4.5 Article

Robust-yet-fragile nature of partly engineered social-ecological systems: a case study of coastal Bangladesh

期刊

ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

RESILIENCE ALLIANCE
DOI: 10.5751/ES-09186-220305

关键词

coastal resilience; coastal vulnerability; cyclone; embankments; flooding; infrastructure; land subsidence; polder; robustness; robustness-fragility trade-offs; saline water intrusion; social-ecological systems; socio-hydrology; storm

资金

  1. Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Department of Political Science, and Center for the Environment at Purdue University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern social-ecological systems are often partly engineered to enhance the robustness (or reduce the variance) of human welfare to environmental fluctuations over a foreseeable time horizon. Recent studies show, however, that subtle trade-offs are usually inherent in such efforts of enhancing short-term robustness. Managing variance on short time scales is likely to be associated with the buildup of hidden fragilities on longer time scales. Using a flood-prone social-ecological system (SES) of coastal Bangladesh as an example, this paper investigates some of the ways in which such robustness-fragility trade-offs can manifest. This SES has been extensively modified in the last few decades through the construction of large-scale flood protection structures (polders) and the introduction of commercial shrimp farming to enhance the robustness of food production to hydrological variability. Our case study analysis of the long-term changes in the SES shows that, although the modifications helped with stability in short time scales, the resulting changes also induced unforeseen problems such as infrastructure maintenance issues, land degradation and sinking, and exposure to market volatility. With this paper therefore we contribute to better understanding of the notion of robustness-fragility trade-offs by illustrating an exemplary case of the phenomenon in the engineered coastal environment context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据