Affiliation:
1. School of Sustainability Arizona State University Tempe AZ USA
2. School of Sustainable Engineering & the Built Environment Arizona State University Tempe AZ USA
3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Vanderbilt University Nashville TN USA
Abstract
AbstractDesigning urban water systems to respond to the accelerating and unpredictable changes of the Anthropocene will require changes not only to built infrastructure and operating rules, but also to the governance arrangements responsible for investing in them. Yet, inclusion of this political‐economic feedback in dynamic models of infrastructure systems and socio‐hydrology has lagged behind operational feedback concerns. We address this gap through a dynamical systems application of the Coupled Infrastructure Systems (CIS) Framework, which provides the conceptual building blocks for analyzing social‐ecological systems through various classes of infrastructure and the flows of material and information among them. In the model, political‐economic feedback involves three decisions—infrastructure investment, rate‐setting, and short‐term demand curtailment—and each decision is constrained by institutional friction, the aggregation of decision and transaction costs associated with taking action. We apply the model to three cities in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area to compare how institutional friction interacts with a city's water resource portfolio and financial position to determine its sensitivity, or the degree to which its performance (e.g., providing sufficient supply to meet demand) changes given reductions in Colorado River water availability. We find that the slowing effect of institutional friction on investment and rate‐setting decisions can increase the sensitivity of a city's supply, but it can also promote objectives that compete with over‐response (e.g., rate burden). The effect is dependent on the initial operating capacity of the CIS and flexibility within the institutions, highlighting the need to consider political‐economic and operational feedback together when evaluating infrastructure systems.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Reference147 articles.
1. ADWR. (2011a).H20 Inc. Maricopa and Pinal Counties Arizona (Phoenix AMA) Application for a Physical Availability Determination.
2. ADWR. (2011b).Queen Creek Water Service Area Maricopa and Pinal County Arizona Phoenix AMA Application for a Physical Availability Determination.
3. ADWR. (2021).5th management plan concepts. Retrieved fromhttps://new.azwater.gov/5MP/plans‐concepts
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献