Social Ecology

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33326-7

Cited by 71 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Sets Characteristics Of Infrastructure Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…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.…”

Section: Sets Characteristics Of Infrastructure Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Sets Characteristics Of Infrastructure Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Sets Characteristics Of 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

show abstract

“…Society in turn manages land and water which affect ecosystem processes (Steffen et al, 2004), thereby actively shaping ecological responses to climate extremes. Thus, ecological and socioeconomic responses to climate extremes are tightly coupled, consistent with the conceptualization of social-ecological systems (SES; see Figure 1) (Haberl et al, 2016;Liu et al, 2007;Ostrom, 2009). A SES is a complex system of nested interactions between societal and ecological processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

Advancing the Understanding of Adaptive Capacity of Social‐Ecological Systems to Absorb Climate Extremes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhancing the capacity of social‐ecological systems (SES) to adapt to climate change is of crucial importance. While gradual climate change impacts have been the main focus of much recent research, much less is known about how SES are impacted by climate extremes and how they adapt. Here, based on an advanced conceptualization of social‐ecological resilience, performed by an interdisciplinary group of scientists, we outline three major challenges for operationalizing the resilience concept with particular focus on climate extremes. First, we discuss the necessary steps required to identify and measure relevant variables for capturing the full response spectrum of the coupled social and ecological components of SES. Second, we examine how climate extreme impacts on coupling flows in SES can be quantified by learning from past societal transitions or adaptations to climate extremes and resulting changes in ecosystem service supply. Last, we explore how to identify management options for maintaining and enhancing social‐ecological resilience under a changing regime of climate extremes. We conclude that multiple pathways within adaptation and mitigation strategies which enhance the adaptive capacity of SES to absorb climate extremes will open the way toward a sustainable future.

show abstract

“…As there is no harmonized method available to quantitatively assess sustainability-aspects of a CE yet (Peña & Civit, 2020), it is necessary to develop a more holistic multidisciplinary assessment methodology to evaluate the environmental, economic, and social aspects of CE and to consider business perspectives, technological developments and policies (Haberl et al, 2016;Haupt & Hellweg, 2019;López Ruiz et al, 2020;Nußholz et al, 2019). Such an assessment would improve communication with all stakeholders and provide a link to the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015) at all levels (Di Maio et al, 2017;Mayer et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional circular economy of building materials: Environmental and economic assessment combining Material Flow Analysis, Input‐Output Analyses, and Life Cycle Assessment

Meglin

Kytzia

Habert

2021

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction industry is responsible for large quantities of construction and demolition waste and almost 50% of the worldwide annual resource consumption, putting the environment, its natural resources, and ecosystems under high pressure. Therefore, governments are implementing regional policies that support a circular economy (CE). But how do we know whether these developments will lead to a shift toward a CE on a regional scale? How can we identify hotspots in a value chain and regional economy to support decision‐makers and to develop regional policies? We propose an integrated assessment method that considers indicators for environmental impacts and economic benefits by combining Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with Input‐Output Analysis (IOA) as the connecting element. It provides the necessary data and indicators for a holistic and comprehensive evaluation of a region or industry. We demonstrate its benefits and limitations taking the Swiss canton of Aargovia as an example. We analyze which processes in the material flow system of construction minerals are decisive for formulating mass‐related or financial policies encouraging a CE. We show that a shift toward a CE can only be captured by combining material and money flows in a joined model, because a significant increase of services—mainly waste management—is a core element in this development. It can only be covered sufficiently by combining environmental and economic assessment. Our model captures the degree to which a regional economy is advanced in the transition toward a CE to compare different regions or analyze scenarios of future developments.

show abstract

Social Ecology

Cited by 71 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Advancing the Understanding of Adaptive Capacity of Social‐Ecological Systems to Absorb Climate Extremes

Regional circular economy of building materials: Environmental and economic assessment combining Material Flow Analysis, Input‐Output Analyses, and Life Cycle Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About