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

• Published in: Earth's future Vol. 6; no. 12; pp. 1638 - 1659
• Main Authors: Markolf, Samuel A., Chester, Mikhail V., Eisenberg, Daniel A., Iwaniec, David M., Davidson, Cliff I., Zimmerman, Rae, Miller, Thaddeus R., Ruddell, Benjamin L., Chang, Heejun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bognor Regis John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.12.2018
• Subjects: Adaptation; Adaptive systems; Case studies; Climate change; Complexity; Ecology; Evolution; Extreme weather; Infrastructure; infrastructure systems; Lenses; Levees; lock‐in; resilience; Resource utilization; robustness; social‐ecological‐technological systems; urban systems; United States > US
• ISSN: 2328-4277; 2328-4277
• DOI: 10.1029/2018EF000926

Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising the height of levees). However, climate and nonclimate challenges facing infrastructure are not purely technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno‐centric adaptation strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities. Techno‐centric strategies that lock‐in today's infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design, management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply technological and should be understood as complex and interconnected social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs); (2) infrastructure challenges, like lock‐in, stem from SETS interactions that are often overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with a SETS lens can help identify and prevent maladaptive issues like lock‐in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation strategies that may not traditionally be considered. Ultimately, we find that treating infrastructure as SETS shows promise for increasing the adaptive capacity of infrastructure systems by highlighting how lock‐in and vulnerabilities evolve and how multidisciplinary strategies can be deployed to address these challenges by broadening the options for adaptation. Plain Language Summary Instead of thinking of infrastructure as purely technological artifacts, we instead propose considering infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS). Adopting a SETS lens can help identify vulnerabilities that develop within infrastructure systems over time. Ultimately, adopting this SETS perspective will not only help us better understand our infrastructure systems, but also aid in the development strategies for adapting to the many challenges that our infrastructure will continue to face (climate change, interdependencies, technological evolution, growing complexity, etc.) Key Points Infrastructure systems should be considered social‐ecological‐technological systems (SETSs), not simply technical or socio‐technical systems Underappreciated complexity and reliance on techno‐centric/robustness‐oriented solutions contribute to lock‐in and reduced adaptive capacity A SETS lens aids in the identification and prevention of system vulnerabilities and illumination of multidimensional adaptation strategies