As rates of urbanization and climatic change soar, decision-makers are increasingly challenged to provide innovative solutions that simultaneously address climate change impacts and risks and ...inclusively ensure quality of life for urban residents. Cities have turned to nature-based solutions to help address these challenges. Nature-based solutions, through the provision of ecosystem services, can yield numerous benefits for people and address multiple challenges simultaneously. Yet, efforts to mainstream nature-based solutions are impaired by the complexity of the interacting social, ecological, and technological dimensions of urban systems. This complexity must be understood and managed to ensure ecosystem-service provisioning is effective, equitable, and resilient. Here, we provide a social-ecological-technological system (SETS) framework that builds on decades of urban ecosystem services research to better understand four core challenges associated with urban nature-based solutions: multi-functionality, systemic valuation, scale mismatch of ecosystem services, and inequity and injustice. The framework illustrates the importance of coordinating natural, technological, and socio-economic systems when designing, planning, and managing urban nature-based solutions to enable optimal social-ecological outcomes.
We provide an interdisciplinary social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) conceptual framework to advance efficacy in research and practice on ecosystem services. We highlight the dynamic interactions of SETS dimensions including differential contributions of people and institutions, climate and ecosystems, and technologies and infrastructure to ecosystem services. We discuss cross-cutting issues including equity and justice, scale mismatches, substitutability and valuation, and multi-functionality and trade-offs in ecosystems services. We illustrate how to apply the SETS framework with multiple examples and offer testable hypotheses to accelerate future research.
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
The term conservation technology is applied widely and loosely to any technology connected to conservation. This overly broad understanding can lead to confusion around the actual mechanisms of ...conservation in a technological system, which can result in neglect and underdevelopment of the human dimensions of conservation technology. Ultimately, this hinders its effectiveness as technological fixes for conservation problems. Through a process of concept mapping based on key case studies and literature, I devised precise definitions of marine conservation technology and technological marine conservation system. Concerns about the use of marine conservation technologies included unintended consequences, halfway technologies that address the symptoms but not the causes of problems, and misguided techno‐optimism (i.e., technology is a panacea that can solve any problem). Technology and technological systems can have power, politics, and culture, and these characteristics can influence the contextual fit of a technology, requiring that technology be thoughtfully created or adapted to the circumstances in which it will be used. Power, politics, and culture inherent in technology can also influence the distribution of conservation risks and benefits and potentially widen gaps in wealth, privilege, opportunities, and justice. Addressing these concerns can potentially be achieved through the better integration of social sciences in marine conservation technology and technological marine conservation system design and development and the application of the social‐ecological‐technological systems framework. This framework melds key concepts from the socioecological systems framework and science and technology studies. It recognizes as and elevates technology to be a central actor that can shape societies and the natural world. Such a framework incorporates broader understanding, so that the values and concerns of society are more effectively addressed in the creation and implementation of marine conservation technologies and technological marine conservation systems.
Poder, Política y Cultura de la Tecnología de Conservación Marina en las Pesquerías
Resumen
El término tecnología de la conservación es aplicado extensa y ligeramente a cualquier tecnología vinculada a la conservación. Este concepto excesivamente generalizado puede resultar en una confusión en torno a los mecanismos actuales de conservación incluidos en los sistemas tecnológicos, lo que puede llevar al descuido y subdesarrollo de las dimensiones humanas que tiene la tecnología de la conservación. Como última instancia, esto obstaculiza su efectividad como arreglo tecnológico para los problemas de conservación. Construí las definiciones precisas de tecnología de conservación marina y sistema tecnológico de conservación marina mediante un proceso de mapeo de conceptos basado en estudios importantes de caso y en la literatura. Las inquietudes en cuanto al uso de la tecnología de conservación marina incluyen las consecuencias accidentales, tecnología a medias que aborda los síntomas, pero no la causa de los problemas y tecno‐optimismo mal dirigido (es decir, la tecnología es una panacea que puede resolver cualquier problema). La tecnología y los sistemas tecnológicos pueden tener poder, políticas y cultura, y estas características pueden influir sobre el ajuste contextual de la tecnología, lo que requiere que la tecnología sea creada o adaptada cuidadosamente a las circunstancias en las que será utilizada. El poder, las políticas y la cultura inherentes a la tecnología también pueden influir sobre la distribución de los riesgos y beneficios de la conservación y pueden potencialmente ampliar las brechas en la riqueza, el privilegio, las oportunidades y la justicia. La solución a estas inquietudes puede lograrse potencialmente por medio de una mejor integración de las ciencias sociales a la tecnología de la conservación marina y al diseño de sistemas tecnológicos de conservación marina y por medio del desarrollo y aplicación del marco de trabajo de los sistemas socio‐ecológicos‐tecnológicos. Este marco de trabajo combina conceptos clave tomados del marco de los sistemas socio‐ecológicos con aquellos de los estudios científicos y tecnológicos. También reconoce y eleva a la tecnología como un actor central que puede moldear a las sociedades y al mundo natural. Dicho marco incorpora una comprensión más amplia, de tal manera que los valores e inquietudes de la sociedad se abordan de manera más efectiva durante la creación e implementación de las tecnologías de la conservación marina y los sistemas tecnológicos de conservación marina.
