The research presented in this thesis has highlighted (bio)geochemical, hydrological, and wetland ecological processes that interact and enhance ecosystem development on wetlands built on fine sediment. A combination of greenhouse and laboratory experiments were conducted. Some measured data from these experiments formed important input for subsequent analysis in a modeling environment. The findings presented in Chapters 2-6 can be divided into four topics: 1) Plant–soil interactions in the terrestrial zone, 2) wetland–terrestrial processes influencing nutrient availability in the land–water zone, 3) effects of plants on sediment consolidation in the terrestrial zone, and 4) effects of bioturbation on nutrient availability in the aquatic zone. The next sections give a summary of the results for these four topics. The last section summarizes the recommendations formulated for the Marker Wadden project.
MULTIFILE
Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power-sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used.
MULTIFILE
ClimateCafé is a field education concept involving dierent fields of science and practice for capacity building in climate change adaptation. This concept is applied on the eco-city of Augustenborg in Malmö, Sweden, where Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) were implemented in 1998.ClimateCafé Malmö evaluated these NBS with 20 young professionals from nine nationalities and seven disciplines with a variety of practical tools. In two days, 175 NBS were mapped and categorised in Malmö. Results show that the selected green infrastructure have a satisfactory infiltration capacity and low values of potential toxic element pollutants after 20 years in operation. The question “Is capacity building achieved by interdisciplinary field experience related to climate change adaptation?” was answered by interviews, collecting data of water quality, pollution, NBS and heat stress mapping, and measuring infiltration rates, followed by discussion. The interdisciplinary workshops with practical tools provide a tangible value to the participants and are needed to advance sustainabilityeorts. Long term lessons learnt from Augustenborg will help stormwater managers within planning of NBS. Lessons learned from this ClimateCafé will improve capacity building on climate change adaptation in the future. This paper oers a method and results to prove the German philosopher Friedrich Hegel wrong when he opined that “we learn from history that we do not learn from history”
DOCUMENT
