balancing Bicopter Using P, PI, and PID Controller
No ratings yet
Performance Evaluation of Balancing Bicopter Using P, PI, and PID Controller
6 pages
Work Power and Energy
No ratings yet
Work Power and Energy
51 pages
WAW-600F Single Space Servo Universal Testing Machine
No ratings yet
WAW-600F Single Space Servo Universal Testing Machine
13 pages
Teaching Safety Tips
No ratings yet
Teaching Safety Tips
4 pages

Independient Infrastructure

Uploaded by

Independient Infrastructure

Uploaded by

Earth's Future

RESEARCH ARTICLE Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological,

©2018. The Authors.

MARKOLF ET AL. 1638

MARKOLF ET AL. 1639

MARKOLF ET AL. 1640

2. SETS Characteristics and Challenges for Infrastructure Systems

MARKOLF ET AL. 1641

MARKOLF ET AL. 1642

MARKOLF ET AL. 1643

MARKOLF ET AL. 1644

2.2. SETS Challenges for Infrastructure

MARKOLF ET AL. 1645

3. Using a SETS Lens to Identify How Vulnerability Develops Over Time:

MARKOLF ET AL. 1646

MARKOLF ET AL. 1647

installation/enhancement of T, increased perception of control, increased growth and development related

3.2. Nuisance Flooding in Miami Beach: SETS in a Contemporary/Anticipatory Context

MARKOLF ET AL. 1648

MARKOLF ET AL. 1649

4. Using a SETS Lens to Move Beyond Technologically Focused Resilience Strategies

MARKOLF ET AL. 1650

MARKOLF ET AL. 1651

MARKOLF ET AL. 1652

on techno-centric/robustness-oriented solutions can contribute to lock-in that is ultimately antithetical to the

MARKOLF ET AL. 1653

MARKOLF ET AL. 1654

MARKOLF ET AL. 1655

MARKOLF ET AL. 1656

MARKOLF ET AL. 1657

MARKOLF ET AL. 1658

MARKOLF ET AL. 1659

You might also like