【摘要】
“保护技术” 一词被宽泛地用于任何与保护有关的技术, 但这种过于宽泛的认识会混淆技术系统中实际的保护机制, 可能导致保护技术的人类维度被忽视并发展不足, 最终将影响保护技术作为保护问题的技术解决方案的有效性。研究者通过基于关键案例研究及文献的概念映射过程, 提出了 “海洋保护技术” 和 “海洋保护技术系统” 的精确定义。人们对使用海洋保护技术的担忧包括产生意外后果, 技术治标不治本, 不能彻底解决问题, 以及被误导的技术乐观主义 (即认为技术可以解决任何问题) 。技术和技术系统也具有权力、政治和文化, 这些特征可以影响技术的环境适应性, 要求对技术的创造要经过深思熟虑, 并确保技术适应其使用环境。技术中固有的权力、政治和文化也会影响保护中风险和利益的分配, 并可能扩大财富、特权、机会和正义的差距。这些问题的可能解决方案包括更好地将社会科学整合到海洋保护技术和海洋保护技术系统的设计和发展之中, 以及应用社会‐生态‐技术系统框架。该框架融合了社会生态系统框架和科学技术研究中的关键概念, 并将技术的地位提升为塑造社会和自然世界的关键驱动力。这一框架还包含了更广泛的理解, 从而可以在创造和实施海洋保护技术和海洋保护技术系统时更有效地应对社会价值及社会关注问题。【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】
Article impact statement: Better incorporation of human and societal dimensions in marine conservation technology may improve conservation function and benefit.
This paper positions urban ecology as increasingly conversant with multiple perspectives and methods for understanding the functions and qualities of diverse cities and urban situations. Despite ...progress in the field, we need clear pathways for positioning, connecting and synthesising specific knowledge and to make it speak to more systemic questions about cities and the life within them. These pathways need to be able to make use of diverse sources of information to better account for the diverse relations between people, other species and the ecological, social, cultural, economic, technical and increasingly digital structures that they are embedded in. Grounded in a description of the systemic knowledge needed, we propose five complementary and often connected approaches for building cumulative systemic understandings, and a framework for connecting and combining different methods and evidence. The approaches and the framework help position urban ecology and other fields of study as entry points to further advance interdisciplinary synthesis and open up new fields of research.
•We review key issues regarding digital approaches to UGI planning and management.•We summarize the risks or opportunities of automated UGIs.•We develop an assessment framework of the implications of ...automated UGIs.•Risks and opportunities of automated UGIs are not fixed but are dynamic.•Further research is needed from a social, ecological, technological approach.
Contemporary society is increasingly impacted by automation; however, few studies have considered the potential consequences of automation on ecosystems and their management (hereafter the automation of urban green infrastructure or UGI). This Perspective Essay takes up this discussion by asking how a digital approach to UGI planning and management mediates the configuration and development of UGI and to whose benefit? This is done through a review of key issues and trends in digital approaches to UGI planning and management. We first conceptualize automation from a social, ecological, and technological interactions perspective and use this lens to present an overview of the risks and opportunities of UGI automation with respect to selected case studies. Results of this analysis are used to develop a conceptual framework for the assessment of the material and governance implications of automated UGIs. We find that, within any given perspective, the automation of UGI entails a complex dialectic between efficiency, human agency and empowerment. Further, risks and opportunities associated with UGI automation are not fixed but are dynamic properties of changing contextual tensions concerning power, actors, rules of the game and discourse at multiple scales. We conclude the paper by outlining a research agenda on how to consider different digital advances within a social-ecological-technological approach.
Governing complexity Cosens, Barbara; Ruhl, J. B.; Soininen, Niko ...
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS,
09/2021, Letnik:
118, Številka:
36
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The speed and uncertainty of environmental change in the Anthropocene challenge the capacity of coevolving social-ecological-technological systems (SETs) to adapt or transform to these changes. ...Formal government and legal structures further constrain the adaptive capacity of our SETs. However, new, selforganized forms of adaptive governance are emerging at multiple scales in natural resource-based SETs. Adaptive governance involves the private and public sectors as well as formal and informal institutions, self-organized to fill governance gaps in the traditional roles of states. While new governance forms are emerging, they are not yet doing so rapidly enough to match the pace of environmental change. Furthermore, they do not yet possess the legitimacy or capacity needed to address disparities between the winners and losers from change. These emergent forms of adaptive governance appear to be particularly effective in managing complexity. We explore governance and SETs as coevolving complex systems, focusing on legal systems to understand the potential pathways and obstacles to equitable adaptation. We explore how governments may facilitate the emergence of adaptive governance and promote legitimacy in both the process of governance despite the involvement of nonstate actors, and its adherence to democratic values of equity and justice. To manage the contextual nature of the results of change in complex systems, we propose the establishment of long-term study initiatives for the coproduction of knowledge, to accelerate learning and synergize interactions between science and governance and to foster public science and epistemic communities dedicated to navigating transitions to more just, sustainable, and resilient futures.
