Search

Decentralized grid solutions could be a feasible alternative to improve resilience and mitigate cascading effects in island states. Our study explores approaches that reduce the risk of infrastructure failures and promote decentralized utility planning in islands. A novel framework is proposed to conduct a power system resilience assessment by integrating vulnerability assessments and energy system modelling approaches through network analysis. The framework is applied to an island context, where vulnerability to hydroclimatic hazards, geographic isolation, restricted access to energy sources, small population bases inadequate for substantial infrastructure investments, dependence on imported energy, lack of energy source diversification, and fragile ecosystems have exacerbated energy insecurity. As a case study, we have applied the framework to Cuba. We simulate disruptions in vulnerable network nodes in Cuba to determine the municipalities that are most impacted by the simulated cascading failures. We designed and optimized the lowest cost decentralized solutions to increase resilience either by acting as the baseload electricity source or as a complementary backup system to complement in case of a power outage. Then, the resilience of the designed system was assessed using power system resilience metrics. The study results show Regla municipality in Cuba as the most vulnerable hotspot for electricity distribution. Upon the different system comparisons, ancillary systems outperform backup systems in enhancing power system resilience, especially in the context of a disruptive event, supplying up to 53 MWh/day more, although they have higher investment costs. Based on this research, resource planners and policymakers can understand vulnerable node points and prioritize the necessary investments for the preferred system choice to alleviate impacts of energy insecurity on the Island States.

Increased systems thinking capacity—that is, the capacity to consider systemic effects of policies and actions—is necessary for translating knowledge on Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) interactions into practice. Various models and tools that seek to support more evidence-based policy-making have been developed with the purpose of exploring system effects across SDGs. However, these often lack integration of behavioral aspects and contextual factors that influence the decision-making process. We analyze three applications of a decision-support approach called SDG Synergies, which aims at building capacity in systems thinking among decision-makers and implementing agencies. Our objective is to explore how behavior and context influences whether and how knowledge is taken up and acted upon when making decisions. Drawing on empirical material from Mongolia, Colombia, and Sri Lanka, we identify three sets of mechanisms that appear important for enabling more systemic thinking: system boundaries (time, scale, and space), rules of engagement (ownership, representation, and purpose), and biases (confirmation biases and participation biases). Results highlight some key challenges for systemic thinking that merit further attention in future applications, including the importance of localizing SDGs and incorporating this knowledge to national-level assessments, an unwillingness of stakeholders to acknowledge trade-offs, the challenge of addressing transformational as opposed to incremental change, and striking a balance between the flexibility of the approach vis-à-vis scientific robustness.

Climate change is recognized today not just as a pressing and prominent issue on government agendas but also one that has been increasingly ‘securitized’ in a variety of national and global settings. We know little, however, if climate change adaptation, as a subset of climate action, has followed a similarly securitized path. This article addresses that question, exploring not only if climate change adaptation has been securitized but also what type of securitization – threat-oriented or risk-oriented – has emerged. Turning our empirical focus to three national settings of Norway, Sweden, and The Netherlands, we look for signs of securitization as well as whether securitization has been facilitated, shaped, or even blocked by existing governance features in each setting. We use this study to link the securitization literature with environmental governance approaches by building a novel analytical framework. Our findings show some intriguing and unexpected patterns, including evidence of risk-oriented securitization couched nevertheless as ‘business as usual’. We contribute to the growing debate on securitization in environmental governance while also casting new light on national climate change adaptation processes.

Sustainability assessments can be a powerful tool in decision-making regarding technical innovations. In this study, a sustainability assessment of technical systems for recovering nutrients and carbon from domestic wastewater is presented. Multi-criteria analysis was used to calculate a sustainability score of three different technical systems compared to a baseline in two case-studies: the Fyriså river catchment in Sweden and the Słupia river catchment in Poland. Two participatory workshops with local stakeholders were held in each case-study, the first to co-develop the system alternatives and sustainability criteria and the second to collect stakeholder weighting of the criteria. Although the systems assessed in both case studies were similar, the resulting sustainability scores were different. In Fyris, although the differences in scores was small, the preferred alternative was introduction of source-separation followed by a large redesign of the treatment and phosphorus extraction from incinerated sludge was the least sustainable alternative. For the Słupia systems the scores varied more, and the preferred system was a large redesign of the wastewater treatment followed by ammonia stripping of the reject water and the source-separation alternative received the lowest score. In both case-studies, the more costly system received highest sustainability score indicating the large potential benefits of enhancing resource recovery from domestic wastewater. Stakeholders did not prioritize technical aspects over the other sustainability criteria, yet most of research on resource recovery interventions is focused on technical performance.