Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social–ecological–technological systems?

Grimm, Nancy B.; Pickett, Steward T. A.; Hale, Rebecca L.; Cadenasso, Mary L.

doi:10.1002/ehs2.1255

Cited by 122 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recovery period of approximately two weeks is similar to recovery times found for algal biomass and stream metabolism in naturally flashy desert streams (Fisher et al 1982, Grimm 1987. The similarities between urban and desert streams in response to a major disturbance, in spite of drastically different abiotic conditions, confirm the idea that hydrological disturbances are a fundamental driver of ecosystem functioning across a range of stream types (Poff et al 1997) and point to the need for a better understanding of disturbance ecology within urban ecosystems (Grimm et al 2017).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…, Grimm ), suggesting that urban streams can adapt to floods and other disturbances in spite of myriad environmental stressors (Grimm et al. ). Overall, we found that urban streams can exhibit high metabolic activity despite a multitude of physicochemical stressors and that this metabolism rapidly recovers from floods, regardless of magnitude.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recovery and resilience of urban stream metabolism following Superstorm Sandy and other floods

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Urban streams are exposed to multiple different stressors on a regular basis, with increased hydrological flashiness representing a common urban stream stressor. Stream metabolism, the coupled ecosystem functions of gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER), controls numerous other ecosystem functions and integrates multiple processes occurring within streams. We examined the effect of one large (Superstorm Sandy) and multiple small and moderately sized flood events in Baltimore, Maryland, to quantify the response and recovery of urban stream GPP and ER before and after floods of different magnitudes. We also compared GPP and ER before and after Superstorm Sandy to literature values. We found that both GPP and ER decreased dramatically immediately following floods of varying magnitudes, but on average GPP was more reduced than ER (80% and 66% average reduction in GPP and ER, respectively). Both GPP and ER recovered rapidly following floods within 4-18 d, and recovery intervals did not differ significantly between GPP and ER. During the two-week recovery following Superstorm Sandy, two urban streams exhibited a range of metabolic activity equivalent to~15% of the entire range of GPP and ER reported in a recent meta-analysis of stream metabolism. Urban streams exhibit a substantial proportion of the natural variation in metabolism found across stream ecosystems over relatively short time scales. Not only does urbanization cause increased hydrological flashiness, it appears that metabolic activity in urban streams may be less resistant, but also more resilient to floods than in other streams draining undeveloped watersheds, which have been more studied. Our results show that antecedent conditions must be accounted for when drawing conclusions about stream metabolism measurements, and the rapid recovery and resilience of urban streams should be considered in watershed management and stream restoration strategies targeting ecosystem functions and services.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery and resilience of urban stream metabolism following Superstorm Sandy and other floods

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In all cases, existing conditions prior to the extreme events were instrumental to the character and extent of post‐event actions. This is consistent with views from ecological theory that suggest system state is a primary factor in impacts of extreme events (disturbances) (Grimm, Pickett, Hale, & Cadenasso, ; Peters et al, ). Further analysis will be needed to understand the factors that enabled post‐event advances, compared to other situations where institutional inertia or other social factors stalled progress toward low‐carbon energy systems.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Extreme events and climate adaptation‐mitigation linkages: Understanding low‐carbon transitions in the era of global urbanization

Solecki

Grimm

Marcotullio

et al. 2019

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has become increasingly clear that cities will have to simultaneously undertake both adaptation and mitigation in response to accelerating climate change and the growing demands for meaningful climate action. Here we examine the connections between climate mitigation and climate adaptation, specifically, between low‐carbon energy systems and extreme events. The article specifically addresses the question, how do responses to extreme climate risks enhance or limit capacity to promote city‐level greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation? As a step toward answering this question, we present a framework for considering windows of opportunity that may arise as a result of extreme events and how these windows can be exploited to foster development and implementation of low‐carbon energy strategies. Four brief case studies are used to provide empirical background and determine the impact of potential windows of opportunity. Some general conclusions are defined. In particular, the existing energy system structure is an important determinant of impact and potential for energy transitions. Well‐developed and articulated governance strategies and ready access of effective and economically efficient alternative energy technology were key to transitions. However, prospects for inequity in development and implementation of low‐carbon solutions need to be considered. Finally, exploiting windows of opportunity afforded by extreme events for developing low‐carbon economy and infrastructure also can provide resilience against those very events. These types of responses will be needed as extreme events increase in frequency and magnitude in the future, with cities as primary sites of impact and action. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies

show abstract

“…Stokols () also emphasizes 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, ; Grimm et al, ; Hale et al, ; Krumme, ; McPhearson et al, ; Ramaswami et al, ) or discuss the three components independently. Similar to analysis by Tellman et al (), 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 infrastructure adapt to the effects of extreme events.…”

Section: Sets Characteristics and Challenges For Infrastructure Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social–ecological–technological systems?

Cited by 122 publications

References 96 publications

Recovery and resilience of urban stream metabolism following Superstorm Sandy and other floods

Recovery and resilience of urban stream metabolism following Superstorm Sandy and other floods

Extreme events and climate adaptation‐mitigation linkages: Understanding low‐carbon transitions in the era of global urbanization

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About