The speed and uncertainty of environmental change in the Anthropocene challenge the capacity of coevolving social-ecological-technological systems (SETs) to adapt or transform to these changes. ...Formal government and legal structures further constrain the adaptive capacity of our SETs. However, new, self-organized forms of adaptive governance are emerging at multiple scales in natural resource-based SETs. Adaptive governance involves the private and public sectors as well as formal and informal institutions, self-organized to fill governance gaps in the traditional roles of states. While new governance forms are emerging, they are not yet doing so rapidly enough to match the pace of environmental change. Furthermore, they do not yet possess the legitimacy or capacity needed to address disparities between the winners and losers from change. These emergent forms of adaptive governance appear to be particularly effective in managing complexity. We explore governance and SETs as coevolving complex systems, focusing on legal systems to understand the potential pathways and obstacles to equitable adaptation. We explore how governments may facilitate the emergence of adaptive governance and promote legitimacy in both the process of governance despite the involvement of nonstate actors, and its adherence to democratic values of equity and justice. To manage the contextual nature of the results of change in complex systems, we propose the establishment of long-term study initiatives for the coproduction of knowledge, to accelerate learning and synergize interactions between science and governance and to foster public science and epistemic communities dedicated to navigating transitions to more just, sustainable, and resilient futures.
•We developed a SETS framework for assessing urban flood vulnerability.•We adapted 18 vulnerability indicators representing S, E, and T dimensions.•S, E, T flood vulnerable hotspots cluster in ...specific neighborhoods.•The S, E, T indicator combinations better explain S- E-T vulnerability effectively.•The overlapping areas of S, E, or T vulnerability can be targeted for improvement.
As urban populations continue to grow through the 21st century, more people are projected to be at risk of exposure to climate change-induced extreme events. To investigate the complexity of urban floods, this study applied an interlinked social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) vulnerability framework by developing an urban flood vulnerability index for six US cities. Indicators were selected to reflect and illustrate exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to flooding for each of the three domains of SETS. We quantified 18 indicators and normalized them by the cities’ 500-yr floodplain area at the census block group level. Clusters of flood vulnerable areas were identified differently by each SETS domain, and some areas were vulnerable to floods in more than one domain. Results are provided to support decision-making for reducing risks to flooding, by considering social, ecological, and technological vulnerability as well as hotspots where multiple sources of vulnerability coexist. The spatially explicit urban SETS flood vulnerability framework can be transferred to other regions facing challenging urban floods and other types of environmental hazards. Mapping SETS flood vulnerability helps to reveal intersections of complex SETS interactions and inform policy-making for building more resilient cities in the face of extreme events and climate change impacts.
The ecological concept of disturbance has scarcely been applied in urban systems except in the erroneous but commonplace assumption that urbanization itself is a disturbance and cities are therefore ...perennially disturbed systems. We evaluate the usefulness of the concept in urban ecology by exploring how a recent conceptual framework for disturbance (Peters et al.
2011
, Ecosphere, 2, art 81) applies to these social-ecological-technological systems (). Case studies, especially from the Long-Term Ecological Research sites of Baltimore and Phoenix, are presented to show the applicability of the framework for disturbances to different elements of these systems at different scales. We find that the framework is easily adapted to urban and that incorporating social and technological drivers and responders can contribute additional insights to disturbance research beyond urban systems.
•Resilience has rapidly emerged as a major focus of urban research and practice.•We know little about resilience frames across different urban contexts and actors.•In practice, most resilience frames ...do not align with notions of transformation.•Implications of cultural and political differences in frames deserve more attention.•Resilience practice needs to include anticipation, systems thinking, and equity.
Urban resilience has gained considerable popularity in planning and policy to address cities’ capacity to cope with climate change. While many studies discuss the different ways that academics define resilience, little attention has been given to how resilience is conceptualized across different urban contexts and among the actors that engage in building resilience ‘on the ground’. Given the implications that resilience frames can have for the solutions that are pursued (and who benefits from them), it is important to examine how transformative definitions of urban resilience are in practice. In this paper, we use data from a survey of nine US and Latin American and Caribbean cities to explore how the concept is framed across multiple governance sectors, including governmental, non-governmental, business, research, and hybrid organizations. We examine these framings in light of recent conceptual developments and tensions found in the literature. The results highlight that, in general across the nine cities, framings converge with definitions of resilience as the ability to resist, cope with, or bounce back to previous conditions, whereas sustainability, equity, and social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) perspectives are rarely associated with resilience. There are noticeable differences across cities and governance actors that point to geographic and political variation in the way resilience is conceptualized. We unpack these differences and discuss their implications for resilience research and practice moving forward. We argue that if resilience is going to remain a major goal for city policies into the future, it needs to be conceived in a more transformative, anticipatory, and equitable way, and acknowledge interconnected SETS.
PDF
